War memorials do more harm than good.

Greetings to you as well! I find your definition of war memorial to be satisfactory with one caveat. A memorial service about a war is qualitatively no different than a physical war memorial and shall be included as such - the end is the same in either event, regardless of the means. Following Pro's excellent quotation format, I too have a quote to begin with. The quote is from the architect who designed the Vietnam Memorial: It was meant to be "a quiet place, meant for personal reflection and reckoning" (http://home.att.net...). This is the function of war memorials. The statues my opponent mentions in Rome are indeed war memorials that commemorate a victory. However, my esteemed opponent is incorrect in the analysis that they are "Obviously... harmful to society." Is it truly harmful to society to instill a sense of nationalism and patriotism? Should not an ancient society be proud that they triumphed over another in what really amounted to a perpetual state of global war? While some war memorials may glorify war itself, as my opponent points out in the definition of war memorial, the modern usage is for commemoration and remembrance, not the glorification of slaughter. As such, the remaining monuments to the glorification of ancient battles are historical artifacts, not functional edifices and should be discounted as a war memorial in present times. When monuments like my opponent mentions are erected, the benefit from them is an increased sense of security in a state. Monuments to military victories in no way promote violence in the state. They may overlook the consequences of war for the loser, but then again, in the societies when these obelisks were constructed, there was no reason to care about the other state. My opponent is trying to draw an analogy between ancient and modern memorials where none exists. The danger my opponent notes in nationalism in no way comes from war memorials. The detriments of nationalism are a result of excessive pride in one's country that is clearly distinct from support and pride in their military. Nationalism on it's face is not xenophobic or racist. Also, I don't see any logical connection between pride in one's military and xenophobia. In fact, it could be the exact opposite - "Our military beat all the foreigners - we're not scared of anyone..." I was not aware that this resolution focused primarily on the US, but I will address the issue of the twin towers in a debate about war memorials. First of all the twin towers are not a war memorial - as my opponent noted, the were a monument to capitalism or American success, if you will. The persons who destroyed the twin towers did it for religious and political reasons, not because it had anything to do with war (except holy war...). I find the inclusion of the twin towers in this discussion erroneous. Any symbol that should be celebrated can be used as a catalyst for destruction - the cross is a prime example. The argument concerning the persons that a monument memorializes, is indeed a compelling one. However, war memorials are not necessarily for the families of war's dead, or for the dead themselves. They remind the rest of us that someone fought and died for what our nation believes in. That humbling experience is something that society writ large is generally in need of. My opponent asks why we should "honor something destructive if those honored do not deem it appropriate." There is a glaring flaw in this statement in that it holds that war memorials honor war (something destructive) as opposed to people. War memorials honor people that died in service to their country, not war in general. Of course not all soldiers support the construction of a memorial. My opponent gives the voice of two soldiers out of thousands, voices that are concerned with the Mall in Washington - not the creation of the memorial itself, but rather the location and design. Not remotely compelling against the construction of memorials writ large. The case for the emotional damage to soldiers from a memorial is somewhat erroneous as well... I'm not contesting that they suffer from PTSD or other "shellshock" syndromes, but the fact of the matter is that it is their CHOICE whether or not to visit these memorials. Is simply knowing they exist enough to trigger a response? I think not - consider - an average person would have a horrible experience/response watching someone being tortured to death. However, we all know it happens, and that doesn't provoke anything even remotely similar to the response of the actual event. Memorials as rallying points for political conflict is inevitable. If not the memorial, than something else that will offend a different group. Introducing memorials as unnecessary because they are a rallying point uses the same reasoning to say that churches would also be unnecessary as a rallying point if it offends someone. Simply because "someone" is going to be offended is not a reason to not build memorials - the good of remembering others' sacrifices vastly outweighs the offense of some reactionaries. Why build war memorials? The good of rememberance outweighs the offense of the few. To NOT remember war and the sacrifices of good men and women devalues their lives. Often, a memorial is necessary for closure of the family when there is no body to bring home. Memorials remind us of the consequences of war, not overlook them. ************** I look forward to the rebuttal.