The United States lost the War of 1812

This debate boils down to two questions; the definition of losing a war, and the takeaways for the British and Americans at the end of the War of 1812. I will address both questions in my response, and respond in the sequence of argument(s) offered by my opponent in their last constructive.For starters, my opponent misunderstands the context of the George McClellan quote. The quote was offered to demonstrate the overall war of 1812 was not a contest with a clear winner or looser. It bears mentioning though, while my opponent suggested McClellan was obfuscating a loss, the reason his commander in chief was upset was not because of a failure per se, but rather because McClellan has the best opportunity to defeat Lee's army up until that time, and had apparently missed with window. My opponents misappropriation of this example exposes how he (my opponent) tries to shift on definitions of win or loose over the course of his arguments. By the metrics he tries to apply, McClellan won the Peninsula Campaign during the civil war. Here's why;1) McClellan did more damage to Lee's army than Lee had don't to the Army of the Potomac2) McClellan was fastidious about minimizing casualties, and suffered on balance significantly less casualties than not only his enemy, but than other Union generals in field at the time. 3) McClellan, "could hear the bells of Richmond," by the end of the campaign. Jeff Davis was in fact preparing to evacuate Richmond when McClellan relented. In this example someone my opponent characterizes as a battlefield looser fulfills my opponents criterion for a victor. That's perplexing...? No, it's called shifting. To be completely clear, my opponent never offered a clear definition for "lose a war" when he presented his first constructive, and debate conventions hold that he missed the opportunity, since definitions are integral to overall case structure, organization and advocacy. Then after a concrete definition was offered by the negative, "surrender or capitulation," they tried to turn General McClellan's famous quote into a definition for lose, however when this example is examined in full context, my opponent's attempt to turn the example falls apart, because it doesn't support his definition of, "lose a war," it better supports the negative understanding of what it means to win, lose or tie.He tries to use the example of a boxing match in how we evaluate the give and take in military conflict, but deliberately suppresses that a boxing match can end in a draw, just like the war of 1812. He claims a war is lost when a side fails to win, which is patently false, and if that were a good measure of lose, then some of his later examples go up in smoke, like the example of the Korean War. Here's why:By my opponents measure, North Korea lost the Korean War. Hooray! I will call our embassy in Seoul right now and relay the good news. No need to worry about Kim Jung-un or any missile tests either, after all, they lost that conflict 63 years ago according to my opponent, because they "failed to win." What's that you say..? The regime in North Korea is alive and well. Dang, my opponent had really raised my hopes for a moment.He claims his "definition," makes more sense, but actually it makes no sense at all. To be a good definition it has to be fairly accurate in most cases, and my opponent's definition is not accurate even within his own case. He even tries to say this definition works for any war. Again, this is demonstrably false. By his measure both sides lost the cold war. This is absurd, neither side lost the cold war, and neither won it, otherwise we likely wouldn't be here. It gets even more absurd when you apply it metaphorically. Have we lost the war on Cancer, or merely failed to win it..?This is a fallacy of false equivocation on the part of my opponent, its the third chapter of your college logic textbook (Hurley's Logic) Failure to win is not the same thing as losing, plain and simple.Lets move on to the takeaways of the war.My opponent tries to make boil this down to four examples on the American part, and five on the British part. He completely ignores any other aspects of the wars conclusion, as well as again falsely equivocating these examples on either side (in his percentage breakdown)The reality is that not all war aims are created equal, and this very conflict, even some of the elements in my opponents case, prove it. If all war aims were actually equal, (they aren't) the British would have put the same premium on winning this conflict as it did the conflict in Europe with Napoleon, but defeating Napoleon was far more important. What's more, my opponent misrepresents some of the end results of the War of 1812;Objectives of the United States.Force the British Empire to renounce the right of impressment. (Failed)Incorrect, the issue of impressment was nullified by the abdication of Napoleon, and the Orders in Council relevant to the War were repealed just five days after the war was declared. More expedient trans-Atlantic communication could have prevented the whole thing altogetherForce the British Empire to renounce the right to impede American commerce (Failed)Incorrect again, this was nullified by the defeat of Napoleon. The acquisition of Canada (Failed)The battles in Canada were not so much a land grab, but for leverage on the part of the US to force resolutions to the maritime issues that began the war. The end of the Napoleonic wars made the issue moot. And there was no loss of national pride for having not annexed CanadaDefeat British Native American allies to continue westward expansion (Achieved)Here my opponent is correct, the British failed at this goal, which was the only important objective in limiting US expansion. Not only did this come out in the US favor, it paved the way to the US we see today, the "Continental US" which overall was the greatest national aim of the United States before the war and for nearly a century after.This disperses the claims made about the British achievements as well.Objectives of the British Empire.Defend Canada (Achieved)Not significant to the US. The US only attacked Canada as a fast track attempt to leverage the negotiation of maritime issues causing the war. Moreover, those maritime issues were rendered moot when Napoleon abdicated.Retain the right of impressment if needed (Achieved)Rendered moot by the end of Napoleonic French regime. Retain the right of impeding American commerce if needed (Achieved)Napoleon's abdication ended the blockade of continental Europe, and this issue was rendered moot.End the war ASAP to focus on European affairs (Achieved)False; if they had wanted to end the war asap there were any number of alternate options. Instead they (the Brits) chose to fight fire with fire when the house next door (Europe proper) was already burning down. One of the primary reasons for pursuing it was to create a buffer state between the United States and the Pacific coast of North America, which failed. Establish an Indian buffer state for their Native American allies. (Failed) Due to the Indian coalition defeat, not British.Regardless of the reasons, this British objective failed, and paved the way to the Continental United States, and for the ultimate British exit from North America by 1867 (Creation of the Dominion of Canada after two revolts in Canada against the crown, inspired the the mythology of Canadian militia during the war of 1812) Otherwise the conditions at the end of the war were the same as prior, aside from a significant lasting sense of renewed American independence from the British Empire that would shape the destiny of the United Sates for generations to come, and American fishing rights along Labrador and the St Lawrence River. Don't forget the Star-Spangled Banner!Nevertheless, the American takeaways of the war do outweigh the total positives (zero) for the Brits. And the final resolution paved the way to the Continental United States, formally recognized in a treaty with the empire just three years after, the treaty of 1818.https://en.wikipedia.org...Based on the observation that the war was by no measure a decisive win for the British, and the poor grasp my opponent has on what constitutes as win, loss or tie, the obvious choice is a negative ballot.