Patriotism is harmful to the human race.

Thank you, MTGandP, for your prompt reply. ::Rebuttals:: C1: "He did not personally contribute to the achievements of America, so why should [Bob] be proud of them…Why be devoted to a country that's not the best? And if Countryland is the best, then other countries are worse." Pro asks why one would be patriotic if they didn't feel personally responsible for their country's accomplishments. However, I previously showed how no such arrogance is present within the definition of the term and patriotism is easily possible without it. One can feel love or loyal toward the safety, familiarity, unity, freedoms, accomplishments, and beauty of their country without feeling pride or personal responsibility for their creation. As I stated before, what my opponent describes as patriotism is simply arrogance. Pro again claims patriotism involves hating others and feelings of national superiority. He has ignored my previous response to this point, which specifically stated that feelings of national superiority describe nationalism and jingoism, not patriotism. Patriotism, by definition, has nothing to do with supremacy, and thus has nothing to do with hatred. My opponent's argument consists solely of unsupported conjecture and misplaced attributes. This contention remains irrelevant. C2: "I said that patriotism is a subset of nationalism…If all the premises are accepted, it logically follows from patriotism that other countries should be invaded." Pro has presented a line of reasoning that, if true, would suggest patriotism leads predictably to a nationalist mindset. Therefore, my task is once again to show that no such link exists. Thankfully, Pro's line of reasoning is rife with flaws that serve to dismiss it outright. The start of my opponent's reasoning begins as follows: "Premise: I love and am devoted to my country. Premise: The country most deserving of my love and devotion would be the greatest country. Therefore: My country is the greatest. Therefore: Other countries are not as great as my country." The first premise indicates patriotism, while the second premise, which involves comparisons across countries, indicates a shift to nationalism. However, no explanation is given as to how such a shift could occur within a wholly patriotic mindset. As I explained in R1, patriotism involves solely one's feelings for their own country and cannot involve judgments toward other countries. Furthermore, patriotism makes no implication that one's country is the best, only that one appreciates it. Just as I can love mom's apple pie but still enjoy blueberry pie (and even recognize it as better tasting), patriotism allows for the love of one's country without implying it is the greatest. The rest of Pro's premises focus on nationalism and can thus be dismissed. Pro simply assumes that patriotism leads to nationalism without offering a single reason or piece of evidence as support. My opponent's assumptions, as well as this contention, are refuted. C3: "Patriotism is a necessary step in mindless killing for one's own country." My opponent has shifted his argument from patriotism as a cause of irrational deeds to patriotism as a necessary element for irrational deeds. However, like his original contention, this view is incorrect and misleading for a number of reasons. First of all, patriotism does not inhibit critical thinking skills. To love one's country does not imply that this love is either a personal priority or a necessary component in decision making. Pro again depicts the patriotic as mindless automatons without a single shred of evidence or reasoning beyond his own assumptions. Secondly, Pro continues to blame patriotism for the negatives of different concepts. He faults patriotism for acts of nationalism, which is equivalent to faulting cultural pride for acts of racism, faulting love for acts of obsession, etc. These pairs of concepts share common bonds, but they are also distinguished by critical elements. These additional elements are responsible for the problems, and it is essential that these terms are distinguished when the critical elements are present. Thirdly, patriotism is simply not a necessary step toward acts of violence or the formation of aggressive military forces. Soldiers may choose to join the armed forces for a number of non-patriotic reasons, including personal growth, money, religious calling, an interest in military careers, a family history of similar professions, or even a desire to inflict harm on others. All of these examples would result in individuals killing and dying at the behest of one's government, yet none of them stem from patriotism. ::The Benefits of Patriotism:: 1. "Patriotism as a source of social support is redundant and unnecessary…Patriotism, by fueling competition between countries, inhibits this sense of complete unity." My opponent concedes that patriotism works as a source of social support, with his only complaint against it being that this support is redundant. This complaint is, of course, ridiculous, as the benefits of patriotism-based support exist regardless of whether or not citizens receive support elsewhere. In fact, an individual's opportunity to obtain support from multiple sources only serves to bolster its positive effects. Pro goes on to accuse patriotism in sporting events as inhibiting worldwide appreciation. In reality, these events provide a common stage for worldwide athletes and allow individuals to recognize and appreciate the talents of other nations. My opponent's dissent is a result of his continued confusion of the terms patriotism and nationalism. Patriotism allows one to support their own country but does not inhibit the support of others; once again, just because I enjoy mom's apple pie does not mean that I dislike all other pies, nor does it mean that I dislike all other baked goods. 2. "Why national improvement? Why not instead world improvement?" My opponent again concedes that patriotism encourages national improvement, complaining now that doing so is insufficient. Pro forgets that the resolution reads "patriotism is harmful to the human race," not "patriotism does not do enough to improve the human race." Patriotism acts as motivation to improve one's surroundings, which if anything is an essential step toward improving the world as a whole. Patriotism does absolutely nothing to discourage worldwide improvement, but the absence of patriotism may. Pro's rebuttal is baseless. 3. "Without patriotism, national defense is unnecessary…With no patriotism, no one wants to join the military." I have already listed various non-patriotic reasons to join the armed forces, so aggressive armies would exist regardless of the presence of patriotism. Eliminating patriotism would not end war, as nationalism and jingoism are at the core of international attacks. In fact, given the defensive nature of patriotism (which my opponent does not deny), removing it would only increase a nation's vulnerability to attack. This is another baseless claim on Pro's part. ::Closing:: By continuing to discuss nationalism, mindlessness, arrogance, and other independent traits, my opponent fails to produce a single argument against patriotism. His attempts to connect these traits completely lack evidence or logical support, ignoring entirely the actual definitions of terms for his own assumptions. Furthermore, he has not denied patriotism is a source of social support, national improvement, and national defense. I look forward to your reply and await the final round.