The Instigator
Sonofkong
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mirza
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

I can make a better alternate history my opponent

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,384 times Debate No: 14714
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

Sonofkong

Pro

I challenge my opponent to create an alternate or counterfactual history that is better and more realistic than mine. I expect the vote to be an even balance of the two but any alien space bats or any extremely implausible happenings will disqualify a debate. You cant claim that Napoleon was in possession of a UFO but must rather have a logically point of deviation and a history in whatever form they wish.
Round one will consist of the standard meet and greet while the second consists of the actual history (you may appeal for more time in round 3.) round 3/4 to 5 consists of us finding holes, making corrections or overall criticism.
I urge my opponent to go along with me by sending a link to the factual account of what happened or a description for the audience viewing at home.
Voters should disregard the who I agreed with before the debate button.
Good luck to my opponent and good luck to those with naught better to do than stomach some obscure forum texts, never to be seen again.
Mirza

Con

Thank you, sir.

I accept the criteria. I will set up an argument with evidence of a historical identity... Or, perhaps it wasn't an identity as we all think it was...

More to come...

Warning: Not recommended reading for emotional souls.

Debate Round No. 1
Sonofkong

Pro

Here you go. A showing of how the balance of empire can flux. i think I may have to do it in 3 parts as it truly is an epic.
300 BC: An obscure law is passed tightening restriction on the destruction of any fortress in the roman republic. Beyond your omniscient narrator it is unknown to history.
218-195 BC: Hannibal surrenders himself to the Romans due to his father's famous blood oath not existing thanks to the fact he was made dumb after an arrow from a fortified tower. He is kindly escorted to the palace where he and his rival general Scipio Africanus become good friends. Hannibal's legions will be used to take control of most of Gaul.
191 BC: Hannibal is allowed governorship of Carthage as a separate vassal of Rome, (similar to what Byzantium would be.)
185 BC: Hannibal is assassinated along with his son who's own child Honorius Ba'al is unfit to rule due to the fact he's a few months old. Regents friendly to Rome take control until he is mature at 16.
172 BC: Before the upstart Honorius can gain power his regents make Carthage a full roman province yet the political situation stays roughly the same.
138-136 BC: After years of taxation Hannibal's grandson Honorius Ba'al assembles a secret elite team of soldiers to declare an independence of sorts. They dispatch of any occupying imperials and conquer up to Gaul.
135 BC: A think-tank of generals pushes Honorius to lower Spain where a massive fortress in what is now Narbonne. Like Hadrian's Wall it makes a boundary which contains Carthage yet is occasionally conquered by both teams with elaborate walls and traps built on both sides. Due to the very first point in the time line the Romans can't destroy the defenses on their side. The Carthaginians gleefully pick-up roman Ballistae and nail them to their own fortifications. Knowing the Romans won't be able to pull them down.
70 BC: Carthage stops expanding south to Africa. It is a solid line as far south as Algeria yet leaves the eastern border such as what is Ethiopia and Egypt alone.
44 BC: Due to lack of roman interest in creating a "Roman lake" after Ceaser's assassination Mark Antony never comes even close to Cleopatra and instead becomes Ceaser's successor, lying about a relationship between the two, which will go down in history as true. Egypt is never attacked but becomes a pacifist nation carrying Ceaser's blood and becomes an extremely close ally with it's "Brother rulers." Cleopatra's dreams of conquest though, are never realized as the aging queen leads instead a pacifist trading state.
37: Jesus of Nazareth is not crucified by Romans (who honestly don't care about such far off colonies and around this time meet their peak northern border just south of Scandinavia) but instead is stabbed to death by Judas Iscariot. Although persecuted Martyrdom is much rarer as Christianity thrives in Judea and much of the middle-east, moving to Europe much slower and steadier, yet becoming roman state religion in about the same manner and time span. The fish becomes the de-facto symbol of Christianity although the knife of Judas and star of David are popular religious symbols.
