Imperialism is bad for either the imperialist or the conquered.

First off, I just want to say that this was a really great debate, and you made some brilliant remarks that were very interesting. Now, I too will make some negations to your statements, and then make a closing message. First off, your point that Western Democracies are relatively peaceful are because of America's empire is completely false, as one can see from the past that the empires led to warfare. In the turn of the twentieth century, nationalism was on the rise, and a great deal of nations felt "Hey, we're so great, let's spread our good policies and greatness to other nations, so they can be awesome too!" This caused the colonization of both the entirety of Africa and parts of Asia as well. This mad grab for land than turned into war, not only between the mother countries, but inner conflict between the poorly divided African nations, which is stil present today in nations such as Sudan and Dem. Rep. Of Congo. In fact, one of the main causes of the "War to End All Wars" was that many nations wanted to be more and more imperialistic, most notably Germany, and wished to do it. Your second point which is wrong is that the cultures of colonized nations have been left "largely intact" one main example comes to mind, which is Africa. Many informed people in America nowadays can tell you the differences in the cultures between many European nations reasonably well. However, far fewer can tell you the distinct differences in Africa nations' culture, for a variety of reasons. First, with the aforementioned poor division of borders, many opposing tribes and cultures were put into the same nation, while other allied tribes were split up, causing strife, conflict, and confusion and a decrease in national identity. In addition, many of the European imperialists destroyed the natives' cultures as I have pointed out above, causing an even greater decrease in the separate nations' identity and culture, causing one, big, war-torn continent, which is still present today. My third and last point is that nations like China and India only became successful, especially economically, AFTER their colonization from Western nations. However, from 1600, up until their colonization, China and India had the richest and most powerful economies than any other nation in Eurasia. In addition, many other tools, such as paper money, as long as we're dealing with business, was implemented in Chiina first and brought over to Europe, so this argument does not show how imperialism really helped them. Now, for my closing points: This statement of which Napier and I are debating states that "Imperialism is bad for either the imperialist or the conquered." I will prove that not only is it bad for one of them, it is bad for both. 1st, the imperialist: As shown by America, the key imperialistic nation today, in some ways having control all over the world is good. However, more often than not, America has negatively affected more nations than it has helped. This is shown through militaristic paths made possible by our many abses, in addition to their dependence on other nations, which causes distressed foreign policies. This is also shown from one hundred years ago, where one of the main causes of World War I was imperialism. In addition, most colonizing nations have not helped their colonies significantly economically, and not near enough to counterbalance the negative effects they have had on the child nations. Which brings me to my next point, why it was bad for the conquered nations: Many colonized nations, as I have mentioned above, have had their culture utterly decimated by the Western, imperialistic nations. In addition, they have been forced to conform t their mother nation, which has more often than not only exacerbated their problems. and finally, the overthrow of elected officials have become ever present in nations which have been affected by imperialism. So finally, imperialism is both bad for the vanquisher and the vanquished