The Instigator
Adam2
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
The_Immortal_Emris
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

Denmark committed atrocities during the conquest of Greenland.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
The_Immortal_Emris
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/22/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,131 times Debate No: 59387
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (50)
Votes (6)

 

Adam2

Pro

I will argue for the case. First is for acceptance.
The_Immortal_Emris

Con

I accept. We will use these definitions for atrocities and conquest.

Atrocities:
a"troc"i"ty
əG2;tr"sitē
noun
plural noun: atrocities
an extremely wicked or cruel act, typically one involving physical violence or injury.

Conquest:

con"quest
G2;k"nG6;kwest,G2;k"NG-
noun
The subjugation and assumption of control of a place or people by use of military force.
Debate Round No. 1
Adam2

Pro

http://upload.wikimedia.org...
Look at Greenland from 1754 to 1885 -- notice how in the beginning the presence is Norse and limited to the coast, by 1822 and 1885, the whole island is taken over by Danish conquest. That implies that conquest indeed did happen. Has to. This is common knowledge.
Now another thing
http://en.wikipedia.org...;
(Danish atrocities)
Also lack of representation. Ruling over an entire island at their expense. That is oppression. It goes against the UN articles.
The_Immortal_Emris

Con

I. Conquest - My oponent has argued that because Norse settlers increased in number, that conquest occurred. This is not the case, as conquest requires "The subjugation and assumption of control of a place or people by use of military force".

The Danish people never used military force, as I will now demonstrate.

1.1 - Norse settlement - The Norse (Norwegians not Danish people) - discovered Greenland in the 10th century (estimated).

"when Gunnbj"rn Ulfsson, sailing from Norway to Iceland, was blown off course by a storm, and happened to sight some islands off Greenland."

During the 980s, explorers from Iceland and Norway reached the southwest coast of Greenland, found the region uninhabited, and settled there.

SOURCE: http://www.academia.edu...

There was no conquest, as the regions were uninhabited.

1.2 - The Nordic Settlements flounder due to cold

Icelandic sagas detail the voyages and explorations of Erik the Red. In the sagas, it is detailed how he was exiled from Iceland for a period of three years for committing a murder. (940 AD)

SOURCE: http://www.greenland-guide.gl...

He sailed to Greenland, where he explored the coastline and claimed certain regions as his own. There was no conquest, because the regions were uninhabited.

He then returned to Iceland to persuade people to join him in establishing a settlement on Greenland. The Icelandic sagas say that 25 ships left Iceland with Erik the Red in 985 AD, and that only 14 of them arrived safely in Greenland.

He even named the island Greenland to attract settlers, as the southern coast was virtually uninhabited.

http://en.wikisource.org...

Many of these original settlers died.

The mini ice age was very hard on the trade settlements in Iceland, and many died. Those who survived intermarried with Inuit natives from the northern icecap of Greenland.

SOURCE: http://www.academia.edu...

1.3 - The Norse settlers traded with the Thule natives in the north, they did not conquer them, and the only violence recorded between the two cultures was on the part of the migrant Thule tribes from the north.

The Norse settlers traded peacefully with the few Thule's who lived on the norther portion of the Island.

There is evidence of Norse trade with the natives (called Skraelings by the Vikings). The Norse would have encountered both Native Americans (the Beothuk, related to the Algonkians) and the Thule, ancestors of the Inuit.

There was no conquest, only peaceful trade.

There are historic accounts of raids performed by the migrating Thule (Inuit) tribes. They even took Greenlanders into slavery.

"Although Greenland seems to have been uninhabited at the time of initial Norse settlement, after a couple of centuries the Norse in Greenland had to deal with the Inuit. The Thule-Inuit were the successors of the Dorset who migrated south and finally came into contact with the Norse in the 12th century. There are limited sources showing the two cultures interacting; however, scholars know that the Norse referred to the Inuit (and Vinland natives) as skraeling. The Icelandic Annals are among the few existing sources that confirm contact between the Norse and the Inuit. They report an instance of hostility initiated by the Inuit against the Norse, leaving eighteen Greenlanders dead and two boys carried into slavery."

SOURCE: Wahlgren, Erik (1986). The Vikings and America. New York: Thames and Hudson
SOURCE: Fitzhugh and Ward, 2000: p. 336 (FOUND: http://en.wikipedia.org...)

1.4 - The Christianization of Greenland and how it became a colony or Norway

In the 12 century, Norse settlers, enamored with the Christian tradition taking hold in Europe, request a missionary.

" In 1126, the population requested a Bishop (headquartered at Gar"ar)" This bishop served under the archdiocese of Norway's Nidaros (now Trondheim) region.

