Patriotism should be taught and encouraged

Pro attempts to argue that taught and encouraged should be retroactively construed to mean one and the same thing for the purposes of his resolution. If this is true, then the use of both taught and encouraged in the resolution is an example of superfluous verbiage. It is a standard rule of logical construction that there are no superfluous words. [1] Therefore, even if "90% of the time it is impossible to distinguish teaching from encouraging" this is one time that falls within the 10%. "Taught" can not equal "encouraged" for the purposes of this resolution. When determining the different meaning of similar words, one must turn to the differences between the words to define them. [2] In this case, the difference between teach and encourage is that one word suggests instructed action and the other suggests recommended action. [3] It is the difference between a command and a request. My opponent has even admitted as much by stating the need to "instill" patriotism. Therefore, in this debate, Pro has posited that one should both instruct in and recommend concern and caring for the status and future of one's country. To instruct in patriotism, one must define patriotic actions. One can not beam one's values magically into another person. My opponent argues that most of the "teaching of values to children is by example." No. Most children are not instructed by example, but learn from example. [4] Learning can take place separate from instruction. If I observe an apple falling enough times after I toss it into the air, I can learn that, with rare exception, ‘what goes up must come down.' The apple doesn't teach me that, I comprehend it on my own. If I observe that the actions of patriots prevent my family from being subjected to tyranny, I can learn the value of patriotism. Nothing is directing me towards that end other than a rational evaluation of my experience. Because some actions must be expected of others to conform to an outward display of patriotism that is instructive, teaching of patriotism, as it must be understood in this debate, is a form of "indoctrination." One must provide others a ‘proper' display of behavior that they can emulate, and inform them that they must follow it, in order to "teach", because for "teaching" to not be "encouraging" it must be instructive. In order to instruct others in patriotism, you must direct them towards actions that are right and, by inverse implication, determine for them actions that are wrong. To do anything less would only be encouraging. If "love of country" is instructed/"instilled"/taught collectively rather than developed individually the result can be nationalism, or jingoism rather than patriotism, which can be either divisive or fascist. Therefore, within a reasonable construction of the resolution, teaching patriotism may lead to divisiveness or fascism. My opponent argues that I should not be concerned over divisiveness where such concerns keep people from valuing patriotism. I have already shown how people are not kept from valuing patriotism even if they are not taught patriotism. They can still learn to appreciate patriotism by experience and application of reason. Therefore, my opponent is urging me to risk divisiveness and fascism where a better option exists. It is not a virtue to take the bad with the good when the good alone could be had. It is foolishness. Vote Con. To briefly address some other points made by my opponent: My opponent agrees with me that "[t]he idea of the Constitution is to define limits on what government is allowed to do, not to mandate what it must do." I am glad I have convinced him that he was wrong in stating "in the U.S., the Constitution, determine[s] the patriotic observances government institutions may present." Unless he was discussing limitations, in which case, why even bring the Constitution up, seeing as how the Constitution poses no limitations on patriotism? If he means limitations on governmental action that is akin to arguing that an atmosphere keeps me from flying to the moon. I can only fly in the first place because the existence of the atmosphere allows lift to take place. The government only has power to any extent because its powers are enumerated in the Constitution and allowed by the people. What nonsense is this that a thing may act without that which allows the action to exist? My opponent argues that "[i]f Con's argument were correct then we ought not teach the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the system of checks and balances, or even that democracy has advantages over monarchy." Because the first three items cited are tools of maintaining law and order in a democratic society, feel free to instruct them in the use of such tools by society. Similarly, I would readily instruct my nephew in how a hammer may be used to pound in a nail. I would do this because there is an obvious right way of a hammer hitting a nail, as there are obvious limitations on proper government action, by virtue of the instrument used in either case. As for the advantages of democracy over monarchy, you need merely show examples of what democracy provides relative to monarchy in a historical context. They'll get the picture. There is no need to instill in them democratic ideals. I cited the Wikipedia article on Paine to illustrate how a patriot can believe that ideals exist outside of governance and give rise to its necessity, rather than to believe that ideals are allowed at the caprice of government, or promoted by it. I never said that Paine said that patriotism should not be taught. You've taken this entirely out of context. "… the Leftist article used "unpatriotic" specifically to describe opponents." Apparently I do need to go around pinning a sign that reads ‘tree' on trees for my opponent to recognize them. Using a symbol (the word patriotic) is unnecessary if the content you are describing (love for one's country, or, in this case, a lack thereof) is understood in context. I don't care about whether a "democratic majority" allows something or not. A democratic majority isn't always right. We're discussing whether or not someone ought to teach and encourage patriotism, not whether or not people can do it legally or in keeping with tradition. This is an argument for whether or not the consequences of the resolution lead to better or worse results, not whether or not we can get away with it. I would get into the debate about my wild tangent, but my tendency to play the victim might not be conducive to a rational response. (Please catch the irony). [1] http://books.google.com... And [2] http://www.isi.edu... Though this debate wasn't merely semantics, a basic understanding of word choice in sentence construction is necessary to argue any resolution without indefiniteness. We can't run on each others' differing definitions of 'taught' forever. [3] http://www.merriam-webster.com... vs http://www.merriam-webster.com... remove all references to encouragement from teach, and all structures similar or related to encouragement, such as stimulate, which negates experience (experiential development is a consequence of stimulation). You are left with guide or instruct or impart knowledge, (direct knowledge, not by example, as that is experiential) [4] http://www.merriam-webster.com... excluding instruction. Note one can learn by being taught, but that is irrelevant to this debate, because the other forms of learning are being used as alternatives to instruction that take place under a system of encouragement, not as an exclusion of instruction as a definitional form conducive to learning.