The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
jm_notguilty
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

It's time for New York to drop the "New"

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
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 8 votes the winner is...
jm_notguilty
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/5/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,241 times Debate No: 19139
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (14)
Votes (8)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

I recently responded to an advert in a newspaper which read:

SPECIAL OFFER
New Vases
Only �9.99 each
Made in China

However, when the vase was delivered I noticed that the glaze was tarnished and, suspicious, I used the Internet to research the markings on the vase's base and discovered, much to my dismay, that far from being "new" the vase was actually made in China during the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) and I, naturally, sent it back with a demand for a full refund.

Okay, I hear you say, so what's all this got to do with New York?

Well, after the English acquired the city of Nieuw-Amsterdam from the Dutch in 1664 they renamed it New York - that was 347 years ago and, like the Ming vase, anything well over there centuries old cannot plausibly be described as "new".

That's why I propose that New York be renamed "York" and, for the avoidance of confusion, the original York in England be renamed "Old York".

Thank you.
jm_notguilty

Con

I thank brian_eggleston for instigating this ‘debate’, I hope to enjoy this and wish us luck. ◕‿◕

Case/Rebuttal:

First, I’d like to point out that an antique Chinese vase is worth more than 10 bucks {1}, if you didn’t get a refund, just be thankful and auction it in eBay.

Now, since we’re only in the usual 2-round debate, I can’t just type an acceptance, so I’ll just start with my case and rebuttals.

My opponent’s states that the ‘New’ in NYC should be dropped because anything over three centuries old can’t be ‘new’.

In 1642, the New Zealand isles were discovered by a Dutch named Abel Tasman, which he named Staten Landt, but he thought it was part of Argentina, but since it wasn’t, it was renamed to Nieuw Zeeland coming from Zeeland province of Holland, then eventually, it was now known as New Zealand. It’s over 350 years old, yet it’s still considered ‘New’. {3}

Also, in the 1500s, when Spain conquered the country of Mexico, Spanish explorer Francisco Vazquez explored the territories of North America and discovered new places and called them a "New Mexico", which is now considered a state in the USA using that name, it’s around 500 years old, yet we still call them ‘New’. {4}

Next, my opponent then argues that we rename ‘New York’ to ‘York’ and replace the original ‘York’ of New Yorkshire to ‘Old York’.

There’s a problem, if we would do that, shouldn’t we also rename a certain jurisdictions such as New Zealand to Zealand (of Denmark) or Zeeland (of Holland), and rename the original ones to ‘Old’, or rename New Jersey to Jersey and replace the (original) Bailiwick of Jersey to Old Jersey, or rename the state of New Mexico to Mexico? What would we rename the State of New York with?

It would definitely cause a huge dispute, which may end badly.

Also, there’s a big problem if we rename NYC to YC, because you see, in the state of New York, there is already a city named ‘York’ {5}, there are also dozens of cities/counties in the US named ‘York’, a few in Australia and Canada, and 3 including the original in England. {6}

We wouldn’t want to confuse Americans do we?

‘New York’ is named after the Duke of York, an honouring of his name, but since York already existed then, they just out a ‘New’ so they can tell the difference. New shouldn’t be defined as recently like 10 years ago, it’s more broad than that.

Next, consider this situation:

An Englishman says: “I’m going to New York!”

His friend replies: “Bloody brilliant!”

---

An Englishman says: “I’m going to York!”

His friend replies: “Big deal, which York anyway?”

Not only does that not sound good, but NYC’s legacy would vanish, its culture and influence forgotten, especially 9/11, the sign ‘Never forget – 9/11’ would be absolutely forgotten in vain.

New York is the greatest city in the world (at least for men) {2}, people are used to that name, and many people will claim they live in the greatest city on Earth, we don’t want that do we? Do we really want to confuse or screw up population statistics?

If we rename NYC and York, we would be stressing Wikipedia contributors on editing massive Wikipedia articles just to make things right, we would be wasting more of their time, Google will need a massive update on its search and maps, we would change documents, historical and cultural items that inscribes ‘New York’ in them.

