Colonizing debate

Team 1
Colonization is over
It's not a personal matter
Benefits for Africa. Development, railroads, global stimulus
Africa became globalized. People were healthier and there was a population increase
Advanced irrigation, communication, and transportation,
Foreign countries wanted Africans to succeed so they paid them, gave them goods and medical treatment.
Abolished sacrificing and cannibalism, which increased life

Colonizers brought resources to colonized countries.
GNP is rising

What are the main arguments presented by Team 2?
Colonizer forced colonized to trade
They weren't equal
Cultural loss
Didn't want to help colonized, wanted the "trophy"
Isn't morally right. The colonized didn't want to be colonized and it destroys their way of life
Leads to genocide usually.
Ireland did have a good outcome.

Colonizers are just using the colonized for their benefit.
They are reducing the cultural value of the artifacts when they take them away from their country
The African people aren't of western ideals so they like their situation.


Crossfire:
J: colonized is morally right if it helps people enough. Tribes have a lot of limits. Are the benefits outweighing the cultural loss
S: no the tribe feels civilized. Why should they have to change? Do you know where the artifacts from Nigeria are being held? Great Britain in museums with captions about how they conquered them.

Crossfire two:
A: why does GDP matter?
S: it shows how the country is doing economically
A: personally seen british museum and artifacts displayed as trophies

Summary
Team 1:
Colonization helped Nigerians get to where they are today
Gave them resources
Gave them equality

Team 2:
Why does why we're here now matter
Colonizers weren't there to help colonized, they wanted to take the resources from themselves.
It's not safe in Nigeria

Grand crossfire:
Sloan: how would you say Nigeria is doing better
Shiraz: GDP. Economic growth is rising.
Alex: world bank was founded in the western country
John: there are Africans working there
Alex: doesn't matter
John: do you think Africans should be able to govern themselves.
Alex: yes they have the right. Everyone has the right to govern themselves.

Final focus:
Team 1:
Without colonization, we would still be hunter gatherers
Developed the colonies
Both started and abolished slavery
Post colonial success is obvious because British introduced recourses.
Team 2:
There is no good reason as to why they didn't reduce the cultural value or exploit them

Who won the debate? Why?
If the first part,I kind of feel like you can't beat the morality of destroying another culture's civilization, but I do feel like john argued his case better than Sloan.
In the second part, I feel like Alex's had more facts as well as talked about the morals. Shiraz talked about the development benefits, and I think he argued well. I think that Alex used the crossfire to his advantage more than Shiraz did.
In the grand crossfire, I feel like team two argued there points better.
In the end, I think that team two won because they pointed out how the culture was lost and didn't develop them for the better.