Wars are never good.

NOTE: I'm going to use roughly half my characters for a little more argument, and then I'll move on to my closing statements. I probably should have done this right from the start, but here's a definition for imperialism. Imperialism: the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Now, I would like to start out by stating that my opponent has once again changed their thesis to support their losing argument. They started by calling all wars wicked, then by stating wars are normally for imperialistic reasons, and now wars are for mercenary business. They have clearly demonstrated that they can't win their original argument, and they have even strayed to a whole new topic. I never stated that there were no spoils of war. I stated that not all wars are imperialistic. My definition clearly shows that this is true. I say this because the people my opponent listed as being mistreated were people who were mistreated before the war. After the war, all the countries my opponent listed, and many more were granted independence. See this link for just some of the countries. . http://wiki.answers.com... If you read the definition that I posted, you will see that this is quite clearly ANTI-imperialistic. I'd also like to point out that when it comes to bombings, ignorance is an excuse not to. We couldn't risk bombing and harming civilians. In reference to "the jewish problem" that is open for interpretation. Clearly my opponent thinks that it means the Russians disliked jews, but from my interpretation it means that what was happening to the jews was a problem. That point can be dismissed. my opponent states "The Vatican's official newspaper has also ALLEGED that Britain and the US had "detailed knowledge" of the Holocaust. " The word alleged, which I have capitalized shows that it isn't solid fact that the Brits or Americans knew spit about the Holocaust. Point dismissed. I will address my opponents seventh paragraph later. Visit this site about the French and Indian war, it clearly states that a cause for the war was NOT French expansionism, so, therefore the colonists weren't being protected from it. . http://www.kwintessential.co.uk... I'd also like to point out that my opponent has told us to use Wikipedia as a source for statistics on how what percent of people voted in favor of revolution. Please dismiss this argument because I can guarantee you that, if I wanted to, I could have Wikipedia's page on the American Revolution say that the British won the war within a matter of minutes. My opponent made no rebuttal about the Greco-Persian wars, so I will save my one comment for a little later. For the Civil War, use some logic. WHY would a group of people want to break away from HALF THEIR COUNTRY because that half had a stronger economy? It makes no sense! If part of your country has a stronger economy than you, you stay with them so their economy can hopefully bolster yours. So why did the Confederates rise up against the Union to get away from a stronger economy? THEY DIDN'T! They rose up for more rights, they felt as if they were being oppressed by the rest of the Union, and they were. When Lincoln was elected, the vast majority of the future Confederacy had supported Jefferson Davis, and that means that Lincoln's rise to office proved the south no longer had a say. THAT is why they rose up, not for some made up economic reasons. I have already addressed my opponents changed thesis, so now onto my opponents fatal flaw. My opponent, in their last argument, stated that wars were mercenary business. I NEVER said that there were no spoils of war. This debate isn't even about that, it's about the how NOT ALL WARS ARE WICKED. This means that my opponent's last argument was useless for them. Here is the definition for imperialism again since I am about to refer to it. Imperialism: the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas . http://www.merriam-webster.com... This essentially means that imperialism is one nation extending rule over a weaker one for personal gain. None of the examples I gave have the nation(s) that first declared war fighting for any personal gains. WW2 - Hitler was imperialistic, but the allies(who fought imperialism) declared war to fight for self preservation American Revolution - British had imperialistic rule, and Americans declared war and fought to break free Civil War - Union refused to leave Confederate land, Confederates declared war to fight for freedom Greco-Persian Wars - Xerxes(Persian king) wanted dominance of Greece, Greece(lead by Sparta) declared war for self preservation Notice a pattern yet? I hope so because all of the sides who declared war declared it for freedom or self preservation, and neither of those reasons for declaring war are imperialistic. -Start Closing Statements- First of all, I have proven that my opponent can't stick with one thesis if they want a snowball's chance in **** of winning. Therefore my opponent has changed thesis twice already, and who knows wether or not they will change again in their closing statements. Just to recap, my opponent first stated that ALL wars are wicked. Then they said that NORMALLY wars are good. Finally, they went totally off topic by stating that all wars were mercenary business. I already showed how this last thesis is not applicable. Therefore, my opponent has most likely recognized that they're losing, and tried to change topics, to no avail. Next, I have proven that not all wars are for imperialistic reasons. I can't think of more than one war that could be argued in favor of having solely imperialistic reasons from the begging, and that war is the Mexican War. I'm not saying that there weren't more solely imperialistic wars, but I am saying that not all wars were or are solely imperialistic, and THAT is what this debate is about. Wether or not ALL wars are imperialistic. I have proved that there are wars that weren't imperialistic, and even some that were anti-imperialistic. I have given some examples, and even proven them multiple times. Finally, I have shown that my opponents points are not valid or weak most of the time, and all of them have been easily rebutted. In conclusion, I have proven that not all wars were imperialistic. I have shown this through examples, strong arguments, definitions, and by showing how my opponent is caving through pointing out r=their ever changing thesis. Who knows what their next thesis will be. Will it even have anything to do with war? They have been rapidly waning from the original topic. Now, as a last comment, I would like to first say "thank you" to everyone who read this debate, and an even bigger "thank you" to anyone who votes for me.