World War One was the most brutal war

To get this point over with, I believe and I am sure Pro does as well (it can be seen in his arguments) that both WW1 and 2nd Sino Japanese war are even on the point of the usage and lack of proper disposal of chemical and biological weapons. So on the point of chemical weapons, both wars are at a draw in terms of brutality. Also, about the Spanish Flu. That does not help in Pro's case about WW1's brutal. If one side used artilery or primitive planes to hurl Spanish Flu victims at the enemy to infect them, then that would make the Spanish Flu a fair point to make. But there is no such proof that any country resorted to this kind of tactic. So its only logical that the Spanish Flu should not be taken into account (especially also becasue the Spanish Flu pandemic arose AFTER the war). My opponent claims that Chongqing was bombed 268 times in the course of 5 years, and that claim is backed up in my own source. My source clearly states "A conservative estimate places the number of bombing runs at more than 5,000". But either way, the damge dealt was the same (very heavy damage. To restate the facts, over 5 years the bombing of Chongqing "killed an estimated 11,889 people, wounded 14,100 and destroyed 17,608 buildings". [1]The brutality is the same, whether it happens in a few deadly attacks or spread out over many, less powerful attacks. My opponent states that death toll counts for little in assessing the brutality of a war. Of course a death toll must be taken into account. Pro has not proved that the death toll should not be taken into account. He just states and repeats his claim and compares the 2 world populations of 1920 vs 1945 why did Pro even do this? Lives are still as valuable reguardless of whether there is a higher population or not. Since Pro has failed to argue the invalidity of the death toll number, it must therefore be taken into account (which is obvious really, I shouldn't have to explain this). Pro then further goes on to make yet another outrageous claim that WW1 saw the deaths of 72 million lives. Using a high estimate for the death toll given in Con's source. This is impossible to believe because his source states that 9 million combatants were killed (ok that seems about right), and the 9 million is not a high or low estimate, it is just one number given in con's source. What this means is that according to Pro, 63 million civilians died in the war. This is not even possible if the place where most of fighting took place did not even see its front lines move (western front). How could 63 million civilians die if none of the major cities were occupied? But anyway, I have already discussed the part about civilian casualties though, and according to Pro's own points and sources, the total civilians killed were about 3 million which is NOT 63 million. So the death toll for WW1 is NOT 72 million. It is 8 million according to another one of Pro's sources so we will stick to that. Perhaps the 72 million takes into account the Spanish Flu. I disscussed this already but I will restate that: since the Spanish flu came after the war, and since the Flu was not used as a biological weapon, it must therefore not be taken into account. As I rebut my opponent's points, I find that Pro has made several outrageous claims to prove his arguments. I mean, lets just think about his claims for a second. -He stated that China was not continually bombed by Japan. Which I have clearly disproved. - He compares the peaceful occupation of Korea to one of the most brutal wars which is the 2nd Sino Japanese War. -He states that higher number of deaths does not make a war more brutal. But does not give reason. -He gives such an unbelievable death toll for WW1 which is completely illogical as proved above. ConclusionI will provide a Final Comparison of both the wars below. World War One (Pro) 2nd Sino Japanese War (Con) Death toll Less Brutal (8 million) More Brutal (10 million) Usage of Chemical weapons Equal Equal Aerial Bombings Less Brutal (No major cities impacted, Bombers were very crude and basic) More Brutal (cities like Chongqing took heavy damage, especially with incendiary attacks) People living under occupation Less Brutal (only Belgium and parts of Russia were occupied for a brief period, No major cities except Brussels occupied) More Brutal (Large chunks of China, including the most populated areas and the major cities such as Beijing and Shanghai were occu[ied) Treatment of People under occupation Less Brutal (Rape of Belgium with 6,000 dead at lowest estimate) Total civilians dead = 3.5 million More Brutal (Rape of Naking with 20,000 dead at lowest estimate) Total civilians dead = 9.3 million Relentlessness Less Brutal ( 4 years of war) More Brutal ( 8 - 14 years of war) After looking at the Facts which leads me to believe that the 2nd Sino Japanese war was more brutal in every aspect except chemical weapons (which was a draw), it is fair to conclude that the 2nd Sino Japanese war is more brutal than World War one. Also about the point on the shell shock. If primitive World war one bombs caused so much psychological damage, imagine the incendiary bombs of the Japanese. Imagine seeing your best friend burned alive (many civilians did not have military discipline so their emotion is probably more unstable), that is what many of the Chinese went through and obviously it had the same level of psychological damage if not more. To conclude, World War one was NOT the most brutal war to date. -Pro has failed to effectively prove that WW1 was the most brutal war to date -Pro makes several wild and outrageous statements as I pointed out earlier. Therefore points should go to Con. Sources[1]. http://www.findingdulcinea.com...On a leaving note, I urge voters to read through all of our arguments thoroughly before making an unbiased vote.