Shortly after, the residents of southern Greenland agreed to be subject to the Norwegian King, though the colony retained legal autonomy.

In 1380 the Norwegian kingdom entered into a personal union with the Kingdom of Denmark. (and Sweden, though Sweden dropped out quickly)

The three kingdoms then united in the Kalmar Union in 1397. Sweden broke out of this union and re-entered it several times, until 1521, when Sweden finally left the Union, leaving Denmark"Norway (including overseas possessions in the North Atlantic, such as Greenland, as well as the island of Saaremaa in modern Estonia).

The Danes never set a single military force in Greenland. There was no conquest.

SOURCE: Wahlgren, Erik (1986). The Vikings and America. New York: Thames and Hudson.
SOURCE: http://en.wikisource.org...
SOURCE: http://www.academia.edu...
SOUREC: http://www.greenland-guide.gl...
SOURCE: http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu... (Inuit perspective)
SOURCE: http://www.tacitus.nu... (For Danish speakers)
SOURCE: http://www.sa.dk... (Norwegian)

1.5 The Napoleonic War and the destruction of the Union.

Without going into too much detail about the Napoleonic war, Denmark chose to side with France, which lost. (1801)

Copenhagen was sacked by the British, and as a result of the peace settlement with the rest of Europe, Denmark was forced to break it's union with Norway, but retained claim on their colonies.

As a matter of fact, no blood was shed to establish this deal between Norway and Denmark, it is the only territorial dispute in history to be decided by an international court (see source below)

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org...
SOURCE: http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca...

1.6 The Eksperimentet (1951)

This is an excellent example of an overreach by a government, it is also a tragic case of xenophobia which was rampant in Europe during the mid 1900's. It is not an example of an atrocity committed during conquest, as it did not occur during conquest. It is also only a single example. It also led to the peaceful independence of Greenland, just two years later, as it was widely regarded as a human rights abuse.

It was not an atrocity, which is defined as: an extremely wicked or cruel act, typically one involving physical violence or injury. And it certainly did not occur during any form of conquest.

My opponent claims Greenland had no representation, which is false:

In 1953, Greenland was raised from the status of colony to that of an autonomous province or constituent country of the Danish Realm. Despite its small population, it was provided nominal representation in the Danish Folketing.

SOURCE: "International relations". Archived from the original on 2007-02-21. (FOUND: http://en.wikipedia.org...)
Debate Round No. 2
Adam2

Pro

I. Conquest - My oponent has argued that because Norse settlers increased in number, that conquest occurred. This is not the case, as conquest requires "The subjugation and assumption of control of a place or people by use of military force".

The Danish people never used military force, as I will now demonstrate.

1.1 - Norse settlement - The Norse (Norwegians not Danish people) - discovered Greenland in the 10th century (estimated).

"when Gunnbj"rn Ulfsson, sailing from Norway to Iceland, was blown off course by a storm, and happened to sight some islands off Greenland."

During the 980s, explorers from Iceland and Norway reached the southwest coast of Greenland, found the region uninhabited, and settled there.

SOURCE: http://www.academia.edu......

There was no conquest, as the regions were uninhabited.

There's one problem with this: I'm not talking about medieval times. I'm talking about the 18th century. Obviously conquering countries (with the exception of the few Germanic states that conquered -- like the Visigothic Kingdom, the Ostrogothic Kingdom, Kingdom of Danelaw), countries weren't really conquering anyone. And when I meant Norse, I meant Greenland before Denmark took a hold of it. Yes, the Norse settlers were peaceful people who made a colony. That's not relevant though, what we're talking about is Denmark's cruel hold on it during the 18th, 19th and first half of the 20th century.

He sailed to Greenland, where he explored the coastline and claimed certain regions as his own. There was no conquest, because the regions were uninhabited.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Obviously an unfortunate lack of common knowledge shown here (and is all too common in corrupt schools). Yes there were people in Greenland, a good decent amount of people, so there was no uninhabited territories. Uninhabited territories would be places like Antartica, which are used for scientific research in the modern day.
From http://www.rnw.nl...

If Greenland had been uninhabited, which for some weird reason my opponent claims, it wouldn't be listed as an overseas territory, but rather as a research zone much like the Norwegian and British zones in Antartica.

He then returned to Iceland to persuade people to join him in establishing a settlement on Greenland. The Icelandic sagas say that 25 ships left Iceland with Erik the Red in 985 AD, and that only 14 of them arrived safely in Greenland.
Again, the Middle Ages. No Catholic country was really into conquest during those times. The only thing they did was the Crusades which was more a war than conquest.

