The Instigator
ClashnBoom
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Dpowell
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Spain is the worst colonizer.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
Dpowell
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/11/2015 Category: Places-Travel
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,883 times Debate No: 71472
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (31)
Votes (3)

 

ClashnBoom

Pro

Spain is the worst colonizer out of the big three Great Britain, France and Spain.

Con may argue first.

Disclaimer:I do not intend to hurt the feelings of Spanish people.
Dpowell

Con

I accept this debate and I wish my opponent luck.

Section 1:
This section will be on settlements. While the English's colonies were set up by their royalty, and the French built trading posts, the Spanish were busy on paid expeditions and conquests. If you think about, at this point Spain was doing better. The English, gained very little land but got nothing out of it. The French gained a little more land, but also gained nothing yet learned how to survive out in the wilderness. The Spanish gained tons of land, money and gold. They weren't oppressed or abandoned, they were supported. Another thing to think about is; if the Spanish hadn't stopped, or been prevented, from expanding further upward, the United States probably wouldn't exist, and we'd all be speaking Spanish, if not English. This is because Spain was one of two world powers.

Section 2:
This section will focus on population sources. Of all it's colonies, English colonists were recruited farmers, artisans, and tradesmen to sail over to the Northern parts of the New Land and colonize it. Following them were indentured servants, other useful professionals, and convicted criminals. That sure sounds like a fun place to live, especially with the criminals. The French colonies consisted of fur traders, merchants, and missionaries. The Spanish had conquistadors, soldiers and missionaries. Traders and farmers eventually followed.

Looking at these facts, you can tell that the English colonies were bred to be a living hell and unprotected, the French were peaceful and also unprotected, the Spanish on the other hand, already had a set military. They were practically ready for any thing, and no matter what was thrown at them, they probably would have over come that. The other countries weren't. A good example of this would be Roanoke: this was an entire colony that went missing in a matter of Months. Unlike the Spanish, they didn't have any one there to protect them, or help them in any way (depending on how you believe they disappeared). This probably would never have happened to the Spanish.

Section 3:
This section is about government. The English were ruled by a monarch, but do to a frugal parliament and the king being far away, they were allowed small branches of government within the colonies. Eventually this would lead to England's downfall in America. The French were solely subjects to the French king, they didn't have rights at all, they couldn't do what ever they wanted. This lead to their downfall a good several years later. The Spanish were ruled by the king through appointed government officials. Sure, looking at the other colonies you may think that this would have led to their downfall, but obviously not. In fact the Spanish rarely saw any unrest among their colonists.

Section 4:
Religion. The French and the English consisted of a wide variety of them, but the Spanish were strictly Catholic. This causes very little problems because it tends to be a little difficult for people of the same religion to disagree on the matters. In the other colonies, hundreds of people died due to the different points of view.




http://www.granburyisd.org...


http://www.nationalcenter.org...
Debate Round No. 1
ClashnBoom

Pro

My My statements:

Point number 2.
Spain's colonies today are poor compared to France and Great Britain just take a look: Frances's Colonies http://www.answers.com... Great Britain's colonies http://www.answers.com... impressed good but don't be cause here's Spain's colonies http://www.answers.com...

Point number 2.
Spain is the most cruel hers a link Black Legend http://en.m.wikipedia.org... and this http://www.animal-rights-action.com...

My arguments to your statements

Statement 1.

Your right Spain earned the most cause they took the most they treated the colonials like slaves and were greedy like Bortolom" de les Casas said in his book The History of the Indies. " The Indians... were deprived of their freedom and put in the harshest fiercest most horrible servitude and captivity which no one who has not seen can understand. Even beasts enjoy more freedom when they are allowed to graze in the fields. But our Spaniards gave no such opportunity to the Indians and truly considered them perpetual slaves."
https://m.youtube.com...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Statement 2.

As I've said earlier the Spaniards are greedy people the reason they filled the city with soldiers is not to protect the the colony but to enslave their people.

Statement 3.

Yes, they have a good system but their government is corrupted.

Statement 4.
Though I am very thankful to the Spanish for making people Christians they did it using force they hurt people who believed in another religion and it did cause the revolution in New Spain..
Dpowell

Con

Section 1:
I'd like to state that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and can not be trusted. It is extremely rare to find true information on that site. I would consider ask.com an unreliable source because you get a lot of different answers, most of which have nothing to do with the topic, and its difficult to figure out which is the correct answer.

Section 2
The Spanish economy wasn't poor. They thrived on minerals, land, farming, and slavery. This doesn't sound like economic failure. And if they did have less money than the others, they were still better off. At least the Spanish weren't taxing the life out of their people.

