The Instigator
yhubin
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ToastOfDestiny
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

The Crusades were an Invasion

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 7/9/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,946 times Debate No: 8920
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

yhubin

Con

I would first like to thank my opponent for accepting the debate, i will let my opponent start the debate as he is pro the idea of the crusades being an invasion
ToastOfDestiny

Pro

Thank you, yhubin, for starting this debate.

I'll start off with some definitions.

The Crusades[1]
1) A series of religiously-sanctioned military campaigns waged by much of Latin Christian Europe. The specific crusades to regain control of the Holy Land were fought over a period of nearly 200 years, between 1095 and 1291

invasion[2]
1) An act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, esp. by an army.

There are a two definitions of invading that are pertinent.
invading[3]:
1) To enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent.
2) To enter as if to take possession.

By simply defining the terms in the resolution, we see that the Crusades were invasions. They were attacks by Christian Europe on Middle Eastern land, in order to take it over. Europeans entered the Holy Land with hostile intent, to take possession of it.

I look forward to my opponent's arguments.

Resolution affirmed.


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
yhubin

Con

i would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate...

i wish that by laying a couple of definitions, we can justify whether the Crusades were an invasion or not, but in-order to find that out, one has to observe and analyze parts of History

in 1095 the Byzantium Empire sent a message of needed help to the Pope Urban the second to help the Byzantium empire repel the Seljuk Turks, the call for aid led to the pope calling for a crusade as, Jerusalem, and the holy land, was occupied by the Turks... the goal of the crusade, (and this is what people tend forget, is the freeing of the eastern christians from the rule of the Islamic Turks and also to recapture the holy land)

Before the Seljuk Turks got hold of the Holy land, the Arabs were kind and open minded towards the visiting pilgrims. but when the Turks took over, they denied the rights of pilgrims to enter and also killed and executed them if they tried to enter. this led to the Papal States not only to aid the Byzantium empire, but to re-conquer the holy land, to allow pilgrims their rights to enter the holy land

The aim for the crusade as i mentioned before was not to invade the holy land, but to re conquer it, and give back the rights to the christians pilgrims to enter the Holy land with out being killed or hanged..

http://en.wiktionary.org...
define reconquest
"the process of conquering a previously lost land"

looking forward to my opponents arguments

http://en.wikipedia.org...
ToastOfDestiny

Pro

My opponent's argument can be summarized as one point:

-The Crusades were not an invasion, but an attempt by Christian Europe to re-conquer the Holy Land, and aid the Byzantine Empire.

<>
-However it is nearly impossible to conquer a land without first invading it. The Crusades could be a re-conquest, but that doesn't mean they aren't an invasion.

For Con to win this debate, he has to show that the Crusades were not one of the following:

1) To enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent.
2) To enter as if to take possession.

Christian Europe forcefully entered the Holy Land to boot out the Turks. This is hostile intent. They entered to take possession of the Holy Land.

Now let's define conquest. My opponent does so, but the definition uses the word 'conquer', making it worthless without a definition of 'conquer'.

conquest[4]
1) The act or process of conquering.
2) Something, such as territory, acquired by conquering

conquering[5]
1) To defeat or subdue by force, especially by force of arms.
2) To gain or secure control of by or as if by force of arms.

The second definition of conquering is more suited to the situation here - that's what Christian Europe was trying to do. Now, 'gaining or securing control' is the same as 'taking possession of'. 'By force of arms' is analogous to 'forcefully'. As you can see, the definitions of 'invasion' and 'conquest' are very similar; they are almost synonyms.

Because the Crusades, even if they were a re-conquest, required an invasion, the Crusades were an invasion. Vote Pro!


[4] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[5] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 2
yhubin

Con

yhubin forfeited this round.
ToastOfDestiny

Pro

My opponent has forfeited. He also never showed why a re-conquest cannot be an invasion.

I, on the other hand, show that the Crusades were an invasion. Remember:

invading[3]:
1) To enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent.
2) To enter as if to take possession.

Christian Europe did both of the above when attempting to conquer the Holy Land.

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by critterrice 8 years ago
critterrice
yhubinToastOfDestinyTied
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 
Vote Placed by ToastOfDestiny 8 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
yhubinToastOfDestinyTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05