He even named the island Greenland to attract settlers, as the southern coast was virtually uninhabited.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
See the source. Obviously this is a lack of knowledge on part of con. However, this also happened in the Middle Ages. So the Norse peacefully colonized the area, and the Inuits and Norse got along (but I'm not talking about Norway or the Norse, I'm talking about Denmark in the 19th century).

http://en.wikisource.org......


1.3 - The Norse settlers traded with the Thule natives in the north, they did not conquer them, and the only violence recorded between the two cultures was on the part of the migrant Thule tribes from the north.

The Norse settlers traded peacefully with the few Thule's who lived on the norther portion of the Island.

There is evidence of Norse trade with the natives (called Skraelings by the Vikings). The Norse would have encountered both Native Americans (the Beothuk, related to the Algonkians) and the Thule, ancestors of the Inuit.

There was no conquest, only peaceful trade.

Again, this is not about the Middle Ages. We're talking Denmark during the 19th century, when they were Protestant.

There are historic accounts of raids performed by the migrating Thule (Inuit) tribes. They even took Greenlanders into slavery.

"Although Greenland seems to have been uninhabited at the time of initial Norse settlement, after a couple of centuries the Norse in Greenland had to deal with the Inuit. The Thule-Inuit were the successors of the Dorset who migrated south and finally came into contact with the Norse in the 12th century. There are limited sources showing the two cultures interacting; however, scholars know that the Norse referred to the Inuit (and Vinland natives) as skraeling. The Icelandic Annals are among the few existing sources that confirm contact between the Norse and the Inuit. They report an instance of hostility initiated by the Inuit against the Norse, leaving eighteen Greenlanders dead and two boys carried into slavery."
That pretty much is a concession. Greenland had tribes in the north. Maybe the south was inhabited (and even then the Norse were the peaceful ones, not the Danes). Pretty soon the Inuits would come there.

1.5 The Napoleonic War and the destruction of the Union.

Without going into too much detail about the Napoleonic war, Denmark chose to side with France, which lost. (1801)

Copenhagen was sacked by the British, and as a result of the peace settlement with the rest of Europe, Denmark was forced to break it's union with Norway, but retained claim on their colonies.

As a matter of fact, no blood was shed to establish this deal between Norway and Denmark, it is the only territorial dispute in history to be decided by an international court (see source below)

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org......
SOURCE: http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca......

That doesn't prove they weren't cruel (common knowledge). What it means was that Denmark was awarded the whole of Greenland, as the map showed wasn't really Danish until the early 19th century, which was when the Napoloenic Wars. So there wasn't conquest.

1.6 The Eksperimentet (1951)
This is an excellent example of an overreach by a government, it is also a tragic case of xenophobia which was rampant in Europe during the mid 1900's. It is not an example of an atrocity committed during conquest, as it did not occur during conquest. It is also only a single example. It also led to the peaceful independence of Greenland, just two years later, as it was widely regarded as a human rights abuse.
It wasn't during conquest, because Greenland had long belonged to Denmark. Obviously this was pretty much like the atrocities the British did in India during rule.

It was not an atrocity, which is defined as: an extremely wicked or cruel act, typically one involving physical violence or injury. And it certainly did not occur during any form of conquest.
Yes it was. Colonial troops forcefully taking kids away from their families and throwing them out, destroying families singlehandedly as a divide and conquer method. That technically is an atrocity.

My opponent claims Greenland had no representation, which is false:
In 1953, Greenland was raised from the status of colony to that of an autonomous province or constituent country of the Danish Realm. Despite its small population, it was provided nominal representation in the Danish Folketing.
They had no representation before 1953 (or it could be 1979, depending on the source), because it was under the subjugation of another country. Using 1953 doesn't work because that was the end, so obviously today they fare better than they did. So technically you have a red harring here.

My opponent forgets that my case is about Denmark during the 19th century, not the middle Age Norwegians who settled. It clearly states Denmark. I even put in my first round of debate, "Look at Greenland from 1754 to 1885 -- notice how in the beginning the presence is Norse [not Danes, Norse which are from Norway] and limited to the coast, by 1822 and 1885, the whole island is taken over by Danish conquest. That implies that conquest indeed did happen. Has to. This is common knowledge." He never really refuted anything. I can't post all that you put to refute as the word limit is there. But I clearly showed you. We're talking Denmark in the 19th century.
The_Immortal_Emris

Con

1. "There's one problem with this: I'm not talking about medieval times. I'm talking about the 18th century."

The 18th century contained no conquest of Greenland, as Greenland was already a subject of Denmark via a royal marraige with Norway, each entirely peaceful.

My opponent as offered nothing but red herring arguments involving other nations and peoples, such as the Visigoth Kingdom, which is several hundred miles from Denmark, and has nothing to do with this debate.

