War memorials do more harm than good.

First, I must apologize for missing the last round. I thought I had a day longer than I did and projects/papers from school caught up with me... Second, I must also apologize for the ridiculous page breaks in my last response - apparently notepad doesn't play nice with the Debate.org text box sizes... I'll try to move promptly and concisely through my points here, mostly by responding to my opponent's quotes... There is no qualitative distinction between a war memorial service and a war memorial statue. I'm not entirely sure why my opponent seeks to eliminate war memorial services from consideration. >>"Similarly, a war memorial can serve as a device for rememberance but the reaction from the public may be extraordinarily unsatisfactory." As I pointed out earlier, so can a cross. That doesn't mean there is something wrong with a war memorial qua war memorial. Unless by co/counterexample, the cross has also done more harm than good (which is a completely separate argument). >>"So I ask -- did the war memorial's presence do more harm than good in this scenario? Absolutely." Wonderful. A single example of a war memorial (singular) doing more harm than good. We're interested in war memorials (plural) on the whole. >>"Additionally, assuming that it is only a minority of people who feel so strongly against war memorials, since when are minority rights not of importance? Entire congressional movements have taken place in order to ensure just that: minority rights." This is a blatant misuse of "minority rights." Minority rights are only a compelling government interest when those rights are within the realm of what is appropriate, both legal and social. The minority right to get pissed off and stage a protest at a memorial is not reason to tear down all memorials. And in any event, in a case like this, it would clearly be a case of majority rule - memorials stand. >>"On that note, there is no way to prove that future war memorials will not celebrate or glorify war, or promote violence amongst particular groups or nations. Just becase war memorials that currently exist may not blatantly encourage these ideas, does not mean that future memorials won't be more graphic, intense, disrespectful and in turn dangerous or harmful." My opponent makes a good point - namely that we don't know what future memorials will look like or what emotions they will evoke. As such, commenting on how harmful, intense, or disrespectful they may be is simply nonsense. Future memorials are actually more likely to be MORE politically correct, given the current stigma against not being overly PC... >>"Their noble endeavors are owed a great deal of recognition and respect. My argument is that war memorials are not the best way to go about that commencement." I'm a little confused as to how one would do this without a memorial or memorial service. A memorial to their actions in WAR... sounds like a war memorial to me. >>"If I can demonstrate that their existance/celebration does more harm than good, then I have fulfilled my obligation to the resolution and therefore you should vote Pro." Sigh - technically that is incorrect. To fulfill the burden of proof properly, Pro needs to show that on the whole, memorials do more harm than good. Con needs to show that on the whole, memorials do equal or less harm than good. My opponent's move in introducing examples of memorials where people have staged protests and such is a valiant effort, but it is somewhat wasted in the quantitative realm, as all I would need to demonstrate against them is that more people derived some sort of good from the memorial than harm. Clearly, this matter is not quantitative, but rather philosophical. >>"The controversy they evoke does more harm than good; people cannot enjoy or show reverence to these memorials/soldiers in peace." A bold statement... a quantitative assessment would reveal that the statement is incorrect. Qualitatively - sure there are some people that memorials evoke more harm than good in. But the irritation of these few does not balance against the satisfaction and closure of the majority from visiting a memorial to their lost loved ones. >>"Thus, alternatives to these monuments should and do exist. " My opponent has touted this phrase repeatedly without ever making good on her promises. >>"For the reasons I have stated (and have gone unrefuted to the final round) memorial services are NOT included in the definition of war memorials; however, they are a great alternative." At last we see the initiative behind the move to discount memorial services. Again, I make the point that there is no qualitative or philosophical difference between a memorial statue and a memorial service. >>"For something more permanent, individuals can own private edifices that do not infringe upon the rights of those who wish to honor/remember in a different way." War memorials don't infringe upon anyone's RIGHTS. People have a right to speak their mind (speech, assembly, etc..) but the construction of a memorial does not infringe those rights in any way. Repeatedly, my opponent has sought to provide some quantitative analysis of this situation, while reality shows that it is clearly a philosophical discussion. I'm perfectly content to let numbers decide the case, however, seeing as there is probably as much as a 10:1 ratio of good/neutral:harm from war memorials. My opponent's most compelling argument concerns the production of some sort of elitist nationalism. I argue that the nationalism provoked by a war memorial is for the most part rooted in sorrow for our losses and pride that our country has been victorious again. I think it would produce egalitarianism, rather than elitism or egoism. I'm not going to pretend that war memorials produce only good, just, fair, kum-ba-yah-singing societies. But do they do more harm than good? Absolutely not. Again, my apologies for missing the last round and the terrible formatting in the first. Overall an excellent debate!