Imperialism and empire-building is ALWAYS bad

Defining ImperialismPro misses the crux of my argument: modern capitalism is not always itself imperialism, but imperialism has played a role in creating prosperity by opening up markets and undergirding necessary infrastructure for the modern economy. Experts support this interpretation: “The exportation of capital into foreign and less competitive markets was the driving force of all imperialistic ventures. The politics and ideologies were simply justifications of this economic phenomenon.”Hodgart, Alan. The Economics of European Imperialism. New York. W.W. Norton & Company Inc. 1977And, Con meets Pro’s definition, as Britain’s relationship with India and other territories qualifies as “an unequal…territorial relationship…based on the ideas of practices of dominance, and involving the extension of authority and control of one state or people over another.” http://en.wikipedia.org...Imperialism also exports the cultural mentality of capitalism, including certain motivations, desires, and goals that have made the drive to globalized markets possible. Uniting people into one culture makes globalization much easier. You can see this by contextualizing Pro’s definition with a little more information from his Wikipedia source.“Progressive imperialism… promotes the spread of civilization to allegedly backward societies to elevate living standards and culture in conquered territories, and allowance of a conquered people to assimilate into the imperial society, an example being the British Empire…The term has been applied to Western political and economic dominance in the 19th and 20th centuries…”http://en.wikipedia.org...Finally, Pro ignored my arguments about US hegemony. Interventionism is overwhelmingly imperialistic because it involves a direct military and political relationship, not just economic. The US willingness to use force and the direct use of force has had a positive impact on worldwide democracy and freedom – consider Kosovo, Kuwait, and Haiti. President Clinton restored democracy in Haiti, in what can only be considered a direct imperial intervention. This shows that while imperialism can be economic, it does always have to be economic. Consider, again, also the Democratic movements in Eastern and Southern Europe. “What you say about bridges, infastructure does not exist in the former British colonies… Which comes to show that it was all about stealing what they could to enrich the mother country.”Hands down, I gave a source and Pro didn’t. British Raj helped India’s infrastructure immensely. Look at my previous speech for the source. More importantly, Pro concedes my argument about the caste system, which shows a positive impact of British imperialism. “That's not true. Japan and China were industrializing too.”Yes, they did through European help. European powers carved out spheres of influence and maintained territorial rights in port cities, which is imperialism. Though things were not always alright, the Chinese still benefited immensely from this imperial, economic relationship. "Imperialism really causes violence."Imperialism itself is not violence, and though sometimes it causes violence and other bad things, it does not ALWAYS do this, which is all I need to prove. "Imperialism is empire building. It involves using military force to conquer another country completely."No, it doesn’t always. See my explanations and definitions above.