The Instigator
Antonio12
Con (against)
Losing
22 Points
The Contender
mackoman_93
Pro (for)
Winning
50 Points

The aztecs were salvages

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 14 votes the winner is...
mackoman_93
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,410 times Debate No: 11658
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (14)

 

Antonio12

Con

i wil let pro go first
mackoman_93

Pro

Allow me to stat with a disclaimer... I'm not a racist (I'm actually part Native American so I am within my rights to make the following claims). Furthermore, I am not demonizing the Aztec culture, I am merely pointing out an aspect (or aspects of) their culture that are considered to reflect the characteristics of savagery by a modern day standard.

Let's start by first establishing what a savage actually is. I savage is defined in the Princeton Word Dictionary as "ferocious: marked by extreme and violent energy". This broad definition, from a credible source, can be applied to any standard of the word savage that my opponent presents. In this light, even if my opponent claims that the term savage is relative my definition would still stand. Now, how does this definition link to Aztecs?

One might ask them self, how is it that one can assert that the Aztecs were savages? Is it not true that the Aztecs were a powerful and great people whose achievements archeologically and culturally stand today as a foreign and unprecedented ancient standard. Is it also not true that the Aztecs had an extensive hegemonic empire with an organized government? Yet these are not the standards that establish the Aztecs as NOT savages. Since we have defined the term savage as ferocious: marked by extreme and violent energy, the cultural standard that I point to is their religion (specifically the act of offering human sacrifices).

Human sacrifices are a prime example of savage behavior on the part of the Aztecs. In 1487, the Aztecs reported that they sacrificed 84,400 prisoners over the course of four days, although experts think that the number is closer to 2,000 the number is still staggering. When evaluating savagery one must also take cannibalism into account. Historians also are beginning to conclude that cannibalism was also a part of Aztec culture.

Consider: cannibalism and human sacrificial rituals. Also consider the definition of savage, ferocious: marked by extreme and violent energy. With this weighed against my opponent he will be hard pressed to assert that the Aztecs were not savages. The cultural achievements are irrelevant.

Thank you and vote affirmative.
Debate Round No. 1
Antonio12

Con

I will first attack,then state my case

My opponent's contention1-Human sacrifices are a prime example of savage behavior on the part of the Aztecs.
He also said Human sacrifices are a prime example of savage behavior on the part of the Aztecs.
They did this because the Aztecs sacrificed because of something known as tonalli which means animating spirit. it was to be found in the blood of humans when one becomes frightened. Without the sacrifice, all motion stops, even the movement of the sun. So when the Aztecs made their sacrifices, as far as they were concerned, they were keeping the sun from halting in its orbit.
He also said cannibalism and human sacrificial rituals. Also consider the definition of savage, ferocious: marked by extreme and violent energy.
They Aztecs did this because at one extreme, anthropologist Marvin Harris, author of Cannibals and Kings, has suggested that the flesh of the victims was a part of an aristocratic diet as a reward, since the Aztec diet was lacking in proteins.

My opponent used wikipedia.

Now I will state my case

Contention 1-The Aztecs religion required them to be ferocious
As all other Mesoamerican cultures, the Aztecs played a variant of the Mesoamerican ballgame, named tlachtli or ollamaliztli in Nahuatl. The game was played with a ball of solid rubber , called an olli, whence derives the Spanish word for rubber, hule. The players hit the ball with their hips, knees, and elbows and had to pass the ball through a stone ring to automatically win. The practice of the ballgame carried religious and mythological meanings and also served as sport.In which the loser lost their life.
mackoman_93

Pro

In his last rebuttal my opponent offered no attack and no counter-definition against my definition, in fact he refers to my definition. This means that my definition has been accepted and it will serve as the standard for the term savage within the debate. As it stands both debaters accept the definition ferocious: marked by extreme and violent energy as the standard for the term savage.

On to defend my case...

