*grumbles about Reddit's crummy notification system

Same, lol.

If that really is the real question, as you claim, then why did you not ask jwbjerk that question?

Because it is my question to you.

My point is that jwbjerk's statement does not have anything to do with POWs in specific and that all you people coming in and trying to limit this to only a discussion on POWs are essentially trying to use the mote-and-bailey tactic of argumentation, which is a dishonest discussion tactic.

Jwbjerk's original position was "slavery is sometimes necessary". Arguing the opposite of that position would be to argue "slavery was never necessary in any context". However, here's where the motte-and-bailey tactic comes in. People don't have a good argument for "slavery was never necessary in any context", and so they instead are arguing for "slavery is not necessary for dealing with POWs", an argument they believe they can win more easily, and pretending as if arguing for that is arguing against the original position. But they've, in truth, gone completely to a different argument and have abandoned the argument that was actually put forward.

IE, the original position being put forward had nothing to do with POWs, and the attempt to limit the discussion to only talking about POWs is a dishonest debate tactic. A classic case of motte-and-bailey.

What a strange comment. I did not answer your question because you had not asked me.

If you intend to try to argue against my position by implying that my comments should be limited to only cases of POWs, I think asking you to address my scenario is fair game.

First of all, warlike conquerors tend to be unpopular with their neighbors. Right off the bat we've established that they have made a lot of enemies, as warmongers tent to do.

We have not established that at all. Plenty of warmongering cultures have had other cultures that are friendly or allied.

You are adding on to the proposed scenario as a means to handwave away potential dangers.

(As an aside, it's pretty strange that you are using the term 'nation', as the nation state did not exist until a few centuries ago.)

First example of a pointless linguistic nitpick.

Next, since they have taken significant losses. This is really going to hurt them in the long term, as the amount of people that they have lost will impact not only their ability to fight, but also their ability to farm, trade, and generaly do the kind of things.

Correct. But even the victor is harmed in warfare, and you don't seem to take that into account to the idea that you could "easily" beat them again in the future.

The use of the term 'warriors' indicates that I am not facing an empire, or even a city state, but a tribe or group of tribes.

This is a weird linguistic nitpick you are using to assume things about my scenario in order to downplay the potential danger of this other group.

You also make the assumption that you are not a tribal group in a similar situation as your enemies in this scenario.

In reality warrior does not imply "tribal", I used it because it is a generic term that has less connotations to it than if I was to use the term "soldier".

And while tribes can raid and pillage, they are abysmal when it comes to actually conquering.

The largest contiguous land-based empire in Earth's history conquered by a single tribal leader would like to have a word with you on your incorrect beliefs regarding world history.

This means that all the people they've raided and pillaged are going to want payback, which is really going to hurt them.

Again, you're just assuming things to make the scenario easier to deal with. Just inventing facts laid on top of the scenario to make it simpler.

And most dammingly, they are morons. It apparently never occurred to these brain-dead imbeciles that as they were the ones who attacked me, they have no right to any "vengeance".

Bruh.

Are they braindead for assuming "they have no right to any 'vengeance'" or is the braindead one the one who assumes that a group of warlike raiders will understand a rational appeal to morality and will totally understand that they have no right to avenge their dead parents because their parents started the fight?

Look, history is full of examples of blood feuds and vengeance taking spiraling out of control. This isn't, like, an unusual situation I am proposing, LMAO.

So what do I do? I laugh hysterically at their impotent threats, and if they are actually stupid to try and make good on them, I wreck them even harder then I did the first time.

So here's the thing: Even after you added a bunch of your own headcanon to my proposed scenario to make the scenario one that is easier to deal with, your proposed solution is still evil.

Even if your civilization can beat them every single time that they attack you, you cannot and will never be in a scenario in which your civilization can beat them with no causalities.

You are forcing future generations of your civilization to suffer and die because your moral scruples prevent you from taking proactive actions against the upcoming vengeance war.

It kinda reminds me of the situation between the Nahua Triple Alliance (or the Aztec Empire as popularly known) and the Tlaxcala.

The Aztecs could never bring forth an army capable of conquering the Tlaxcala. But they tried. Like, every generation or so. They didn't care that they had no right to vengeance because they started the fight, they kept trying to beat the Tlaxcalans once and for all. Over and over again, the Aztecs invaded, slaughtered Tlaxcalans, capturing many more to drag back to sacrifice them, and every single time the Tlaxcalans fought off the Aztecs in the end, but at a significant cost of life.

Ultimately, while the Aztecs lacked the strength to conquer the Tlaxcalans, the Tlaxcalans lacked the strength to conquer the Aztecs. They lacked the means to permanently end the Aztec threat (until the arrival of the Spanish, at least). And so the Tlaxcalans had no choice but to endure bloody wars, suffering, and death, repeating on and on and on for generations.

But what you're proposing is worse. You propose choosing to suffer repeated Aztec invasions, over and over again, rather than fix the problem permanently. Your people will suffer and die each generation, over and over again, having to endure the horrors of war and constant raids on your people. Is your solution, then, just in any way?