75: The Egyptian and Carthaginian borders converge at Tripoli and Chad. War is started and Khopeshes are often seen on horseback raiding Carthaginian caravans or vice versa.
150: Ethiopia is introduced to Christianity where it becomes state religion as much earlier than the standard time line as it has become a wealthy, more globalized trading giant with Egypt. They repay the favor by leading the occasional sack of an Egyptian city for its wealth and soon become powerful enough to rule most of the horn of Africa and eastern Sudan.
180-197: The world famous roman voyages of Dominicus start. He voyages to India and Persia with several tons of metal trinkets and sells them to local rulers for many times their worth in raw materials. Interest is raised in trading and middle-easterners become more efficient in war from copying down European plate armor and the image of an Arab warrior morphs from a cloth laden rider to an insidiously intricate armor set marching into formation with fast horseman circling the enemy.
237: After immense popularity in Italy, Christianity is declared a state religion by Caesarian Aurelius Antonius although some form of a papacy has already been erected in Jerusalem. Christianity is never associated with Rome or the Latin language but rather Aramaic. Due to a lack of martyrdom the church is far different from Catholicism and guilt is rarely present. Original sin ceases to be a theological idea.
239: The Egyptian royal family of Ptolemy, being close "relatives" converts to Christianity also. The Ethiopian war ceases due to common belief and a crusade against Carthage is due.
241: First roman soldiers pass their Spanish border and "liberate" the (now indistinguishably Carthaginian) Iberians. Opportunistic Scandinavians raid the German outposts and the roman front falls as all the soldiers retreat to save their families. Similarly the Ethiopians and Egyptians attempt attack but are beaten off as Roman reinforcements fail to come. If anything Carthage gains territory while the Allies lick their wounds.
265: Egypt joins the Roman Empire, still recognized as a foreign state the two nations share an economy and have open borders. Germania and Britain succeed in getting a similar privilege, roman consuls ruling Britain and the Germanic head tribes being reinstated with a new political role. The core roman empire consists of Gaul, Southern Germany, Greece, Italy, Eastern Europe and an insignificant part of Spain. Egypt is given the western edge of Arabia and Anatolia as a gift.
290: Carthage recedes its southern border after coming to the conclusion there is nothing but desert. They in fact stopped just before a large range of temperate forests and mines. They have already displaced several African tribes south or brought them home as slaves. None of the west African peoples such as the Mali are to come to be. The area is essentially barren.
290-320: Ethiopia takes advantage of a niche and conquers the area abandoned by Carthage. Carthage is essentially boxed in, leaving no room to expand and they desperately send ships out to the Mediterranean. Some are raiding parties; a few conquer the rest of Spain so coveted, while the largest forces conquer Sicily. They occupy it for a few decades but are repelled. With no threat beyond the occasional eastern or Scandinavian raider they push to Spain but the fortress at Narbonne is impassable due to a barrage of Ballistae fire.
300: To commemorate the 300th year of our lord, Rome admits Ethiopia to its empire as a distant brother and a society academics call the western union is born. To be more manageable Ethiopia splits into 3 roughly equal parts, the farthest west consisting of troublesome territories is strip-mined of resources and left to its fate. It allies with the Carthaginians.
375- 425: Huns attack marching to Rome through eastern Europe in blitzkrieg fashion staving off soldiers to all of eastern Europe, Greece, Northern Italy and a good portion of Germany. The soldiers rally with the eastern empire and lead a reconquest, permanently leaving these provinces to the east while western Rome is left with the table scraps. The Huns rotate to china where they renovate the great wall to a uniform barrier. These vermin are dissolved in a matter of decades and Asia is safe for a matter of centuries.

0 characters at the end of this sentence.
Mirza

Con

Adolf Hitler
was a wolf

Introduction

Surely, you know that the historical character, Adolf Hitler, was a warmonger - a frightful one indeed. Biographies written about him state that he was born in an Austrian town named Branau. That was on April 20, 1898. Hitler had to live a somehow tough life, such as by sleeping on parks, and failing at academics. In the year 1913, he attended the German army, which happened after he migrated to Germany. He wilfully fought alongside Germans during World War I.

