Patriotism is a virtue

Notwithstanding his valiant attempts to discredit my position, however, he has fallen well short in meeting his own burden of proof to show that patriotism is a moral virtue. In this final round, I will first address some of the smaller disagreements between myself and my opponent, before concluding with a final endorsement of a morally meaningful alternative to patriotism: the recognition of our common humanity. Final Rebuttals:1. Patriotism and nationalism are interchangeable terms. Last round, my opponent criticized me for failing to distinguish between the terms "patriotism" and "nationalism. " Conspicuously, my opponent failed to even offer a definition of "nationalism," much less explain how it differs in any meaningful sense from patriotism. As I will show below, the terms are essentially interchangeable:Webster's defines nationalism as follows: "loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially a sense of national consciousness exhalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups. " [1]Similarly, Webster defines patriotism as: "love for or devotion to one's country. " [2] As these definitions make clear, there is no meaningful difference between patriotism and nationalism; the latter has simply become recognized as a pejorative term for the former. Our countrymen are always viewed as patriots, while those in rival or enemy countries are viewed as "nationalists. " No less an intellect than world government proponent Albert Einstein viewed the terms interchangeably. [3, 4]These kind of hairsplitting semantic arguments are an unnecessary distraction from the topic at issue: establishing whether patriotism - as defined in Round 1 - qualifies as a moral virtue. Given that my opponent accepted my Round 1 terms without objection through his first two rounds, I am mystified as to why he suddenly opened up them up for debate so late in the game.2. On balance, patriotism is a harmful ideologyIn the last round, my opponent characterized my position as a belief that "any and all expressions of [patriotism] or that behavior in generally, is harmful (sic). " This is a straw man argument. I did not say that any and all expressions of patriotism are harmful; I merely rebutted his argument that patriotism "conveys a distinct survival advantage" by showing that history has emphatically proven otherwise. Patriotism is a lot like cigarette smoking: you may not die or kill someone else every single time you wave a flag or sing an anthem, but the cumulative effects of patriotism are indisputably deadly.3. Love for abstracted entities like nations is unnaturalMy opponent made another mischaracterization of my argument in the previous round by arguing that human beings can fall in love with unrelated people. I never said that loving unrelated people is unnatural; I said that loving an imaginary political unit is unnatural. As I stated in Round 2, "love is an emotion best reserved for relationships between actual human beings. "Conclusion:In the last round, my opponent stated the following: "no social being is social to the point of being friendly toward all members of its species. " This statement is both myopic and mistaken, because hundreds of influential intellectuals and spiritual figures have emphasized that developing a universal human solidarity is perhaps the primary moral objective in life. [5] A few choice quotations to support this point:"I am not an Athenian or Greek; I am a citizen of the world. " - Socrates [6] "To him in whom love dwells, the whole world is but one family. " - Buddha [7]My opponent even conceded at one point in his last round that "[o]nce you start cooperating outside the circle of your relations, all groups become abstract entities that are arbitrary. " I would rephrase this point; once you start cooperating and empathizing with other human beings, all limitations on your sense of love and devotion are arbitrary. The moral arbitrariness of patriotism is what this debate is all about. Why should people limit their sense of love and devotion to finite communities short of the entire human race? My opponent suggested that such a limited worldview (patriotism) is necessary for survival, but, as I cautioned my prospective opponents in Round 1, "it will not be enough for Pro to defend patriotism as a necessary evil. "My opponent has failed to meet his burden in showing that patriotism is a virtue - an example or kind of moral excellence. " I believe that I have shown, through the weight of my arguments, that patriotism is a moral vice upon mankind. Vote Con. Sources:[1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] . http://www.brainyquote.com...;( "Nationalism is an infantile disease; it is the measels of mankind. "[4] . http://www.quotedb.com...;( "Heroism at command, senseless brutality, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be part of so base an action! ")[5] . http://plato.stanford.edu...;[6] . http://www.quotationspage.com...;[7]