The Instigator
msoshima54
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
robzilla180
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points

The Crusades were simply a series of war crimes committed by the Christians

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: 12/14/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,288 times Debate No: 417
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (14)
Votes (13)

 

msoshima54

Pro

Approximately 9 million people died during the crusades and it led to the constant violence occurring in the Middle East today. Muslims now completely mistrust Christians and relations between the "West" and Middle East have been ruined forever.

The Crusaders killed Jews, Muslims, and even other Christians during this series of Holy Wars. It was really the first Holocaust as entire Jewish communities were wiped out in Europe simply because they were not Christian.
robzilla180

Con

1. The constant violence in the middle east is due to...Islam...
2. Peace in the middle East is ruined because Islam does not allow for peace with other unbelievers.
3. let's see some evidence as to whether or not Crusaders killed Jews muslims and other Christians. BTW, this evidence may not come from the biased movie, "Kingdom of Heaven"
4. as to the Jew communities, see number 3.
Debate Round No. 1
msoshima54

Pro

msoshima54 forfeited this round.
robzilla180

Con

I'm an honorable debater. I purposely forfeit this round because I've been in the same situation as you are in. I propose we start this debate over. Copy and paste what you said in you first argument, and I will do the same and we'll go from there.
Debate Round No. 2
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by IStreamLineInformation 3 years ago
IStreamLineInformation
I think Msoshima should read more up to date books on the Crusades. His position is weak. The schism had very little to do with actual crusade warfare. The main issue is Western Christendom themselves, and who actually went on the Crusade. Bohemund was no religious fanatic out to spill Saracen blood, neither was Raymond, nor Baldwin. Each were poorer knights who needed land to support themselves because they did not have any money. Furthermore, the Saracens relied on conquest to stimulate their far reaching trade routes. Because Saracens could not travel the desert into central Africa (tribal warfare halted this for a long time) the only way to go was north up into the European Mediterranean coastline. Pro, has some "Facts" correct but he doesn't addresses any of the real issues during the crusade. Knights needed to stop European warfare, Byzantines needed help against Seljuk Turks, and individually most sought to personally increase their wealth. But bloodshed was a tit for tat on both sides, the Saracens were not teletubbies, they saw Europeans as inferior beasts with little cultural identity (partly because Muslims were so far advanced in medicine, and intellect). Frankly, they saw the crusades as a minor nuisance within their huge empire, Baghdad was by and large a long ways away. The Fatimids were probably more intently concentrated on the holy land because their capitol in Cairo was threatened by Seljuq, AND Byzantine dream t empire along the Mediterranean. Thus, the Fatimids also helped slaughter many Muslims during the fall of Jerusalem in 1097. The Crusades had more to do with person interest than most other popular views on the crusades. For instance, a huge historiography debate going on in the field right now is the divide between scholarly views, and popular views on the crusades. Many non scholars have been influenced by BBC documentaries, or movies that reflect anti-crusade inhibition, whereas scholars assert the universality of crusade warfare.
Posted by msoshima54 9 years ago
msoshima54
Sorry.. I forgot about all my debates for a couple days..been busy. Thank you for being considerate though. I'll be glad to continue this with you at another time.
Posted by mrpresident 9 years ago
mrpresident
Christendom had stood by and watched the banner of Islam triumph again and again, take city after city, subjugate Christian after Christian for 450 years. No one new this better than the Byzantines, who would spend the better part of it's 1100 year history as the defender of Christendom, the gateway between East and West, who had lost the most at the hands of the Prophet's followers. Jihad is the supremely stated mission of Islam, embodied in the holy Qur'an.

Sura 9, Verse 29: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

This is how and why they expanded so quickly into an empire merely 200 years after the death of Mohammed. Mohammed himself led his final battle before his death against the Byzantines, and urged his followers to contend with them first on his deathbed. He had sent letters to the heads of all nations he knew of, calling them to Islam. This means Islam had no intentions of stopping at the edge of Arabia. Persia and Byzantium had fought each other into mutual decline, so it was difficult for them to resist this terrible onslaught. Jihad against the Byzantines had been the status quo for 450 years. It wasn't suddenly invented as a defense against the Crusaders. The Crusades were the real defensive conflict. If Byzantium fell, the Muslims would not have stopped at the gates of Constantinople.. Something had to be done. The fate of Christedom was at stake.

I'm anxious to hear your response.
Posted by mrpresident 9 years ago
mrpresident
Ah, I' a moron, am I? Only fools resort to childish taunts. I said you had no knowledge of history because you said nothing to support anything you said. Since you are an ex-Christian, I find it unsurprising to knwo how you feel about the Crusades. People only look at the context of that time, but ignore previous events that sparked the conflict. You, of course, seem to think the Muslims were the victims, but this is, at best, and exaggeration.

Anyway, Alexandria is counted among Christianity's holiest cities (Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, and Constantinople are the others) because St. Mark established one of the earliest Christian churches there, and it was a center of the Roman Empire's state church, the seat of the resident Bishop of Rome. It's holy in the same way the Muslims consider Jerusalem and Medina holy places: for their histroical importance to their faith.

Though the armies that destroyed Western Rome were barbarians, they had become markedly more civilized in the over 600 years since the fall of Rome. The Catholic church preserved what Roman learning they could and society, though partly primitive, had visibly progressed. Empires and nations had been built: the Frankish Empire of Charlemagne, England of William the Conqueror, Spain, the Holy Roman Empire. The barbarians that conquered Rome hadn't the capacity for such organization, limited though it was. The Byzantines were the heirs to Rome, and had access to all the technology the West lacked, so it isn't surprising they considered their Catholic neighbors as barbarians. What with the Great Schism between the Orthodox and Catholic churches in 1054, this makes it even more apparent. That's what I meant when I said Alexius had to swallow his pride and call to the West for help. The Turks had slaughtered the better part of the Byzantine army, and raising a new one would take time and money, things he had little of at the moment. Someone had to stave off the Turkish invaders.
Posted by msoshima54 9 years ago
msoshima54
Actually I have read a great deal on the Crusades and know the Bible well beacuse I used to be a Christian.