During the Second World War, Hitler was a brutal dictator. He hated people who were not of his kind, and he also hated gypsies, Jews, etcetera. As a matter of fact, he hated almost all peoples in the world, except the Aryan race. Now, why did Hitler hate so many peoples, and why did he want to expand his territory? Why was he being pleasant only toward his kind? And, why did he use very rare and truly inhumane methods of slaughtering people? That, dear readers, will be explained soon.

Arguments

1. Meaning of Adolf

If you analyse, the first name Hitler had was "Adolf." What does that name mean? According to many sources, [1] the meaning of Adolf is "noble," "majestic," or "honorable" wolf. How could it have been a coincidence that Hitler had the name of a wolf? Not only wolf, but "majestic wolf" - and it is not disputed that Hitler rushed toward achieving a majestic status in the year 1934 - and he succeeded in that.

2. The nature of a wolf

Wolves are well-known creatures. They are one of the most vicious land predators. Wolves are one of the most horrid species when it comes to territory. They will do whatever they can in order to expand their territories, and they tolerate naught but their own kind. The species that pose the greatest threat to their territory and own kind is homo sapiens, i.e., humans. However, as much as wolves are powerful and dangerous, they do not hesitate to hide their nature. In fact, at first you see a creature that seems soft and small. But once it unleashes its rage, you are as good as dead.

That being said, the social structure of wolves is fascinating. They are divided into beta and omega wolves, meaning high ranked and low ranked ones. Although this is not too rare in the nature of animalia, it is still unique in the sense that wolves not only divide themselves into social categories, but they also have rulers to be obeyed, and rules to be followed. A violation of those can become fatal.

What is also interesting is that although wolves have strong urges toward expanding their territories, they avoid attacking (i.e., hunting) within the territories that do not belong to them, due to the fact that they would rather not encounter too many enemies at once. So, what do they do? Establish partherships. Moreover, there is no doubt that wolves do not hang around the same territories over and over again (due to expansion), and therefore they usually have to plan their attacks on victims too quickly.

Moreover, one of the animals that the wolves do not like at all are bears. Encounters with them can be one of the worst between two land animals. Both fight to the death, and it is usually not one on one, but many on many. However, the wolves do not fear the bears. They attack them without warning no matter what size the bears have.

3. The correlation between the nature of Hitler and wolves

Now, what is the correlation between the nature of Hitler and the nature of wolves? Besides something a bit less natural, i.e., Hitler's first name, here are too many connections between Hitler's nature and the wolves' nature. In fact, the chances that a human has so many connections to an animal, without himself being an animal (which seems like a contradiction), are minimal, or below zero. So, what kind of connections do we see between Hitler and wolves, and what do those connections tell us about their nature? Do we see something that has been unknown to humankind for ages upon ages?

If you analyse, wolves are very fast and aggressive animals. Their movement seems slow, but once they turn on their rage, they have some of the most aggressive and fast movements that we know. Once their rage is on, there is nothing that can sedate them. If you look at some of Hitler's speeches, you will realize that he made movements which resemble to animal but a wolf. Aggressive with speech, fast with movement. Compare http://en.wikipedia.org... to http://images.suite101.com....

Howver, due to many activities, I have to cut my round short, and therefore I ask my opponent to continue with his story and not comment on mine whatsoever. I will come with full evidences and explanations soon. Thank you for your understanding (and beware of wolves...).

References

[1] http://www.thinkbabynames.com...

Debate Round No. 2
Sonofkong

Pro

Sonofkong forfeited this round.
Mirza

Con

Hitler
was a wolf - Continuing!

We continue. Now, take a look at this image: http://upload.wikimedia.org... If you observe, this map is very similar to a map of Axis powers during the Second World War. http://www.flatrock.org.nz... If you analyse, Hitler's goal was to establish the greatest Third Reich. He wanted to occupy Soviet Union, Europe, and other parts of the world with his ally powers.

