If war is murder, than it should be legal for anyone to murder anyone.

Thank you for your response. Before I began, I would like to say that I am in no way trying to be rude in this argument to come. I am simply pointing out facts in a caring way, though it is hard to tell over the internet. ================================ Argument: You state that war has so many cons that it should cease. You says that 'killing thousands of people because they are being tortured does not make since.' No offense, but this statement itself does not make since either. We are talking about war, not a specific war, but war in general. I have said this in my previous arguments, but you have yet to address them. My examples of the Korean war is not what we are talking about, it was just an example. Not all wars are about freeing certain people. Most of your opening paragraph in round three does not make since. Saying that ‘they could leave via suicide' is simply foolish. You go on to talk about the war in the Middle East. Again, I have said countless times, not all wars can be based off of one example. If I play a basketball game against a horrible player and win, I can not say that I will win all my future games. The reason for this is because there is always something different, there could always be a better player than me. The scenarios always changes, same thing in war. You give a list of what makes a "terrorist." First of all, this list is irrelevant, seeing as to not all wars are about stopping terrorists. Secondly, the list is extremely flawed! It is not even our government's use of the word terror. Your source even says that people use the world so lightly, that people have started using it to describe their their enemies. The list you gave was showing how people loosely use the word terrorist. The funny thing is your own source says that the list is wrong. Your source does not help you in the least. Sources 2, 3, and 4 are also irrelevant to this debate, for yet again not all wars are the wars in the Middle East. Your mass copy and paste of the site you used is not very reliable, and does not cover all war. It covers a war, but not war itself. I think you are somewhat confused about websites. Just because you list sources from a site does not make it true. For example, this site (1) believes Michal Jackson is still alive, and popping up all over the world. Here is a direct quote from the site: "The World Weekly News has reported that Michael Jackson is appearing around the world on his birthday. He has been seen in Ireland, South Africa, Dubai, Shanghai, Manila, Rome, Barcelona, London, Moscow, Sao Paolo, Buenos Aires, Sydney, Miami, New York and Los Angeles. Michael appears on the street, sings and dances for about thirty seconds then he disappears. ‘It was the most amazing thing I've ever seen,' said Roger Farley of London. ‘He appeared on the street, sang a few short lines of the song, spun around and was gone… It was him. It definitely was him.'" Now simply because this site says Michials still alive, does not make it true. The internet is full of stuff like this. These people (2) even say that Elvis Presley is alive and working as an undercover agent for the DEA! But back to what I was saying, the internet cannot be trusted, and you needed more official sources to help your case. But again, if you think that America is so evil and the real terrorists are fine, then you agree that war against the USA is righteous and necessary. Saying that Justice and revenge are the same is completely wrong. The best way I have heard it put was that revenge is retaliation by a wronged party against the person or people they see as having caused the wrong. The person carrying out an act of revenge may have been harmed indirectly or not at all by the person at whom the revenge is directed, but on some level there is a perceived personal grievance. Justice, on the other hand, can be carried out by an unaffected third party. In most developed countries it is considered vital that the judiciary be independent from the other arms of government, partly for this very reason. Justice also doesn't necessarily involve any act of retribution. For example, the acquittal of an innocent person can be considered an act of justice, but it certainly isn't revenge. Justice also requires fairness, and while this is obviously subjective to a large extent it's still relevant. It's no secret that the invasion of Iraq was partially motivated by the '9/11' terrorist attacks, but while a war killing tens of thousands of civilians with no terrorist involvement may be called revenge, there aren't too many people who would see it as justice. Do you see what I am getting at? On a smaller scale, if someone rapes a girl, then the girl's brother goes and kills the rapist, then it was revenge. Justice is when you are punished in the correct manner by people who are not deeply affected by the situation. If justice and revenge was the same thing, that would mean if a ten year old stole my bike and I killed him, then the ten year old came to justice. You see? It obviously does not work that way. I even gave you the definitions of both justice and revenge in round three. About the civil war, you said: "Should there have been a war? Not unless need be." Of course there was a need! You say that the North became greedy when they could have just blockaded the south. This was not the solution, in fact, it was the South that started the war by firing upon northern troops! Comparing slavery vs war is also a bad contrast. The slave has done nothing wrong, where as in war the other person usually has. The slave does not have a choice to be free, but in war the person has the choice to surrender, slave ownership puts one man absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune. This is not the case in many wars, although it is the case in some. I shouldn't have to say this again but, not all wars are the same. Your last paragraph is incomprehensible. I really do not mean to be rude, but I have absolutely no clue as to what you are actually talking about. Audience, my opponent has done a great job in debating me. I really enjoy that she did not forfeit like most of the others do. But, she has contradicted herself in so many ways. She has made absurd claims, and has even admitted herself that war is sometimes necessary, therefore proving my case. She has made false claims such as revenge and murder are the same, and has also failed to provide reliable sources. I ask that the audience vote correctly, and not simply with who you agree with. I would like to thank my opponent once more for the lovely debate, and would also like to thank the audience for reading. (1). http://www.michaeljacksonsightings.com... (2). http://www.elvis-is-alive.com... (3). http://dictionary.reference.com...