The Visigoths also only existed from 5th to the 8th centuries, not the 18th century. The last Visigoth King ruled in what is now modern day Spain, in the 700s.

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Ostrogothic Kingdom- also ended in the 6th century, a full 1000 years before the 18th century.

There is actually no such thing as the "kingdom of danelaw" as Danelaw is a name for a regional culture, not a nation. It also left existence roughly 1000 years before the 18th century.

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org...

2. " what we're talking about is Denmark's cruel hold on it during the 18th, 19th and first half of the 20th century."

My opponent has yet to show examples of any conquest on the part of the Danes, nor has he shown any atrocities committed during the fictional conquest.

2.1 - LOGICAL FALLACY - "Obviously an unfortunate lack of common knowledge shown here (and is all too common in corrupt schools)."

Rather than attempt to refute the claim, my oponent has chosen to use the logical fallacy of ad hominem, by claiming my education is "corrupt". Again, without soures.

2.2 - " Yes there were people in Greenland, a good decent amount of people, so there was no uninhabited territories. "

My opponent has not provided a source for this claim, aside from his opinion. His picture of colonial holdings does not refute the myriad of historic accounts which state Greenland was uninhabited when the first settlers arrived.

SOURCE: http://en.wikisource.org...
SOURCE: http://www.greenland-guide.gl...

2.3 - more red herrings - "If Greenland had been uninhabited, which for some weird reason my opponent claims, it wouldn't be listed as an overseas territory, but rather as a research zone much like the Norwegian and British zones in Antartica."

My opponent here is attempting to confuse readers. He has attempted to claim that because his provided map does not indicate Greenland is currently uninhabited, that it never was uninhabited, which is not a sound argument at all.

Greenland is not considered an overseas territory,specifically because it was a nearby trade settlement, rather than a colony,The words for colony and trade settlement are the same in Danish.

"Again, the Middle Ages. No Catholic country was really into conquest during those times. The only thing they did was the Crusades which was more a war than conquest"

Likely because Erik the Red was not Christian. And the Crusades were conquest, European nations took several pieces of territory in the Holy Land.

2.4 - "see the source. Obviously this is a lack of knowledge on part of con."

My opponent uses Ad hominem and the Genetic fallacy.

My opponent has also cited wikipedia, so it is hypocritical for them to claim my citation is not credible.

3. The moving goalposts

"However, this also happened in the Middle Ages. So the Norse peacefully colonized the area, and the Inuits and Norse got along (but I'm not talking about Norway or the Norse, I'm talking about Denmark in the 19th century)."

My opponent wants to dismiss the cultural history of Greenland, because he realizes the Norse ancestral claim is very strong, and there was never any conquest on the part of the Danes.

Also, my opponent refuses to acknowledge the source which detailed the aggressive nature of the Thule/Inuit migrants who discovered the original Norse settlers.

"The Icelandic Annals are among the few existing sources that confirm contact between the Norse and the Inuit. They report an instance of hostility initiated by the Inuit against the Norse, leaving eighteen Greenlanders dead and two boys carried into slavery.""

SOURCE: Wahlgren, Erik (1986). The Vikings and America. New York: Thames and Hudson
SOURCE: Fitzhugh and Ward, 2000: p. 336 (FOUND: http://en.wikipedia.org......)

2.1 - "Again, this is not about the Middle Ages. We're talking Denmark during the 19th century, when they were Protestant.'

We are discussing the entire history of Greenland, so it can be illustrated that Denmark has never conquered or set it's military against Greenland. My opponent has yet to show a single instance where Denmark used it's military against Greenland.

2.2 - Another red herring -

"That pretty much is a concession. Greenland had tribes in the north. Maybe the south was inhabited (and even then the Norse were the peaceful ones, not the Danes). Pretty soon the Inuits would come there."

The Thule/Inuit cultures arrived in southern Greenland in the 1300's. About 500 years after the first Norse settlements. They were not native to the region. As a matter of fact, the Inuits (descendants of the Thule) Did not migrate to Greenland in large numbers until the 1800's.

SOURCE: http://www.arcticjournal.ca...

Paleo-Eskimos lived in the most northern reaches of Greenland as far back as 4500BC, but never moved to the southern coasts until the Thule/Inuit migration between 1350-1850 CE AKA the little Ice age. The Paleo-Eskimos died out due to harsh conditions. Their descendants migrated back to Greenland in the 13th century.

SOURCE: http://www.cbc.ca...

"Maybe the south was inhabited "

It wasn't, and my opponent has not shown otherwise.

3. The Napoleonic War

"That doesn't prove they weren't cruel (common knowledge). "

Claiming something is "common knowledge" does not make it so.

My opponent claims it is common knowledge that the Danish people are "cruel", yet he cannot provide sources to indicate there was any conquest or cruelty in the 17th -19th century on behalf of the Danes toward Greenland.

