Imperialism and empire-building is ALWAYS bad

Defining Imperialism and Empire-building We need to separate modern imperialism from ancient empire-building because scholars traditionally define the first as an economic relationship where indigenous populations still have a stake in local governance and the second as a complete dethroning of the local political authority, not just transactional but a direct territorial relationship. While an imperialistic nation’s power supersedes local authority and controls the production, supply, and development of local economic resources, that nation typically does not directly govern. My opponent’s opening argument does not distinguish the two, but for simplicity’s sake, I will only defend modern imperialism. Given the resolution dictates “AND,” if I prove that imperialism is NOT always bad -- i.e. sometimes it’s a good thing-- then I should win this debate. Here we go:What you're talking about is things that have been the result of the United Nations. Free trade, cooperation amongst countries for a common goal -- peace and democracy -- is not imperialism. Globalization and imperialism are two different things. Arguments can be made for and against the United Nations, however, no one would ever imply that it's imperialism because it's not.Here's the real definition of imperialism according to Wikipedia:"Imperialism, as it is defined by the Dictionary of Human Geography, is an unequal human and territorial relationship, usually in the form of an empire, based on ideas of superiority and practices of dominance, and involving the extension of authority and control of one state or people over another." Imperialism Diminishes Poverty and Discrimination Imperialism has traditionally targeted countries that underutilize their raw resources, like nations in Africa and South Asia. Roads, bridges, mines, rigs, lumber mills, farms, and a whole slew of other economic fixtures and infrastructure are built at the dominant nation’s expense, and while slavery typically characterized old empire-building, European powers ultimately found this unsustainable and hired help to create a productive and paid workforce, lifting entire populations out of poverty. Capitalism helps break down petty distinctions, like the caste system under British Raj.1 In fact, India owes much of its modern economy to lot work done by Great Britain.Slavery is not necessary for brutality and imperialism. Now there is some truth to what you are saying, but it doesn't apply to all. In the case of Germany and Holland (and perhaps Italy), the colonies that were made were settlement colonies, in which the traders traded with the people and in some ways improved the lifestyles of the people that were there. You can't deny, for instance, that, as bad as Apartheid was (and even then you can blame Britain more for this than Holland, since Britain was the colonizer country when Apartheid started), the Dutch improved things about Africa.That's not the case for Britain and Denmark. Their sole intention was to loot. You can consider their empires organized robbery. Denmark did it on the Gold Coast and in Greenland. Britain did it in their colonies. What you say about bridges, infastructure does not exist in the former British colonies, and neither does it exist in Greenland. Which comes to show that it was all about stealing what they could to enrich the mother country.Nations dominated by European political powers in the 18th and 19th centuries typically did not have the technical resources to harness their own economic potential.That's not true. Japan and China were industrializing too. This is why imperialism became necessary to the modern economy. Even 21st depictions of imperialism, like so-called cultural neocolonialism and globalizing market forces, has helped created international social mobility, destroy dictatorships, and raise democracies from the cinders of those oppressive systems.3 You only need to look as far as Southern and Eastern Europe in the late 20th century and the Middle East in the 21st century to see the ever increasingly positive impulse that has been produced by American and Western European cultural hegemony.I can argue against what you're saying about Southern Europe (though I don't know much about Eastern Europe) Imperialism Discourages ViolenceWhat you mentioned was not imperialism. Imperialism really causes violence. I want to dispel the notion that Britain is responsible for the current India-Pakistan conflict. The geographical partition did not cause this group to hate each other, because the religious animosity and racial antipathy existed before the British exerted influence. In fact, before the partition, Hindus and Muslims frequently initiated targeting killings, brawls, and pogroms against the other sect.4True but it made things worse.Imperialism is empire building. It involves using military force to conquer another country completely. Every my opponent mentioned is not imperialism, just globalization and international cooperation.