Section 3:
I'd like to begin this section by stating that their cruelty with animals has nothing to do with their colonies. They aren't even the only people who are cruel to animals. There are probably tons of others. And when it comes to their slaves, they weren't infamous with beating them like America was. Some of the slaves were even paid. They were paid little, granted, but some of them still made some form of currency.

Section 4:
This goes back to the last section. They treated their people well. Though my opponent still may think that, but I have to direct his attention to this... At least their "slaves" weren't considered property, but people. American thought their slaves to be tools, property.

Section 5:
Their greed doesn't make them the worst colonizers. Almost all the colonizers of the New World were greedy. Look at Britain, they came here for gold. Only gold. That seems to be more greedy than the Spanish.

Section 6:
I'd like to ask my opponent. What government isn't corrupt? Throughout history, just about every country has a corrupt government.

Section 7:
The only time they ever hurt their people was the time when they rose up against the converting. The British beat their people because they feel like it. Just look at the beginning of the American Revolution, so far its believed that the British troops fired first, if this is true, then that would mean they started the war they feared.

http://www.shmoop.com...

* Numerous history textbooks.
Debate Round No. 2
ClashnBoom

Pro

Statement 1.
Wikipedia and ask.com can be trustworthy if you double check the information which I did.

Statement 2.
Did you even watch the Youtube video I said to watch? The reason the British were taxing them highly is because they needed money for the war.

Statement 3.
Yes, I know this was just an accident. Also lots of their paid slaves died.

Statement 4.
America isn't even part of the list of colonizers a gave you.

Statement 5.
Yes, but Spain returned with the most gold so much even it caused inflation.

Statement 6.
Asking me what government isn't corrupted doesn't count as a good argument.

Statement 7.
Do you mean the Boston Massacre when they injured six people and killed five ? If so you're wrong like many hisory books the dramatic shooting is described as the spark that ignited the Revolutionary War. Perhaps one of the reasons is the loss of human lives. In reality there were several other historic milestones although less dramatic, that moved Boston towards the revolution. Townshend Acts, Stamp Act and Boston Tea Party were some of them.

One of the most interesting myths is that the scuffle on King"s street started from the accusations thrown at one of the British officers that he did not pay the wigmaker"s bill. This makes an interesting story and many of us may speculate that perhaps the most famous protest would not have occurred if the bill had been paid on time. But on the contrary to the popular myth, the British officer Captain John Goldfinch in fact settled his bill the day earlier.
Dpowell

Con

Section 1:
There wasn't always a war. The British were taxing their people heavily before and after the war. The French and Indian war lasted from 1754-1765. The British Colonies were around long before that. They started colonizing in 1607. The American Revolution started 10 years after the French and Indian war ended. That's 10 years of heavy taxation right there, and because the British wanted to. Then add the years from 1607- 1775 (not including the war). That's a long period(s) of taxation.

Section 2:
Yes. But a lot of slaves throughout history. The major cause of death for the slaves was disease. Spanish slaves actually lived longer than the slaves up North. They had better a better healthcare system, they were allowed to get married, they were allowed to buy their own freedom, and they were allowed to hide and/or run away from a cruel owner. Though the last one was rarely enforced, it still existed. The British slaves weren't a privileged, and were often killed if they attempted Either of the last two. Not to mention the Spanish slaves had a better family life than the British slaves.

Section 3:
True. Then I shall amend the statement to say British.

Section 4:
This is true, but the Dutch had is worse.

I'd like my opponent to know that I am aware that the Dutch didn't colonize America.

Section 5:
Actually it does. It is proving a point. By asking a question, I'm attacking your reasoning. This "digs a whole" in your argument. If you can't answer it, then you can't support your statement.

Section 6:
True. And by listing those events, my opponent is helping me in my debate. The Spanish didn't do that to their people, they actually cared. What my opponent said, added to my point and proved further that the British people had it rough compared to the Spanish.

Section 7:
That myth has nothing to do with the topic at hand. And if it does, its not proving anything.

Image result for spanish slaves

https://www.google.com...

http://www.historyworld.net...

https://www.google.com...

https://www.google.com...

http://www.public.iastate.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
ClashnBoom

Pro

1. The British only taxed them heavily after war.

The British only created the Townshend Acts and the Stamp Act cause they lost money on war and 10 years isn't that long.

2. The British was a great supporter of abolishing slavery.

The British even paid Portugal "750,000 to cease their trade north of the Equator

3. I'm aware of that.

4.Spain was also the one of the last countries to abolish slavery.

