5. War memorials do more harm than good.

Why Hello there, and Good Luck to you too :) I would like to say that they're not just monuments. A gate is not a monument, nor is a bridge. The war memorial has to be a focus for public commemoration. You brought up museums, most museums are inside, and while may be open to the public they are not a public commemoration. Now I will defend my arguments. 1. She said that these can be said about anything, and while that may be true we're not talking about just anything. We're not allowed to have guns in school because they can kill people. Well, virtually any object can be used to kill a person, so does that mean that no one should be allowed to have any possessions?? Most would say No. What we're debating on now is War Memorials and how they can have negative effects. And just because it could be about anything doesn't take away from that. Also, i would like to point out, that she didn't disagree that if it's poorly constructed it's a harm. She only said that it can be said about anything. 2. <"most monuments today are carefully planned out and locations are strategically placed. Most modern war memorials are erected in urban areas or in the middle towns where the whole community gathers."> This may be true about MOST MODERN memorials, but what about the older ones, and the other ones that aren't so carefully thought out as Con claims? We didn't just now start making them, they've existed for quite some time, and years ago the constructors may not have known what they were building on, what it's effects could be, or what was going to happen to the land. 3. <"A subversive group could use the local 7-11 as a rallying point."> I guess, in extreme cases, this could be true. If all that 7-11 is doing is serving gasoline and slushies, and at the same time starting major controversy, rallies, and other drastic measures, wouldn't it be doing more harm than good? Such as with war memorials. And yes, war memorials are controversial no matter what--and that's the problem. That people from one side of the fence will make matters more trouble than they're worth. 4. <"War memorials are not there to glamorize war. I stated above that they commemorate victories and decisive battles.>" What she says is that War memorials may not be intended to glamorize war... but that doesn't mean they won't have that effect. Whether or not they intend to glamorize war as a whole doesn't mean they won't. Also, I am by no means saying that someone who gave their live for others doesn't deserve honor, but what also needs to be realized that harm is harm. A giant statue of a unicorn could be placed in a bad spot and make people upset, so-- most would say, just take it down, but turn in into a statue of a man or woman who died and there's nothing wrong with it..contradictory. And also, weather or not the soilders who gave lives have a memorial in there name or not, doesn't mean they don't have honor. They don't need a memorial for that. 5. Again with the "most" most may be, but others may not be. And memorials are not inexpensive by any means, so any percentage taken from the government could be used for something more necessary, as same with the organizations, they could use that money for a more helpful cause. - Con's main point that is recurring in her speech is that the harms these are creating could be with anything. This is true, but just because it could be about anything doesn't mean it's irrelevant and doesn't matter. It does matter, The men and women will still have the honor from those that support them no matter what, and statue doesn't determine that.