War has more benefit than harm

"Pro is conceding that war erases personality," No, it does not erase personality. In fact, war is a chance for personality to shine. Only in war can the bravest show their bravery. Only in war can the greatest generals prove themselves and have their name written down in history for eternity. "Pro cannot simply sit here and say that increased lives equals better outcomes (even if he can prove that)." Unfortunately, I do not understand Con's logic here. If I can prove it, then won't that give me every right to sit here and say that? "but its overall value as a result of being a collection of individuals perceived as the same, without personality or individuality" How is it different from regular life? As I mentioned above, war separates the weak from the strong. The strong truly get their chance to shine, to be written down in the history books and remembered for centuries. They can prove themselves like never before. The strongest personalities are separated from the weak, a chance they would not get in regular life. "Pro ignores the fact that those resources garnered from Iraq were lost by Iraq, and the resource drain that occurred is damaging to them. Pro doesn't explain where the oil extraction benefited Iraq" Iraq was benefited because they gained liberty. Their oil money was turned to food, not palaces like their leader was doing before. Now, Iraq is recovering very well from their totalitarian regime. http://www.war-in-iraq.org... "3) Cycle of violence" Read the below quote: There are benefits of the necessary evil called war. War doesn"t always mean guns and violence. Sometimes war is taking a stand for something you believe it. It may be the war on crime or the war on drugs. War can benefit a community by encouraging citizens to come together to take a stand against something that is threatening their neighborhood. War is recognizing something is causing harm and being vocal about it to create awareness. http://www.ask.com... War is when you take a stand for something you believe in. War is the climax, the resolution to a problem. It ends violence. Take for example police men. They go to war with criminals every single day. Now imagine if they were NOT there to go to war with the criminals. Would life be better or worse? "This is seen most notably and recently with Russia" Because of such strong "trade relations" and "international cooperation" of this age, the fact that Russia and US are throwing sanctions at each other only damage the world. Neither the US, nor Russia, nor any other country of the world is benefiting from these trade relations. "he never explains why war was necessary to spread resources and knowledge." As I have said several times now, war is not necessary. War is a catalyst. It accelerates the development of human civilization. "the Muslims won the Holy Land. They already had it. You don't benefit from winning what you already have. Pro then states that it was a huge win because of all those great technologies. Again, I'd say that he's hard pressed to show that the millions of lives lost in the Crusades justifies the acquisition of this technology, but he also drops my response that they could have acquired these technologies through trade." Had the Muslims NOT lost so many lives defending, they would NOT have the Holy Land. The USSR was defending itself in WW2 and lost millions and millions of lives yes? Is it still regarded as a great gain and victory? Yes. "The presence of war is what creates an impetus to never go to the country you're fighting." The US has picked fights, physical and economical, with an unprecedented amount of countries, yet immigrants are still flowing in from all over the world. "He's saying that it's only a result of a need for military vehicles that engine technology was accelerated and better planes were made. This isn't enough to prove the point. He doesn't explain why the money and research spent on creating these wouldn't have been likely to exist in the absence of war (the percent of budget spent on it is actually pretty independent of warfare[4])" Those were just specific examples. As a result of war, countries develop everything from better engines (for any kind of vehicle), higher quality metals, more efficient methods of obtaining and using fuel, and better techniques for the construction of everything from planes, to cars to buildings. Just because something is used for war does not mean the concept cannot be used to benefit society in a peaceful time. Take for example nuclear energy. It can be used as a weapon of mass destruction as well as a source of "green" energy. "Better to have waited a few more years" You might be right, but over time, those "few more years" add up. Had there been no war through human history, we might still be in the medieval age. So much development was pushed by the need to defend a country and be bigger and stronger than others that without this need, humans would have no reason to so actively develop themselves. "On influenza, Pro asserts that we made progress during WWI on a vaccine, but never shows that that's true. The U.S. developed the first vaccine in the 1940's, which seems to disprove his claim. Again, Pro asserts that blood transfusions and sterilizing techniques would only have occurred as a result of war, but neither his first source nor this one support it. It says "advances in some medical techniques kept pace with the mass destruction of war," " I have now cited multiple sources stating that much progress was made during WW1 for a vaccine but my opponent disagrees and shows no evidence. Therefore, I can dismiss half of the above paragraph. My opponent quotes my source, and that in itself shows that war is a catalyst for medical advancement. People didn't die before on such a massive scale, and the fact that "medical techniques kept pace with the mass destruction" shows that much progress was made. Think about this. India, being predominantly Hindu and Jain throughout its history is not too "violent". They believe in non-violence and therefore have not waged many wars with the outside wars. Look at where they are. Yes, they are developing, but their economy, infrastructure and quality of life is far behind other countries who (coincidentally) have been waging wars for centuries. Just a coincidence that some of the most aggressive countries in the world are at the top? I think not. Thank you for the good debate.