The Instigator
Adam2
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Weiler
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The English in the Northern US are descendants of the Normans, whereas in the South -- Anglo-Saxons

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/9/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 540 times Debate No: 38684
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

Adam2

Pro

There is evidence to support this. Many Norman last names are common in Northern states, Lincoln, Washington, Mitchell.
The first major dynasty of Scandinavian descent in American history was not from the North, but in the South -- Al Gore. Gore is a Flemish name, of the Germanic group who migrated to England in 1066.
Weiler

Con

Gore, oh Gore, wherefore art thou Gore. Would a politician by another name be less corrupt?

Names can be meaningless. An example, my username is my real last name, Weiler. Weiler is a German name. My ancestry is more British and Irish than German.

My opponent claims there is evidence in support of this resolution. I would love to hear it.
Debate Round No. 1
Adam2

Pro

http://www.houseofnames.com...
http://www.houseofnames.com...
http://www.houseofnames.com...

Those ring any bell? The last two are common in the North. Gore is common in the South.
Weiler

Con

My opponent is still hanging his argument on the weak nail of surnames. I gave a personal example, Pro in no way invalided the point. The burden of proof is on pro, who has failed to make a compelling argument.
Debate Round No. 2
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
It is acting like a jerk, yet for the debate itself it is not bad conduct as voting must be done based solely on what is inside the debate rounds themselves.
Posted by Adam2 3 years ago
Adam2
I'm not posting anything. The people will see for themselves.
Posted by Weiler 3 years ago
Weiler
Again it is both rude, and bad conduct to continue the debate, or to make your debate points in the comments thread, until the voting period is over.
Posted by Adam2 3 years ago
Adam2
You haven't given any evidence to support your claim. All you did was base it on emotional feelings. I gave proof showing the roots of surnames, and where they descend from. Good luck beating me with that.
Posted by Adam2 3 years ago
Adam2
Nope, I'm just explaining what I did, like it or not.
Posted by Weiler 3 years ago
Weiler
I have SOME German ancestry, and it is considered bad form to continue a debate in the comments thread.
Posted by Adam2 3 years ago
Adam2
It clearly states that Gore is a Flemish name. It says that it originated with "industrious people of Flanders."
Lincoln was "brought to England with the Norman invasion."
Mitchell can be Scottish, but if it's English, it too came with the Norman conquest.
I supported mine with facts. And Lincoln the president was a northerner.
Posted by Adam2 3 years ago
Adam2
People regardless of whether he has British or Irish ancestry, if he has a German surname, he has German ancestry, period.
And those names, have the roots of them. Consider that when voting.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Adam2WeilerTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: It's an interesting idea for a debate, but way too short to make the key points. CONDUCT: Yes pro acted poorly in the comment section, however that is outside what we're allowed to vote on; with that said pro you claimed to have explained things that were not a part of your argument; perhaps it was buried within one of your sources, if so you should have quoted the source within the debate. S&G: Fine on both sides. ARGUMENT: Instinctively I want to give this to con for how weak pro was, however con did not rise to the challenge either. Had he merely pointed out the low feasibility of there being no crossover between those Normans in the north and Anglo-Saxons in the south, this would have easily been his. SOURCES: Con did not refute the sources, more of just ignored them... However pro did not properly tie them into his argument (such as quoting them, or explaining the gist of what they say; the audience is not expected to read more within the sources than the length of the arguments).