Patriotism is a virtue

Before I engage my opponent’s argument, I would like to emphasize that the burden of proof in this debate is equally shared. It is not enough for the “Pro” of this debate’s resolution to merely rebut my “Con” arguments as non-preclusive; he must make an affirmative case of his own that explains why the resolution is true. Given the brevity of my opponent’s concluding “argument” section in the previous round, he may be operating under a mistaken assumption about the burden of proof.Having addressed the issue of proof, I will now turn to my opponent’s (extremely brief) argument in support of the resolution.Rebuttal: Patriotism does not convey a survival advantage.My opponent deems patriotism a virtue in the sense that it “conveys a distinct survival advantage.” Nothing, however, could be further from the truth. A cursory knowledge of 20th century world history demonstrates emphatically that patriotism is perhaps the deadliest ideology ever invented. If anything, patriotism conveys a distinct threat to human existence, both individually and collectively as a species.World Wars I and II provide irrefutable evidence of the explosive danger posed by patriotism. World War I formally began with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria by the Black Hand, a "Serbian nationalist secret society." [1] Ferdinand's actual assassin, Gavrilo Princip, later admitted during his trial that he was a "Yugoslav nationalist" who intended to liberate Serbian territory governed by the Austro-Hungarian empire "by means of terror." [2] Of course, Serbian nationalism wasn't just to blame for causing of World War II; Germany's militant patriotism was also a principal culprit. [3] Later, a patriotic "hatred" on all sides of the conflict sustained the war, [4], even resulting in the lynching of a German-American man gagged with an American flag. [5] Alltogether, 15 million people were killed in World War I. [6]If World War I was bad, World War II was even worse. As a result of raging patriotic fervor within Germany, Italy and Japan, a total hell on Earth was unleashed, resulting in the deaths of over 60 million people. [7] Patriotism clearly fueled much of this bloodshed. As Nazi figure Herman Goering remarked later at Nuremburg:"Naturally, the common people don't want war... But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine policy, and its always a simple matter to drag people along... That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism... it works the same way in any country." [8]World Wars I and II are only two of the most prominent examples of the death and suffering caused by patriotism, as almost all wars are in some respects motivated by patriotism. Given this inescapable historical fact, it comes as no surprise that many towering anti-war activists and intellectuals - including Ghandi [9], Martin Luther King Jr. [10], Bertrand Russell [11], Noam Chomsky [12], and several Roman Catholic Popes [13, 14] - have voiced their support for the creation of a world government to promote the interests of all humanity. In the words of John Lennon, a world without national borders and patriotism would be a world “with nothing to kill or die for.” [15]In the space I have remaining, I would like to briefly return to my original arguments and give some specific responses to my opponent’s counterarguments.1. Patriotism is unnaturalIn his rebuttal to this point, my opponent stated that patriotism “either . . . arose naturally through the history of mankind, or it was imposed upon us from some external source.” This, of course, is a false dichotomy, premised on a ludicrously expansive definition of the word “natural.” According to my opponent, any product of human history (unless, presumably, it was “imposed on us” by aliens) may be characterized as “natural.” Air conditioning is “natural,” skycrapers are “natural,” even abstracted creeds and ideologies like patriotism or scientology are “natural" (unless scientology really does have extraterrestial origins...).My original argument, however, relied on a more commonsense use of the world “natural.” Unlike the genuine love people feel for friends, relatives or infants, “patriotism” is a love of an abstracted political unit inculcated through constant indoctrination. Patriotism is not an intuitive or innate emotion; it can only be instilled through reinforced propaganda. This is the salient difference between "familial love" and patriotism that my opponent fails to grasp. There isn't anything remotely "natural" about worshipping an inanimate object (a flag) representative of a territorial political unit. 2. Patriotism is arbitraryAs with my first argument, my opponent similarly dodged my second argument by playing semantics about the nature of "morality." In order to be coherent, virtues and moral rights must be defined in objective and universal terms. Altruism - defined as an "unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others" [16] - is one example of a universal virtue, because it can be defended in universal terms like reciprocity and welfare. Virtues shouldn't vary accordingly to the soil a person stands on. Patriotism is different, because loyalty to a particular nation for no other reason than loyalty's sake conveys no meaningful moral principles or distinctions.3. Patriotism minimizes national shortcomingsMy opponent alleges that I have "failed to show a causal connection, or even a correlation, between patriotism and ignoring [national shortcomings]." Showing such a connection is quite easy to do.The German intellectual Goethe once wrote that "patriotism ruins history," [17] and several real-world examples bear this out. In modern Japan, for example, the existence of "comfort women" during WWII is often censored in school textbooks to avoid national shame or embarrassment. [18]4. Patriotism distracts people from their common humanityIn the last round, my opponent wrote:Patriotism doesn't politically divide the world, the political divisions of the world result in patriotism. How can love of the country precede the country?Patriotism can, in fact, precede the actual existence of a nation-state. Separatism, for example, is always motivated by patriotism. Just as the "Founding Fathers" considered themselves patriotic when they separated from the British Empire, so the Confederates thought themselves patriotic in seceding from the United States. One man's traitor is another man's patriot.Whether geopolitical boundaries come before or after the patriotism of a given group of people, the important point is that patriotism keeps the world divided. It is precisely this inherent divisiveness that makes patriotism so immoral.Sources:[1] http://www.firstworldwar.com...[2] http://www.ucis.pitt.edu...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.pbs.org...[5] http://www.pbs.org...[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...[8] http://en.wikiquote.org...[9] http://www.radford.edu...[10] Martin L. King, Jr., Letter to Tracy D. Mygatt, Aug. 8, 1959.[11] Bertrand Russell, Political Ideals (1917)(arguing for world government)[12] Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power 314 (2006)[13] http://www.vatican.va...[14] http://www.christusrex.org...[15] John Lennon, Imagine (song)[16] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[17] http://www.wisdomcommons.org...[18] http://en.wikipedia.org...;