It just burns my eyes! ^


And finally, with dozens of Yorks out there, lots of people may be confused in airports on what gate they should be in to go to the right ‘York’, this may cause possible job loss, missing job interviews, and, God forbid, it may break up a marriage.

Ergo, it's not time to rename the greatest city in the world, nor it would be, maybe in the near future when all 'Yorks' in the world would be destroyed by an earthquake, tsunami, etc. Not only that, bt renaming it would be a very, very, very bad idea.

Thank you and good luck!

References:

{1} http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

{2} http://www.politicsdaily.com...

{3} http://en.wikipedia.org...

{4} http://wiki.answers.com...

{5} http://en.wikipedia.org...

{6} http://goo.gl...

{7} http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for his very entertaining and humorous rebuttal.

First of all, I was astonished that anyone would pay �53 million for a second hand vase and when I read that I regretted sending my Ming vase back. But not to worry, I have got lots of other second hand vases that are much newer than that old Ming vase and should, therefore, fetch even more money.

Moving on to the debate proper, for one awful moment I thought my opponent was going to add New England to his examples of New Jersey, New Zealand and New Mexico, because that would have been very difficult to counter, but luckily he didn't so I don't have to. All I would say is that they should be renamed Jersey, Mexico and Zealand and and the originals renamed Old Jersey, Old Mexico and Old Zealand.

The fact is that there is already a lot of duplication in place names in America. Take, for example Washington. George Washington has both a city and a state in America named in his honour so if an American walked into a travel agency and asked to book a vacation in Washington intending to visit the White House he could end up in Seattle. He may, even, find himself in the village of Washington in the north east of England (1) where George Washington's family originally took their name.

So yes, there is a potential for confusion but a minor clarification should ensure that a tourist wishing to visit medieval buildings, amble around antique shops and consume cream teas would not, by some misunderstanding, find themselves among skyscrapers, dodging deranged taxi drivers and eating salt beef and bagels.

I didn't mention in my original argument that both the city and state of New York should be renamed "York" so, for example, the New York Palace Hotel's address would become:

York Palace Hotel,
455 Madison Avenue,
York.
York.
USA.

Much shorter and simpler, don't you agree?

In conclusion, the "New" in New York is no longer required and an unnecessary addition to the city and states' names and should be dropped.

Thank you.

(1) http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk...
jm_notguilty

Con


Thanks Brian for the response.


Readers, we’re in the last round, as you finish reading this post, you will realize that in all seriousness and silliness, you gotta vote for the CON.


About the vase, it’s nice to know that a DDO presidential candidate is going to be rich, might as well use the money and enhance this site? Probably put on a troll-security and stuff. :P


Now, moving on, it’s really a shame, damn, about not mentioning New England, curse you Wikipedia suggestion search!


But anyway, my opponent still insists that we rename the places with ‘New’ in them with the name of their original origin. Again, my points about the disadvantages of this kinda stand.


But one flaw from PRO, based on the sources I mentioned in R1, New Zealand got its name from Zeeland, a province in Holland, my opponent insists that we take out the ‘New’ so it would be Zealand instead, but Zealand is an island in Denmark, where the capital is, do we really need to affect an innocent place just because of a name?


And do we really need to create a feud between Mexico and US? Isn’t the immigration fiasco already enough of a dispute?


On my opponent’s next contention about the Washington’s, it may be true that a not-so-American American might be on the wrong ‘Washington’, but come on, a travel agency making this laughable mistake? They’re is not that lame. And just want to point out that the White House is in Washington D.C., so there’s no need for some confusion.


Next, my opponent argues a potential on the confusion, but would you rather be in a polluted urbanized city with protesters around filled with muggers and exploding buildings or would you rather be in peaceful Europe where your wife and kids is waiting for you (assuming, hypothetically). But come on, again, there are tons of ‘Yorks’ out there, especially York, New York.


My opponent lastly states a simplified address of a luxurious hotel, but come on, taking out 3 syllables is simplified? Na-uh, that’s just lazy. :P


Haha, so again, thanks Brian for this funride of a debate, I hope to debate you again soon.


Voters, do your thing!


