War has more benefit than harm

"Well, if he read my point more carefully, he would have noticed that I spurned this sort of numbers evaluation from the outset." I read your point very carefully, but in this case, the "personality" of a person is irrelevant. In war, as cruel as it may sound, a person is a resource, and all people are equal before the "eyes" of war. "2) General costs" Although large amounts of money are spent, it is not going completely to waste. If successful, the operation will result in the country prospering. Whether the invaders are taking land (meaning resources), a strategic location (advantage over others) or resources directly, the country's profits will most likely outweigh its losses. For example, Con mentions Iraq. Although much money was spent on the war, the amount of oil extracted is enormous. The profits were massive and easily outweighed the cost of waging the war. http://www.cnn.com... "3) Cycle of violence" This section supports my claim that war is inevitable and relieves social tensions. "The way to relieve tensions is to kill countless numbers of people? That tends to produce enmity, which leads to a cycle of violence" In Round 1, Con said that "This distress and desire for revenge magnifies all of the harms I've discussed here by making the process of going to war one that endlessly visits upon the general population of the world." I agree, people will want revenge and that creates social tensions. People are unhappy. How is the conflict resolved? By war. There is no other way. Con mentions diplomacy but that does not change a peoples attitude towards another nation. It simply creates a legal barrier which may easily be broken. (As seen in WWII when the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was broken by the Germans). "This didn't require that they then go to war with the Native Americans, wiping out the vast majority of their population and culture in the process of passing on that knowledge." Con claims that the spread of technology and culture (as well as advances in medicine and industry) do not require war. They may not REQUIRE it, but war is a very effective catalyst for the things mentioned above. Yes, spreading crops and livestock did not REQUIRE that the Europeans go to war with the natives, but had the Europeans decided to not come to the New World, it might have been centuries until the natives would even come close to the level of progress that the Europeans were already at. The Europeans needed colonies and resources, so they went to war. They gained the colonies and resources, meaning that the war's losses were outweighed by profits. Same with the the natives, although their population took a heavy hit, they came in contact and adopted a level of technological advancement that has not been seen yet on the American continent. "Christians benefited from the exchange, we should write off all the harms done to the Muslim and Jewish peoples as a result of those Crusades. It's not enough for Pro to prove that one side benefited marginally from a given conflict " he has to prove that the net outcome (that means both sides) was beneficial." The Muslims considered this war as a success because they won the Holy Land. They benefited and if the Christians had won, there would most likely be conflict even more violent over this territory today. I would also like to note that Con uses "marginal" to describe the benefits of Europe from this conflict and I disagree. The knights brought back with them very much technology and many goods that greatly improved European living conditions. Cotton clothing, food and spices, paper, the ship compass, algebra, chemistry, irrigation and more. These are (by today's standards) the most basic necessities yet the Europeans only received them through war. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... "First off, this is something that's accomplished by migration and emigration to a much more beneficial extent. These things don't require war." If war was not waged, countries would remain isolated and migration would be minimal. "Second, the type of spread Pro is discussing here is a forced one, meaning the subjugation of the ideas of one culture to another. This doesn't diversify ideas if anything, it reduces that diversity by forcing various cultures to think like the imperialistic one that's conquering them." This is not necessarily true. For example, the conquering Mongols did not impose the culture or religion upon those they conquered. They were very religiously tolerant and the culture of Mongols and those they conquered mixed naturally, not by forcing people to think a certain way. http://www.fsmitha.com... Same with the conquering Muslims. They did not force their religion upon the conquered people, they simply required them to pay a tax called "jizya". http://www.britannica.com... "First, these advancements most certainly don't require warfare. The impetus to pursue machines of war certainly increases, but Pro never adequately explains why the production of those specific items benefits the population at large" It does not REQUIRE warfare, but as mentioned above, war is a very effective catalyst. It might have taken decades to develop more effective engines (that can be used outside of war), better techniques for building planes (that can be used outside of war) and other technology. The presence of war accelerates the production and development of such technologies. "As a result, it is still a big problem today. Second, the vaccine didn't come out until 1945. Third, war did not make it possible. Medical research did. Fourth, blood transfusions and new sterilizing techniques didn't result from WWI." Very much progress was made during WWI for the cure of influenza (since it was such a problem), and yes, war did not make it possible, but war accelerated the progress because people NEEDED to help the soldiers. It was not passive. I will provide yet another source to support my claims regarding blood transfusions and sterilizing techniques and note that my opponent has provided no sources to support his above statements. http://ncpedia.org... I would also like to say that the building of enormous empires had benefited even those who they conquered. Although my opponent said that they basically destroyed everything in their path and caused nothing but destruction, that is not true. They had a very possible effect on trade and fused the Eastern and Western hemisphere. Trade increased greatly (benefiting EVERYONE) and the Silk Road became much safer to travel. As a result, the conquering by Mongols had much more benefit than harm. This concept can be extended to other empires that connect the world, increasing trade and sharing technology. http://afe.easia.columbia.edu...