War memorials do more harm than good.

Good round, Con. Let's get right down to it... I have a serious issue with a memorial service being included in the definition of war memorial and I don't think it should be considered as such. The reason for such strong opposition on my part is due to the fact that memorial services serve as such an integral part of my argument. Thus before I go any further I will prove why a memorial service should NOT be considered a war memorial. 1) A memorial service can pay tribute to anything - not just war. 2) A war memorial suggests a physical entity such as a specific thing or place, whereas a service is also composed of places, things, and most importantly, PEOPLE. 3) A service cannot be built or destroyed, only assembled. 4) Because a service can be assembled, it can also be disassembled. This would be a collective effort of people choosing to leave or not partake, whereas just one person has the capacity to deface/demolish a physical war memorial entity. The people that make up and/or attend the service can or do leave, whereas the war memorial is typically intended to be permanent (or at least last for years or more). 5) I presented the only "official" definition of a war memorial that I found. The definition does not contain the specification of a memorial service. This is because obviously a memorial service is different from what is considered to be a war memorial. Here are the three definitions of memorial services that Wikipedia has provided: - The term memorial service is often used to describe a funeral. A funeral is a religious service that is held with or without the body of the deceased present. A memorial service is usually a secular service with or without the body present. - Alternatively, it is used to describe a less formal practice than a traditional funeral, and include such things as eulogies, music and fellowship. - In the Orthodox church, a memorial service is a liturgy performed in memory of the deceased, three, nine, thirty days, one year and three years since the day of the funeral. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...) My opponent claims that memorial services be included in the definition of war memorials because "the end is the same in either event, regardless of the means." This may be true, however, unfortunately does not apply to the definition. For instance, if Tarzan and I each wanted to be transported via automobile and I took a car while he took a bus, that does not make a car and a bus the same thing regardless of whether or not both have the same function/result. That said, I feel I have provided sufficient reasoning as to why memorial services should not be included of the definition of war memorial. Moving on... My opponent opened his argument with an architect's quote stating the Vietnam Memorial was intended to be "a quiet place, meant for personal reflection and reckoning." That may be the case, however, just because that was the designer's intention does not mean that it would have that effect. Take Guillermo Vargas for instance who we all know as the scummy artist who starved a dog to death in a gallery to serve as "art." The designer of the piece himself states that his intention of the exhibit was "stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind" (Source: http://reiskeks-natividad.blogspot.com...). Meanwhile, most people responded with extreme passionate hatred for the presentation. So yes, people's senses were stimulated; however, the response was significantly unfavorable. Similarly, a war memorial can serve as a device for rememberance but the reaction from the public may be extraordinarily unsatisfactory. Now I would agree that there is a much greater chance people would be upset and offended by Mr. Vargas' presentation than a war memorial. However that doesn't mean that adverse emotions can not and will not occur. For instance at my very own university last year, there was a "Walk Out" in which students who protested the war left class to assemble at our school's War Memorial for fallen Rutgers soldiers. At the same time, a counter-protest was being held on the same terf and inevitably the two groups clashed. The result was appalling; two masses of people arguing and fighting to the point of severe violence and necessary law enforcement on what is SUPPOSED to be considered sacred ground. So I ask -- did the war memorial's presence do more harm than good in this scenario? Absolutely. Of course my opponent can contest this with the fact that this type of outburst could happen anywhere, however, the likelihood of such an event taking place at such an obvious location verses somewhere more obscure is very much apparent. 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. I would also like to negate the notion that ancient war memorials be excluded from this debate. The resolution makes no mention of memorials past, present or future, but rather discusses war memorials generally as a whole. I will contest my opponent's rebuttal regarding the purpose of memorials past vs. memorials present by introducing the concept of war memorials in the future. First, memorials in the past were constructed with nationalism in mind - nationalism that in turn led to war (as I've mentioned, there's both good and bad nationalism). 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. Let us now discuss private memorials vs. public memorials. Again the resolution makes no specification regarding that of which we are discussing. Freedom of speech and expression could lead an individual to rectify an extremely uncouth war memorial; in turn it could cause immense controversy which can open up ten cans of worms. This is true about any art, however, the topic of war is particularly disputatious. Now I'm not arguing one's right to create such a piece -- I'm just noting the harm that could come from it... possibly more harm than good. Moving on, my opponent deems the WTC example irrelevant because it was not a destroyed war memorial. Very well. I will simply cite 2 other recent examples of war memorials that were vandalized or destroyed: Beeville, Texas (5/18/07); Jamestown, Kentucky (2/20/08). The point is the same - some individual(s) ruined these celebratory devices and in turn caused immense pain for veterans, the families of fallen soldiers and the community alike. If those memorials didn't exist, these people would not be so hurt/offended, and the perpetrator may not be a criminal right now. In conclusion, again I am not arguing (as my opponent wrongfully suggests) that we should not remember the lives of fallen soldiers who have sacrificed their lives in order to protect and/or maintain our freedom or the freedom of others. 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. Because so much of this round was spent arguing why memorial services should not be included in the definition of war memorial, unfortunately I do not have enough room to include alternatives to war memorials which would indeed include a memorial service (this details why I was in such opposition with the inclusion). I will definitely elaborate on that issue in my final around, along with citing all of the controversy that currently surround war memorials today.