After the Napoleonic Wars when Britain began a campaign to end the slave trade, the Spanish were not cooperative. Spain continued to maintain slavery on Cuba and Puerto Rico into the late-19th century after slavery had been abolished elsewhere in the Caribbean.
http://histclo.com...

5. The point of this debate.

Your missing the point, most of your arguments are about Spain itself not how they colonized. I'd like to ask why the Spanish colonies are poor today.
Dpowell

Con

Section 1:
Either way, they were still heavily taxed. The Spanish did no such thing.

Section 2:
The British didn't support abolishing slavery until the early 1800's. It was officially abolished in 1833. This was a good while after the colonial era. The Spanish abolished slavery and the slave trade between the years of 1817-1820, which is obviously before the British did. Either way it happened after the colonial era.

The British tried to pay them. The Portuguese never accepted their money. The Portuguese abolished slavery on their own, they had some outside influences, but not enough to consider the Portuguese being bribed.

Section 3:
That is incorrect. The last people to abolish slavery were Great Britain, the United States, and France (not necessarily in that order). Though France was also one of the first to abolish slavery, thanks to Napoleon Bonaparte, who brought back slavery, they are considered one of the last to abolish it. In this case, Spain would be considered the second person to abolish slavery.

Of course Spain was uncooperative. They had already abolished slavery, and if they hadn't, they still would not have cooperated because the Spanish and the British have hated each other for hundreds of years.

Section 4:
The information about Spain has a lot to do with this. How the country runs tends to be the way the colonies run.

Spain no longer has hold over any of its old colonies. The British have a hold over most of it now, namely the Bahamas, but the South is almost completely free, they're poor because they broke off from the main country. When the colonies were part of Spain, they had funding and most of their economy came from exporting goods from their location to Spain. Once they revolted and broke off, or were at least granted freedom, they were alone. They had to fend for themselves. Unlike America, they probably weren't completely prepared for what came when they succeeded, either that or their leaders weren't as good as ours were, and started fighting each other within their new government(s). The reasons are numerous.

Section 5:
My opponent has failed to post resources to support a lot of his claims, so I'd like to claim that he could have been making up some information. In this case some of them may be considered invalid.
I'd like to thank the readers for following this to debate and I'd like to ask the readers to vote honestly. I'd also thank my opponent for this opportunity and I wish him luck with his future debates.


Debate Round No. 4
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Dpowell 2 years ago
Dpowell
You also should have paid attention to the part when @ClashnBoom helped me prove something.
Posted by really12 2 years ago
really12
Christopher Columbus was Spanish.
Posted by Unitomic 2 years ago
Unitomic
If you feel the vote wasn't proper, message Bluesteel about it.

By my view, none of the votes cast were thorough enough to be considered good. The RFVs were so broad that they could just as easily been used to justify voting for anyone.
Posted by ClashnBoom 2 years ago
ClashnBoom
@TheUnkown Your right but all my arguments are sourced and this was my first serious debate I didn't know people would still vote on it.
Posted by Theunkown 2 years ago
Theunkown
I mean half of pros evidence could be pulled from his backside for all I know
Posted by Theunkown 2 years ago
Theunkown
Any and all arguments being made are because of sources and historical facts, I could easily make false claims and not use sources and win the debate. Therefore the sources affect the arguments.
Posted by CyborgSuperman 2 years ago
CyborgSuperman
@Theunkown I smell a bias. You have failed to explain why Con's arguments were better than Pro's you stated he had better sources that's why there's a who had better sources option so you must explain why.
Posted by really12 2 years ago
really12
No, its highly contagious, even breathing the same air as someone afflicted with it can cause infection.
Posted by ClashnBoom 2 years ago
ClashnBoom
@Really12 What you made out with someone who was infected?
Posted by really12 2 years ago
really12
I didn't contract it from eating, it was a viral infection.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Theunkown 2 years ago
Theunkown
ClashnBoomDpowellTied
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: Opinions on who is the better and worse colonizer needs to be backed up by historical facts, as others pointed out, con had better sources so it is more likely that his historical facts are true, even if pro argued better (which I feel he didn't) cons case is likelier to be true
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 2 years ago
Midnight1131
ClashnBoomDpowellTied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Very good debate. Pro used good arguments, and refuted all of con's. Con on the other hand, used more, and better sources than pro.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 2 years ago
tajshar2k
ClashnBoomDpowellTied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did a better job countering Con's claims. I agree with Con that Ask.com certainly cannot be trusted, and Pro could have made some things up. Con provided legitimate sources.