Debate Round No. 2
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TimmyFitz 3 years ago
TimmyFitz
I'm pretty sure the new in New York doesn't bother anyone.
Posted by VengeWarlock 5 years ago
VengeWarlock
this makes no sense. You are stating that a city should drop part of its name just because you bought crappy stuff? the reason it is called New York, is because during the colonization of America, the british people who first settled New York named it after their city named York.

have fun debators...
Posted by VengeWarlock 5 years ago
VengeWarlock
this makes no sense. You are stating that a city should drop part of its name just because you bought crappy stuff? the reason it is called New York, is because during the colonization of America, the british people who first settled New York named it after their city named York.

have fun debators...
Posted by VengeWarlock 5 years ago
VengeWarlock
this makes no sense. You are stating that a city should drop part of its name just because you bought crappy stuff? the reason it is called New York, is because during the colonization of America, the british people who first settled New York named it after their city named York.

have fun debators...
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
I vote for con. You will just have to imagine it is official. I am done with having to defend every single RFD I post. It aint worth the trouble. All 7 points to the winner, the way it should be.
Posted by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
Orlandy, you gotta realize brian_eggleston is debater famous for his humor, hence this debate.
Posted by Orlandy 5 years ago
Orlandy
Aff (Pro)
First of all most people would see your comment about returning a vase that is over 3 century year old that you purchased for only £9.99 just because it is not "new" as either A) a lie or B) it is just a fake especially 1 from the ming dynasty
Next Did you seriously believe that the York of England would seriously change there name to Old York just so American can called there city York what about all the other York's in the world should they all be called Old York's
Third You should write a better argument with many reasons as to why we should drop the New off of New York
Finally you should give evidence as to why you believe wether or not New York is New or not because different items have a different standard of being new or not such as a car once you drive the car off of a Car dealer Parking lot it is no longer new and diminishes in value but if you are debating while a territory is new or not that could be tricky such as debating weather or not the Earth is New When being compared to the Universe the Earth is New but when being compared to the a human life or even civilization then the Earth is old so saying something is 100 years old does not necessarily make it old but you can say something along the line that the vase is not necessarily old but then again it is not fresh out of the factory such as the State of New York. Also Going back to Different items and time, A vase is not the best thing to compare to the name of a piece of land or territory

take the vase an antique dealer and get it apprised
don't judge people ability to debate based on there age and race unless this person is Asian because they are very intelligent no matter there age - i am not Asian I find it best to look at there confidence level if possible such as the for females the better they are dress usually the more unsure they are of the material but for males the better they are dress the more confident and thereposture like rocking back and forth or shaking or unsteady
Posted by Debater17 5 years ago
Debater17
LOL You sent a 400 years old antique back for £9.99? GENIUS
Posted by RoystonDA 5 years ago
RoystonDA
Completely agree that the name change should not be done. It's just what everyone knows it as and have gotten used to. Changing it would only cause confusion and hassle.
Posted by Kinesis 5 years ago
Kinesis
Wow, great response!
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by innomen 5 years ago
innomen
brian_egglestonjm_notguiltyTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Never looked at that way. Had Brian not suggested changing the York in England to Olde York, that would have had me go to con, but now that i think about it, i like the idea of York and Olde York. Although i don't want anyone to take away New England.
Vote Placed by bozotheclown 5 years ago
bozotheclown
brian_egglestonjm_notguiltyTied
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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Lolcats says, "MEOW!!!"
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
brian_egglestonjm_notguiltyTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I also agree with the reasons previously answered by others before me.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
brian_egglestonjm_notguiltyTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: see the below reasons
Vote Placed by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
brian_egglestonjm_notguiltyTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: I do believe the "I <3 Y" shirt was reason enough.
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 5 years ago
Rockylightning
brian_egglestonjm_notguiltyTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had funnier arguments, con had more coherent ones...
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
brian_egglestonjm_notguiltyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: This was quite funny on both sides. Good job both of you, you provided an entertaining read. I really wish JM brought up New England though. I would like to have seen Brian's response.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
brian_egglestonjm_notguiltyTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: As jim_notguilty said, no one would want to get confused between regions of the same name....even with a little help from the tourists....One point for good conduct, but one victory to Con for the overall, stronger case...