The Armenian Genocide Was By Definition a "Genocide"
Debate Rounds (3)
I believe that in definition it was indeed a Genocide.
Genocide: the systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of an entire national, racial, religious, or ethnic group.
Based on what I know the Turks were indeed trying to systematically exterminate the Armenians regardless of what the Armenians' actions were. Men, women, and children were ruthlessly murdered in cold-blood.
It also raises suspicion that the Turkish government spends millions of dollars each year trying to convince the world that this genocide never happened.
I carefully read the argument of Pro, but I didn't see any evidence for his claim (but I may be wrong, I will read it second time).
Before we start to talk about whether there was a genocide or not, we should talk about the historical conditions. So called genocide said to be started in 1915. In 20th century Ottomans were in war against whole world (Ottomans fell in 1922) in East Europe, in Africa, in Middle East, in Anatolia, in Caucausia, in Crimea, (Mediterrarian, and Black Sea included).
Up until 1850 there was no Armenian problem in Ottomans, Armenians had their autonomous communitty, led by Armenian Patriarch of Constantinopole (Istanbul).
The problem began after the treaties signed in San Stefano and Berlin in 1897, when Russia declared itself protector of all Orthodox Christians who lived under Ottomans.
Later Armenians began to uprising, and government has to suppress it, in result rebellious militia were killed, and who left alive were deportated.
Armenians claiming for genocide is like Germans claiming that Jews massacered them. Why do I say that? Because Armenians are themselves are guilty of genocide.
Here is two of them:
Quba Genocide - was done by Armenians in 1918 against Azerbaijanians, Jews, and other ethnic groups. Mass graves were found by coincidence in 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Second is Khojali Genocide, in 25-26 February 1992. You can read about it in NY Times : http://www.nytimes.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org... .
Now to the so-called genocides the Armenians are accused of committing themselves. Most genocide scholars and historians say the Armenian genocide was a genocide because it was a very wide-scale attempt to destroy an ethnicity. When the Armenian people fled the Ottoman Military continued to hunt them down across the empire. An estimated 1.5 million Armenians were murdered.
The keywords in the definition of genocide are "systematic" and "widespread". Based on these words the events that you mentioned didn't match that criteria. They were neither "widespread" nor "systematic" which means it was not genocide. The Armenian Genocide was a genocide because it was "widespread" and "systematic". While these events you mentioned were tragic they were not genocide.
The Turkish people themselves were not to blame for the Armenian Genocide just like Germans during the Holocaust. The Young Turks were the ones who were responsible just like the Nazis during the Holocaust. Which is why I don't understand why the Turkish government spends so much money to try and prove the Armenian Genocide never happened. When the United States tried to recognize the Armenian Genocide the Turkish Government threatened to shut down our embassy, military training camps, and trade relations with our country. Why so sensitive about an issue that you are willing to shut down any relation with another country. I have also read instances of Turkish Government persecution of citizens who spoke out against the Armenian Genocide. I do not understand why a government would go through all of this trouble just to keep people from speaking out against an event they claim never happened.
The reason why my argument was short, and without any sources, is because you didn't bring any evidence to support your claim.
Please give your evidence for your claim (historical documents, records) and I will post my counter-argument.
You can think or believe in anything, but that doesn't make it true.
This article from a Catholic website says that there are records within the Vatican that say the Armenian Genocide did indeed occur. Listen I do not mean any offense that might be given by this statement.
Ninety percent of the time someone is denying the Armenian Genocide it is done by a Turk or someone of Turkish descent. There would be a lot more sources and documents on the Armenian Genocide if countries could thoroughly investigate it for themselves. However, anytime a world power such as the U.S tries to investigate this event further the Turkish Government throws a fit.
Do you think the United States throws that much of a fit if a foreign government tells them that 9/11 was an inside job? The answer to that is no. The Turkish government not only denies this event happened, they are preventing other countries from gaining any information about what may have happened.
If the Turkish government is so certain that this event never happened why go through all this trouble to silence those who speak out against it?
Until Con or any other person can explain to me why the Turkish government is so defensive about this issue there is no other explanation except that the Turkish government is covering it up.
Like I said the Turkish people were not responsible for the genocide themselves, it was the Young Turks. Just because people want to recognize this event as a genocide does not mean they hold any ill will towards the Turkish people. Every nation screws up big time some where in history.
Again, please prove an evidence for your claim. Do you know what else Vatican says, Jesus is god, and everyone else will go to hell. I read an article on Vatican Insider, and I didn't see any historical document, or record to support the claim, it is just an article without any evidence. I would love to read the "Secret Documents" they are taling about. So, go and find them, then read, make an argument based on the evidence, post it, and also give the reference to those historical documents, so that I can read them and falsify them.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||0|
Reasons for voting decision: I was sorely tempted to award arguments to Pro. It's not that Pro presented a strong case, but that Con seems to have presented nothing but a call for evidence. I'm not even sure what he's negating, really--that *anything* happened? That it was *systemic*? Pro had basically mere assertion, which is rebutted through mere assertion (he had some sourcing, but...not much, and Con rightly objected). Mere assertion to the contrary is sufficient to rebut mere assertion. However, I don't think Con really, from a rhetorical standpoint, made clear what he was negating, and that's what tempts me to award arguments to Pro, who I at least knew his position. Con's objection of the Armenians committing genocide also fails, btw--it's tu quoque at best, and doesn't address the motion. But I'm nulling my vote, because I'm not sure that's sufficient to award points. As always, I'm happy to clarify this RFD.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.