This indicates my opponent has a cultural bias.

"What it means was that Denmark was awarded the whole of Greenland, as the map showed wasn't really Danish until the early 19th century, which was when the Napoloenic Wars. So there wasn't conquest. "

My opponent has admitted the Danes did not commit any conquest, so there really isn't any point in continuing the debate. I will address some of their other arguments briefly, but this admission proves they already knew there was no conquest.

Further, Denmark was not "awarded" Greenland, as they already had sovereignty over the settlement via their personal Union with Norway, which was established In 1380, a full 400 years prior. They LOST claim on Norway due to siding with France in the Napoleonic war. They were not awarded anything. They were forced to cede Norway to Sweden.

SOURCE: Wahlgren, Erik (1986). The Vikings and America. New York: Thames and Hudson.
SOURCE: http://en.wikisource.org......
SOURCE: http://www.academia.edu......
SOUREC: http://www.greenland-guide.gl......

4. "It wasn't during conquest, because Greenland had long belonged to Denmark. Obviously this was pretty much like the atrocities the British did in India during rule."

A single example of a human rights violation which occurred during a time of peace is nothing compared to the brutality of England's occupation of India. England did not found India, the Norse did found Greenland. Apples and oranges.

5. My opponent repeated his unsupported claim that the spread of settlements equates to conquest.

6. "That implies that conquest indeed did happen. Has to. This is common knowledge."

The expansion of settlement was entirely trade oriented, not conquest. My opponent has no sources to the contrary. There is not a single example of violence from the Danes.
Debate Round No. 3
Adam2

Pro

The 18th century contained no conquest of Greenland, as Greenland was already a subject of Denmark via a royal marraige with Norway, each entirely peaceful.
As the map I showed you shows, foreign presence, by the Norwegians, in Greenland is, before Denmark's takeover, limited to the coasts. It's only in the 19th century, when the union breaks, that Denmark takes all of Greenland over. See the map in the first round.

My opponent as offered nothing but red herring arguments involving other nations and peoples, such as the Visigoth Kingdom, which is several hundred miles from Denmark, and has nothing to do with this debate.

The Visigoths also only existed from 5th to the 8th centuries, not the 18th century. The last Visigoth King ruled in what is now modern day Spain, in the 700s.
SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org......
Ostrogothic Kingdom- also ended in the 6th century, a full 1000 years before the 18th century.
There is actually no such thing as the "kingdom of danelaw" as Danelaw is a name for a regional culture, not a nation. It also left existence roughly 1000 years before the 18th century.
SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org......
Actually there are no red harrings. I only put those as a side note in parenteses to display some of the Germanic nation-states that conquered parts of Italy and Spain (and no they were not Christian). And yes Danelaw was indeed a Danish conquest of Britain.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.historyworld.net...

My opponent has yet to show examples of any conquest on the part of the Danes, nor has he shown any atrocities committed during the fictional conquest.
As I said before, Denmark didn't gain Greenland from an intermarriage, as, according to the map, Norse presence in the colony was limited to the coasts. Only when the Union broke up Denmark launched an invasion of Greenland, expanding territories. And yes trade can be forced. The British invaded for trade too. There was also looting of Greenland, as Denmark today contains many of the resources that originated in Greenland such as Greenlandic fish.

My opponent has not provided a source for this claim, aside from his opinion. His picture of colonial holdings does not refute the myriad of historic accounts which state Greenland was uninhabited when the first settlers arrived.
SOURCE: http://en.wikisource.org......
SOURCE: http://www.greenland-guide.gl......
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
This is anything but uninhabited.

My opponent here is attempting to confuse readers. He has attempted to claim that because his provided map does not indicate Greenland is currently uninhabited, that it never was uninhabited, which is not a sound argument at all.
Greenland is not considered an overseas territory,specifically because it was a nearby trade settlement, rather than a colony,The words for colony and trade settlement are the same in Danish.
http://www.rnw.nl...
If you had payed attention to the map, you wouldn't say stuff that's made up.

I will show what it shows here. The yellow star means "Overseas territories and countries." Greenland has a yellow star, which means it's an overseas territory, meaning colonial history.


My opponent wants to dismiss the cultural history of Greenland, because he realizes the Norse ancestral claim is very strong, and there was never any conquest on the part of the Danes.
Norse and Danish are not the same. Norse are Norwegians, and it's even possible that Norwegians might be Celtic, unlike the Germanic Swedes and Danes.

