5. War memorials do more harm than good.

Con has said: <"It could physically harm people but what i got from the topic at hand was not physical "harm" but more of stirring up controversy and negative impact."> Harm can be defined by www.dictionary.com as 'physical injury or mental damage' So 'harm' is both physical and mental. What I've interpret Con's argument is to say that War Memorials don't create mental harm, only physical, so it's okay. She also states through out her case that because the harm is broad that it's invalid. But that's not the case, the point that I was trying to make with the gun analogy is that just because it can be said about many things doesn't mean that the harm is gone. I will now defend and further prove my arguments. 1. Con has stated: <"You're right I don't necessarily disagree with you that a poorly constructed memorial is harmful...but my point there was that you're argument was too broad.>" Con has also stated: <"Anything that is poorly constructed is obviously going to do more harm than good physically."> I believe by what I have proved by simply defining the word "harm" that my argument is stronger. And Con has agreed that if a War Memorial were to cause physical harm by being poorly constructed it would do more harm than good. 2. <"You could not possibly expect countries to rip down their memorials? memorials are really not that big of a concern tot he environment, old and new."> I don't expect countries to rip down their memorials. This debate is not on what should be done about harmful memorials. It is only on whether or not War Memorials are harmful. And by Con saying that they can't be expected to be ripped down for being harmful, it seems as though she sees they can be harmful. War memorials are a concern to the environment, old and new, because they are placed on an animal's home, and the construction of the memorial alone could have destroyed their habitat. 3. <"Yes war memorials are controversial because war itself is controversial"> War itself is controversial, but by constructing war memorials, it only encourages it. Take for example a simpler controversial topic such as abortion. Some people are Pro-Choice, some are Pro-Life, but the ones who are Pro-Life usually just deal with the fact that there are people out there for abortions--but would be fumed if there were something dedicated to the point of abortions being good, and encouraging them, and you can bet they'd do something about it. Such as can be looked at with war and war memorials. They only encourage the controversy. 4. <"My argument to your point that memorials glamorize war is that they do not. I argue that they educated future generations."> She states that War memorials don't glamorize war, but they are almost there to do just that. To get people to know what has happened. Con states that War Memorials a there to educate us. But Textbooks, Old newspapers, and word of mouth have done more than War Memorials have as far as learning about the war goes. So i would like to bring up what I have said before, war memorials are mainly to bring honor and respect, but the men and women who have died have that weather or not they have a monument dedicated to them. 5. Con is right in saying that we have no right to tell people how to spend there money. But at the same time, who are we to let them spend it on something harmful to many. Also, many war memorials are often funded by donations that people have asked for, money that if never was asked for to build a war memorial, could have been used for a better and more necessary project. -The positive aspects of War Memorials do NOT outweigh the negative. Her two main points were that War Memorials bring honor and respect, and that they educate future generations. And I have proven that those 2 reasons aren't enough to make war memorials do more good than harm because we have other things that serve the same purposes. I have also kept my 5 reasons strong on why the War Memorials do more harm than good. Thank you for the debate :)