Patriotism should be taught and encouraged

"Patriotism is love of country expressed with the attitude of concern for the country's future and wanting the country to succeed. " I agree with this definition and intend to work from it to show why patriotism should not be taught. "Private organization[s] are free to espouse whatever they think love of country implies. " No one has argued to the contrary. I am merely stating that patriotism should not be taught, not that it must not be taught. My opponent's argument is invalid. "… many people would agree we should teach … justice – but … there are many conflicting viewpoints on what justice implies. " Perhaps there are many who would do so, but I at least hold justice to be a conceit, a justification for why one should choose not to exercise compassion in the most trying of circumstances. I do not think this approach is less valid than one that considers justice a valid construct. This merely shows that common ground in the definition of a concept is not enough to determine the validity of a concept or the best expressions thereof. Arguments of consensus about patriotism therefore do little to determine the actual propriety of the expression of it. Value is determined by observation of the concept in action and the extent to which those actions achieve the stated goal, not through agreement. My opponent's argument is refuted. "Con claims that teaching patriotism would be [divisive] because Liberals and Conservatives may disagree … But encouraging patriotism has the same problem. … some think that wearing a flag pin is a sign of patriotism, others [do] not. Encouraging patriotism is … as divisive as teaching it. " Actually, this is an argument over the propriety of display, which is a behavior. No one is arguing that patriotism, as a concept, is bad, just that some displays may or may not be tactful. I personally thought that choosing to wear the pins, or not, was fine. My opponent's argument is refuted. "In a democracy, a majority vote and, in the U. S. , the Constitution, determine the patriotic observances government institutions may present. " Patriotism is not an issue for government regulation, and therefore has nothing to do with majority votes or the U. S. Constitution. There is no amendment to or article of the Constitution saying "patriotism shall be understood to be this definition expressed in the following manner…" [1] It is inappropriate to utilize principles of government in evaluation of morals because it is the argumentative equivalent of using a tool to build its maker. I would like to believe that the idea of democratic government grew out of the principles of freedom and patriotism, not that government is free to decide the principle. [2] Patriotism must exist as an ideal separate and apart from the institution it supports. This understanding is why liberals feel that criticism of the government is patriotic and conservatives do not. Liberals (the sane ones anyway) feel that their country's value is in its ideals as represented in government, and that government must be chastised when it does not live up to its ideals. Conservatives (most that I've met anyway) believe that the government and the ideals it represents are one in the same (or that the ideals emanate from democratic governance. ) This basic difference is only one of many that exist and make it impossible to properly ‘teach' patriotism. [3] My opponent's argument is refuted. "… the example Con gave … is bogus[. ] … Carly Fiorina [attacked] Obama's judgment for criticizing the U. S. in foreign lands [because] [b]efore Obama, there was a longstanding tradition for American leaders not [to do so]. " My opponent fails to recognize that his argument stands as an example of the very divisiveness of which I speak. I fail to see how criticizing the actions of one's country's leadership on matters of foreign affairs would amount to "talking down about America. " His argument is that such actions go against tradition. I fail to see what tradition has to do with loving and being concerned for one's country. Surely my opponent wouldn't argue that one can not attack one's patriotism without using the word patriotism. That would be like refusing to recognize a tree as a tree without a sign that says ‘tree' pinned on it. My opponent has defined patriotism as love for one's country expressed as concern for it. Certainly he can see how a claim that one is "talking down about" one's country calls one's patriotism into question. Had Fiorina merely stated that she felt it was an unwise decision and provided her more objective reasons for so believing, it likely would not have amounted to an attack on Obama's patriotism. But she did not, and it does. My opponent's argument is refuted. "The main way that patriotism … ought to be taught is by parents teaching their children [through a] … combination of direct instruction and encouragement by example. " Now we broach the primary thrust of my opponent's argument. I am not arguing against encouragement by example, but rather direct instruction. I believe that direct instruction interferes with the development of an individual's own conception of patriotism and creates a construct that limits the acceptable displays thereof. This does not mean that "[t]he resolution [opposes] … parents … teaching values on the grounds that children should be … left valueless until they are "old enough to make their own decisions. "" It means that society should be encouraging of displays of patriotism and laud the accomplishments of patriots, which, interestingly enough, people do already. [4] Patriotism already exists as an ideal within our society, which means that people can learn from the displays thereof, and need not be taught to value such displays. While my opponent is correct that "[e]ncouraging patriotism without anyone ever initially positively advocating patriotism makes no sense" patriotism already has been initially positively advocated and does not require subsequent advocates to ensure its existence. What it needs are practitioners. "Since Con asserts that patriotism should be encouraged, he is not opposed [to] the value being instilled. Wanting the value to be instilled but not allowing it to be taught by parents is contradictory. " I have already shown how the value can be learned without being "instilled. " I was not taught to value people above my personal success (my father actually argued with me against it) but I do. This is only one personal example. Many people develop values that are significantly at odds with those people attempt to ‘instill' in them. [5] Learning and appreciating principles through experience is inherent in being human. It is not necessary to ensure that others appreciate a principle if the merit of the principle speaks for itself. I believe that it is the same for patriotism. As such, I must continue to refute my opponent's assertion. Patriotism should not be taught. [1] It's not in there: . http://www.law.cornell.edu... [2] See . http://en.wikipedia.org... for one patriot who is inclined to agree. [3] For a great example of ‘taught patriotism' please see: . http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... [4] . http://www.usa-patriotism.com... [5] Which results in changes like this: . http://changingminds.org...