We are discussing the entire history of Greenland, so it can be illustrated that Denmark has never conquered or set it's military against Greenland. My opponent has yet to show a single instance where Denmark used it's military against Greenland.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Before the war, Greenland was a tightly controlled colony of Denmark, otherwise closed off to the world."
Tightly controlled, it says. If that doesn't showcase brutality and ruthlessness, I don't know does.

The Thule/Inuit cultures arrived in southern Greenland in the 1300's. About 500 years after the first Norse settlements. They were not native to the region. As a matter of fact, the Inuits (descendants of the Thule) Did not migrate to Greenland in large numbers until the 1800's.
See links to the historic peoples of Greenland I gave, such as the Dorset people.

A single example of a human rights violation which occurred during a time of peace is nothing compared to the brutality of England's occupation of India. England did not found India, the Norse did found Greenland. Apples and oranges.
A couple of obvious errors here. It was Britain, not England. Scotland was just as responsible for the atrocities and oppression, if not equally so. Many of the royal governors came from Scotland. Many of the officers were Scottish. So my opponent is wrong once again. If anything England was the least invovled of the two. It's stated facts that many of the lietuants were all Scottish.

SOURCE:
http://www.arcticjournal.ca......
Paleo-Eskimos lived in the most northern reaches of Greenland as far back as 4500BC, but never moved to the southern coasts until the Thule/Inuit migration between 1350-1850 CE AKA the little Ice age. The Paleo-Eskimos died out due to harsh conditions. Their descendants migrated back to Greenland in the 13th century.
SOURCE: http://www.cbc.ca......
Again this is about all of Greenland. There were more groups than just Inuits.

It wasn't, and my opponent has not shown otherwise.
Yet I have shown other tribes that were in Denmark during the 15th and 16th century, that were all over the island.

3. The Napoleonic War
Claiming something is "common knowledge" does not make it so.
My opponent claims it is common knowledge that the Danish people are "cruel", yet he cannot provide sources to indicate there was any conquest or cruelty in the 17th -19th century on behalf of the Danes toward Greenland.
See my Greenland in WWII source from the article.

This indicates my opponent has a cultural bias.
Cutlural bias basically means that something is based on truth, even if might be exagerrated, which can automatically make my opponent's argument's valid. However has not proven that I'm biased.

Further, Denmark was not "awarded" Greenland, as they already had sovereignty over the settlement via their personal Union with Norway, which was established In 1380, a full 400 years prior. They LOST claim on Norway due to siding with France in the Napoleonic war. They were not awarded anything. They were forced to cede Norway to Sweden.
See the map I put. It's obvious that the presence in Greenland was predominantly Norse, and limited to the coast, as I've said, which means they were settlements. It wasn't until after the union broke that the entire island became Danish territory.

The expansion of settlement was entirely trade oriented, not conquest. My opponent has no sources to the contrary. There is not a single example of violence from the Danes.
There's no such thing as expansion for trade. That would never happen. When a country colonizes another it's usually for three reasons -- looting them of gold, or in the case of the 19th century, resources, forced settlement, or forced trade. There can also be purchase of land, which is peaceful and respectful, but Denmark never did anything like that. Plus Denmark has troops in Greenland.
http://www.bbc.co.uk...
I have easily refuted everyone of con's arguments. Most of his arguments were about Norway and the Norse (which have nothing to do with Denmark whatsoever). I urge you'se to vote pro based on my successful argument that Denmark was indeed a brutal power. Thank you all voters for looking at this debate I put together.
The_Immortal_Emris

Con

1. The Map

1.1. - The initial Map Con presents only indicates where Norse settlements existed in the mid 1400's through present day, It does not establish that the expansion of settlements in the later centuries was via conquest. Expansion was through the peaceful conversion of the Norse/Thule pagan settlements to Christianity, as the histories support and detail.

Con has yet to show a single instance of military aggression on behalf of the Danes toward Greenland.

1.2 ", when the union breaks, that Denmark takes all of Greenland over. "

Greenland was already entirely under the rule of Denmark-Norway when the Union between Denmark and Norway was split following the Napoleonic war. Denmark retained sovereignty over the Island following the split, when they were forced to cede Norway to Sweden.

"The Danish government never forgot or relinquished the claims to Greenland that it had inherited from the Norwegians; and when contact with Greenland was re-established in the early 18th century, Denmark asserted its sovereignty over the island. In 1721, a joint mercantile and clerical expedition led by Danish-Norwegian missionary Hans Egede was sent to Greenland, not knowing whether a Norse civilization remained there. The expedition can be seen as part of the Danish colonization of the Americas. After 15 years in Greenland, Hans Egede left his son Paul Egede in charge of the mission in Greenland and returned to Denmark where he established a Greenland Seminary. This new colony was centred at Godth"b ("Good Hope") on the southwest coast. Gradually, Greenland was opened up to Danish merchants, and closed to those from other countries."