The first map shows a red color, and it indicates where wolves are extirpated, i.e., totally annihilated. The term "extirpated" used to describe something is very serious. It is not simply the same as "no longer existent." It is used most correctly in a context when something has existed, but annihilated by the most vicious annihilation we wish to imagine. If you analyse further, the green color on the first map is exactly where Hitler's main enemies had shelter, i.e., control of the areas.

So, what does the red area indicate? It shows where Hitler had very strong hold. His army almost occupied Paris, which makes it valid to have France painted "red" in the map, and the red color indicates either or both of the following: (a) Hitler had control of the areas, or (b) Hitler's forces were present in the areas, but did not necessarily have full control of them. Japan, for instance, did not have much contact to Hitler's troops, but clearly Hitler had a strong bond to the Japanese people since they all belonged to the Axis, and Japan was one of Hitler's strongest allies in the Second World War. Also, it is not surprising that America is painted red in the first map, since it is very plausible that both the Japanese and the Germans had spies or some observation-methods in that part of the world. It falls under the category of (b) as I described above.

Now, if we take a look at the second picture (i.e., map), we can see that it perfectly fits the first map. The red color of the second map is compatible with the red color of the first map. The only major - or only - difference between them is that the first map shows where wolves used to live (also, I am referring to gray wolves since they best fit the description of Hitler), while the second map shows where the Axis forces were present at a specific point during the Second World War.

However, we all know that this is no longer true, i.e., the forces that painted the map red are no longer existing. Nazism is no longer in control of Germany. And gray wolves are no longer present in the red areas on the map(s). Is this unimaginable correlation a mere coincidence? We need to ask ourselves, how come that the wolves were present in the exact same areas that Hitler had some sort of control of, and he tried to occupy the areas where they are present now? Who says that he lost his war? He did, in fact, not hesitate to kill himself. Why so? If he was indeed a wolf - which all evidence points toward - then it is totally logical that he would kill himself in his human form, and then flee to the areas where his forces could not take full control. That is why in the entire Russia, except in Moscow (which he feared a lot), the presence of wolves is extraordinary. Is this a coincidence? No.

To be continued...

Debate Round No. 3
Sonofkong

Pro

Sonofkong forfeited this round.
Mirza

Con

Hitler
was a wolf - Continuing!

Now, there is a myth going on that Hitler was a vegetarian. This myth, however, presents few facts, but the question is, why is this myth even alive? Why would such a myth be existent when we all know that Hitler was a brutal murderer? This was due to his hidden nature. If you analyze the nature of wolves, you will find truth in that they try to appear as vegetarians, or in other words, peaceful creatures. However, there is no doubt that the truth about them gets revealed not long after they unleash their rage. A similar fashion can be attributed to Hitler, because he did eat meat, but as much as he made nearly all his actions apparent to everyone, this one - among some secret others - was not as apparent. Compare this to how wolves try to hide the fact that they are not vegetarians.

Moving on, if you look at mythology, the gray wolf has had a very high status, particularly in Japanese mythoogy (and the Japanese had great ties to Hitler). http://en.wikipedia.org... Now, unless my opponent returns, I will establish the final evidence for the fact that Hitler - was a wolf.

Debate Round No. 4
Sonofkong

Pro

Sonofkong forfeited this round.
Mirza

Con

Mirza forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by WorldWar2Debator 3 years ago
WorldWar2Debator
Anyone notice that Adolf Hitler was born on April 20th 1889, not April 20th 1898? Doh at Con, lol.
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
I will accept regardless.
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
Was my question right or wrong?
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
Can you confirm this, please?
Posted by Sonofkong 6 years ago
Sonofkong
Sry, accidentally posted debate instead of alternate history for a short while.
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
The debate is to make up something regarding history and try to argue for it evidentially, and make it seem realistic, as if it actually was true? Or, is it something counter-factual, as with "what would happen if Hitler was never born"?
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
O.o what is this?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Scyrone 6 years ago
Scyrone
SonofkongMirzaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro posted once. Con posted until she was done and left Pro in the dust.
Vote Placed by innomen 6 years ago
innomen
SonofkongMirzaTied
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: Nice creativity mirza
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
SonofkongMirzaTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Fairly obvious.