You have many facts wrong, but do not be disappointed, I did not expect much better from you. I am impressed that you even knew what the Byzantine Empire was. Unfortunately you have no idea about the relationship between the Catholics and the Greeks of the Byzantine Empire. The Catholics (who were Western Orthodox) hated the very wealthy Greeks (who were Eastern Orthodox) in Constantinople. The Western Catholics had good reason to dislike the Byzantine Greeks though, the Byzantines looked upon their western European neighbors with contempt and saw them as barbarians. They also had good reason for this because the Western Europeans or Franks (the Franks took the biggest role in Crusading)were one of the barbarian tribes that destroyed the WEstern Roman Empire. So naturally the Eastern Roman Empire (which is the Byzantine Empire) disliked these self-styled Catholics. Basically both sides truly distrusted each other and Alexius even made deals with the Muslims and made sure the Byzantine Empire reaped the benefits, not these Catholics.

The Muslims did not fight the Byzantines in a jihad. The jihad was something the Muslims had to resort to for the sake of mobilizing Muslims to fight against the invading Crusaders. Muslims were just fighting for land before the Crusades.

Just a note, but Alexandria is not a holy city to Christianity. True, it is a great city with a rich history, but it has very little to do with Christians. You lack of knowledge is laughable.

I will add more to this, when I get the chance again.
Posted by msoshima54 9 years ago
msoshima54
argghhhh! sorry I missed my round of this debate.... I had a golf tournament on Sunday and Monday so I couldn't get to doing my debates.. I will set this "mrpresident" moron straight though.
Posted by mrpresident 9 years ago
mrpresident
Sura 9, Verse 5: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

Sura 5, Verse 51: "O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors; they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

Mohammed himself led many battles against those who did not accept his religion, and participated in them personally, at least, the vast majority. He had local enemies assassinated. He killed no less than 10 defeated, kneeling men. He had no less than 11 wives, though the Koran sanctions only 4. His youngest wife was 6 and he was 54 when the married, and he consummated his reltionship with her when she was nine. And Muslims are told that they should always try to act like the Prophet. Perhaps it would be fairer to call their religon Mohammedenism. Do they sound like reasonable people to you?

This is the reason for Islamic imperialism. While Christianity claimed believers, then land, the Islamists claimed land, then believers. They had to fight until there was no God but Allah. The infidels are perversions, filthy dogs not worthy of trust, much less life. Nine million people did not die. Wherever you look, the statistics are different, but I'll be fair. Perhaps 1.5 million, but even that sounds farfetched to me. Most of those died of starvation and disease rather than battle or sieges, as was the case with every war before modern medicine. But perhaps you'd know that if you'd read the Koran. Perhaps you'd know if you'd read the Bible. Perhaps you'd know if you'd read a real history of the Crusades. Or history in general.

Clearly, you have not.
Posted by mrpresident 9 years ago
mrpresident
Has anyone ever noticed that people who always call you closed minded are the people who never know the answer themselves? Or are just too lazy to form a real opinion. Anyway, you don't seem to know who the agressor is. The warriors of Islam had been systematically hacking off the limbs of the Byzantine Empire for about 450 years before the Crusades began. Muslims had occupied Spain for nearly 400 years, and had even pushed into France, repulsed by Charles Martel and the Franks at Tours in 732. After the cruhing defeat at Manzikert in 1071, Emperor Alexius had to swallow his pride and ask the Catholics for help against the Islamic invaders. I wasn't difficult, though, considering the immense suffering the conquered Christians of the Holy Land, Egypt, Spain, and North Africa had to contend with. Not to mention, three of Christianity's holiest cities, Alexandria, Antioch, and,of course, Jerusalem had fallen to the jihad. In 1096, Pope Urban II called the faithful to reclaim their lost lands and peoples, resulting in what really was a very belated response to four and a half centuries of being preyed upon. And it was a relatively moderate response, as far as conflicts went back then. And there's absolutely no way I make no justifications for any crimes committed by the Christian armies. It was a direct violation of the commands of God. Jesus spoke of peace and love, not war and violence. The teachings of the founder remains central to a religion. And that's precisely why we must look for the motives of the other player, the Muslims, and their founder, Muhammed. Consider the Koran's lovely verses of tolerance and justice such as Sura 9, Verse 29: " Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
Posted by msoshima54 9 years ago
msoshima54
mrpresident for the sake of every human being in America I hope you never become close to being a president with your shallow mindedness. You did not miss any opportunity to "teach" us history. Please feel free to make more comments on the subject. Im curious to know arguments agaisnt this.
Posted by robzilla180 9 years ago
robzilla180
lol. sorry. I'll do my best anyway.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by guitaristofra 8 years ago
guitaristofra
msoshima54robzilla180Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by tenjusato 9 years ago
tenjusato
msoshima54robzilla180Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by robzilla180 9 years ago
robzilla180
msoshima54robzilla180Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
msoshima54robzilla180Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by cleon5 9 years ago
cleon5
msoshima54robzilla180Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by bringtheshred429 9 years ago
bringtheshred429
msoshima54robzilla180Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Ozymandias 9 years ago
Ozymandias
msoshima54robzilla180Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by msoshima54 9 years ago
msoshima54
msoshima54robzilla180Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Rob 9 years ago
Rob
msoshima54robzilla180Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by jwebb893 9 years ago
jwebb893
msoshima54robzilla180Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03