SOURCE: http://www.icj-cij.org...

1.3 "foreign presence"

The Norse settlers were not foreigners, as they settled land which was uninhabited. During the 1400's and the little ice age, they intermarried with the Dorset peoples, and became the peoples anthropologists call the Thule.

Below is a map indicating the Norse were the very first to settle Greenland, indicating they are native, not foreign.

SOURCE: http://upload.wikimedia.org...

2. (and no they were not Christian)

No one has suggested they were Christian, but the Visigoths certainly converted to Christianity.

In or around 589, the Visigoths under Reccared I converted from Arianism to Nicene Christianity, gradually adopting the culture of their Hispano-Roman subjects.

SOURCE: Dietrich Claude, in Walter Pohl (ed.) Strategies of Distinction: Construction of Ethnic Communities, 300-800 (Transformation of the Roman World, vol. 2), 1998 ISBN ISBN 90-04-10846-7 (p.119-120: dress and funerary customs cease to be distinguishing features in 570/580)

FOUND: http://en.wikipedia.org...

2.1 - "And yes Danelaw was indeed a Danish conquest of Britain. "

No one has denied the Danish and Norse vikings conquered portions of England and Scotland in the 9th century. Danelaw is not the name of that conquest, but the name given to the regions where Icelandic culture (Norse and Danish), law and tradition existed in the centuries following, and even today.

The Danelaw region was subject to centuries of territorial disputes between Saxon and Mercian tribes in the 9th through 11th centuries.
England was not a unified nation at this time either, but rather was ruled partially by Icelandic, Norse and Germanic tribes, as well as Celtic tribes.

SOURCE: "The Danelaw, as recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (also known as the Danelagh; Old English: Dena lagu; Danish: Danelagen), is a historical name given to the part of England in which the laws of the "Danes" held sway[1] and dominated those of the Anglo-Saxons. It is contrasted with "West Saxon law" and "Mercian law"."

The Danelaw was never a kingdom, but a region where Norse and Danish law held sway. It was part of several kingdoms, over several centuries but not a kingdom in and of itself as Con suggested.

2.2 - "This is anything but uninhabited."

Con has not provided a source or quote to support this claim.

"Europeans became aware of Greenland's existence, probably in the early 10th century, when Gunnbj"rn Ulfsson, sailing from Norway to Iceland, was blown off course by a storm, and happened to sight some islands off Greenland. During the 980s, explorers from Iceland and Norway reached the southwest coast of Greenland, found the region uninhabited, and settled there."

SOURCE: http://www.academia.edu...
FOUND: http://en.wikipedia.org...

3. "As I said before, Denmark didn't gain Greenland from an intermarriage, as, according to the map, Norse presence in the colony was limited to the coasts."

The location of the settlements has no bearing on whether or not the land was inherited via marriage or conquest.

Con has claimed the Danes conquered Greenland, yet cannot produce a single historic accounting of war between the Danes and Greenland.

Denmark earned claim on Greenland via a royal union with Norway.

SOURCE: "In 1261, the population accepted the overlordship of the Norwegian King as well, although it continued to have its own law. In 1380 the Norwegian kingdom entered into a personal union with the Kingdom of Denmark."
FOUND: http://en.wikipedia.org...
DANISH RESOURCE: http://www.dokpro.uio.no...=

3.1 "Only when the Union broke up Denmark launched an invasion of Greenland"

This is entirely untrue. My opponent has provided not a single source to support this claim. The Danes sent a Catholic Bishop to proselytize the settlements, they did not send any military invasion at all, and have never done so.

SOURCE: "From 1711 to 1721,[29] the Norwegian cleric Hans Egede petitioned King Frederick IV for funding to travel to Greenland and re-establish contact with the Norse settlers there. Presumably, such settlers would still be Catholic or even pagan and he desired to establish a mission among them to spread the Reformation."

FOUND: http://en.wikipedia.org...
PRIMARY SOURCE: http://books.google.com.hk...

3.2 " There was also looting of Greenland" "Greenlandic Fish"

There is no evidence of this. Denmark is the primary location where Greenland sells fish. That is the only connection to be found between the two. There is no accounting of looting, at all. Con has yet to provide any sources to prove otherwise.

4. "Greenland has a yellow star, which means it's an overseas territory, meaning colonial history."

A yellow star does not change the fact that Greenland is not considered a territory, but a sovereign nation.
This also does not establish any proof of conquest or atrocities.

5. "Norse and Danish are not the same."
This is another example of a red herring argument. This does not show proof of conquest, or atrocities.

6. "Tightly controlled If that doesn't showcase brutality and ruthlessness, I don't know does."
Not a single example of conquest or atrocities. Con has not provided a single source to support their BOP.

7. The only group which occupied Greenland in the 1900's were the Nazis and the US.

"During World War II, when Nazi Germany extended its war operations to Greenland, Henrik Kauffmann, the Danish Minister to the United States " who had already refused to recognize the German occupation of Denmark " signed a treaty with the United States on April 9, 1941, granting the US Armed Forces permission to establish stations in Greenland. "
8. The Thule were of Norse and Dorset decent, as my sources have shown.

9. My opponent ends with another example of a red herring argument, detailing British agression while unable to provide a single source of Danish aggression.
Debate Round No. 4
50 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by The_Immortal_Emris 2 years ago
The_Immortal_Emris
Thanks to all who voted!
Posted by YamaVonKarma 2 years ago
YamaVonKarma
And my vote is still here.
Posted by Natsu_Dragneel 2 years ago
Natsu_Dragneel
No idea what happened with all of the account mumbo jumbo, but I do know that adam2 likes twisting words in his favor. In other words, he can call us a worm and its completely fine. However, as soon as we call him a maggot, we are complete jerks. Oh, and everyone's statements are all wrong, but hes right. <---please be able to detect sarcasm...

Posted by Adam2
You can believe what you want. If it doesn't result in him or me getting banned, your opinions won't have any effect. So I don't care. You can drop dead and I wouldn't care either. I'm gonna be offended by YOU? lol

Ex:
Posted by The_Immortal_Emris
You certainly seem offended. You just wished death upon me.

Posted by Adam2
No, I didn't wish death. I said if you die right now, I wouldn't care.

Seriously dude? One would think that if you start a debate, you can carry it out like a mature human.
To be completely honest, you sound extremely lonely. I think that you should sit down with yourself and have a talk. Try and figure out why you are in the place you are in. This kind of blatant disrespect and pointlessly lashing out isn't the result of anonymity on the internet. It's something bigger.
Good luck sir, hope you work that out.
Posted by The_Immortal_Emris 2 years ago
The_Immortal_Emris
Yay! The fake profile vote was removed. My faith in the mods is restored!
Posted by Adam2 2 years ago
Adam2
He hasn't responded yet. Give the mods til tonight.
There's still 9 days so don't keep your hopes high
Posted by YamaVonKarma 2 years ago
YamaVonKarma
My vote is still here.
Posted by The_Immortal_Emris 2 years ago
The_Immortal_Emris
If that were the case, you would have more than one person's vote.
Posted by Adam2 2 years ago
Adam2
And I don't mean it in that way, but that I'm straightforward.
Posted by Adam2 2 years ago
Adam2
At least I'm a straight man...
Posted by The_Immortal_Emris 2 years ago
The_Immortal_Emris
And with every post you make, my advice offered earlier rings more and more profoundly.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Adam2The_Immortal_EmrisTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: You can't really commit attrosities in a conquest when there wasn't one. Con had better and more sources as most of Pros were actually from wikipeadia. Many of the arguments were dropped or were not substantially refute.
Vote Placed by Preston 2 years ago
Preston
Adam2The_Immortal_EmrisTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided actual sources not Wikipedia, he presented them logicly and applied them well, and also was appropriate and not demeaning so sources and conduct goto con. Pro didn't provide BOP, his sources were sketchy at best, they were well refuted, and that left no standing Pro arguements, so arguments goto con. Spelling and grammer goto con for pitty points, Try to use real sources next time adam.
Vote Placed by YamaVonKarma 2 years ago
YamaVonKarma
Adam2The_Immortal_EmrisTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Wikipedia is not a source! Greenland was also uninhabited. Update: Quote Adam2, "That guy explained his vote, unlike the others who spoke out their a--es. Let's see who they believe. Besides I'm too busy here enjoying myself to do anything else." Smartasses lose points. Update #2: Quote Adam2, "Still a vote bomb. You have to put personal feelings aside in the voting room. Let's see how long your vote holds up. If I think a voter is stupid I can make fun of their stupidity outside the voting. You still have to vote subjectively, dummie." Smartasses do not regain points.
Vote Placed by Rightwing15 2 years ago
Rightwing15
Adam2The_Immortal_EmrisTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Most of Pros sources were .coms and wikipedia, try to find some sources that are more reliable
Vote Placed by WillRiley 2 years ago
WillRiley
Adam2The_Immortal_EmrisTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Seems quite strange to me how much Pro cares about this Danish Conquest of Greenland. I actually looked this up the other day, and I could find almost nothing. I believe that Con has pointed out numerous holes in Pro's argument, and so should win.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
Adam2The_Immortal_EmrisTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: It is hard to commit atrocities during conquest when there *is* no conquest.