On my first point, as soon as my opponent said the word, "They did this because..." he began to justify their actions he also does this with my cannibalism example. While his points are valid it is important to remember that we already accepted the definition of ferocious: marked by extreme and violent energy, as the standard for the term savage. At the point of which he justifies instead of refutes he concedes the point. He accepted their actions to be true by justifying and explaining them, and he accepted the actions to be savage like when he accepted the definition. He has failed to show how those actions are not savage like, he has only explained why they did them.

My opponent also justified cannibalism. Once again this does nothing to further his position in fact it only bolsters mine because he agrees that these actions occurred. Just because my opponent can explain why they ate human flesh and tore the beating hearts out of people's chests out of fear that the sun wouldn't rise the next day, does not mean that my opponent has shown that the Aztecs were not savages.

In the end he has only shown you how they ARE savages. In fact, he has explained how they ARE savages in great detail. This argument can be cross applied to his entire case (as it establishes the exact same thing).

Furthermore he assumed that I used Wikipedia. The assertion that the Aztecs perpetrated human sacrifices and partook in cannibalism are echoed in articles all over the Internet. I don't have to go to Wikipedia to tell you something that is plastered all over the Internet.

Human Sacrifice:

http://www.mnsu.edu...
http://images.google.com...
http://www.aztec-history.com...
http://www.aztec-indians.com...
My opponent...
(Once again, wikipedia is not the only place where you can find people talking about human sacrifices and Aztecs)

Aztec Cannibalism
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org...
http://www.plu.edu...
http://www.spiritus-temporis.com...
http://www.plu.edu...
My opponent...
(wikipedia is not the only site where you can find evidence that the Aztecs practiced cannibalism).

Furthermore, just because both my opponent and I can explain why the Aztecs cannibalized and cut beating hearts of people's chests, that doesn't mean we have shown them to be savages or disprove them to be savages. The proof comes in the standard that my opponent and I accepted (the definition of savage- ferocious: marked by extreme and violent energy). He has Shown you how they Aztecs meet this standard thus my opponent and I have both shown you how and why I ought to win this debate.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Antonio12

Con

First I will attack my opponent's case,then defend mine.

Cross-apply my contention1 to their contention 1

Now I will defend my case

My opponent says That the Aztecs were savage,but their religion required them to be savage.
If you don't do what your religion what says,then you aren't true to your religion.
The Aztecs were very religious people.
Now I will give an example of how the religion is savage,not the people:

Professional priests supervised many
public and private rituals in honor of the gods.
According to several Aztec myths, the gods
had offered their own blood and some gods
had sacrificed themselves in order to create the
earth, the sun and moon, and humans. People
therefore owed a huge debt to the gods, and
offerings and sacrifices were the means of
repayment. Offerings of food, incense, and
other goods were commonplace. Priests
engaged frequently in rituals of autosacrifice
in which they pierced various parts of their
body to offer blood, which was then spattered
on paper strips and burned.
Human sacrifice was practiced
extensively by the Aztecs, although the actual
extent is difficult to gauge because early
Spanish observers systematically exaggerated
the number of sacrifices as part of their
attempts to make the Aztecs seem more
savage-like. The most common form of
sacrifice involved cutting open the chests of
victims on altars atop tall temple-pyramids.
Special sacrifice priests removed the heart and
offered it to the gods, and then the body was
thrown down the pyramid steps. Most victims
were enemy soldiers captured in battle. They
were dressed in the clothing of a god, and
lived their last weeks being worshipped as that
god. The actual sacrifice was a reenactment of
one or more myths and the victim was seen as
the god, not as a mere human. The skulls of
sacrificial victims were displayed in public
places on long wood racks. Beyond its
manifest religious role, Aztec sacrifice also
served social and political ends as a form of
propaganda or even terrorism directed against
the lower classes and the enemies of the citystate.
Human sacrifices were major
components of a series of twenty monthly
ceremonies that involved all sectors of Aztec
society. Each ceremony, organized and
presided over by priests, was planned in
advance and lasted several days. There were
public processions as sacrificial victims
(dressed as gods) paraded through the streets;
dances and music; offerings of many kinds;
theatrical presentations and speeches, usually
leading up the a climax with a series of
sacrifices atop a town's central pyramid.
Alongside the public religion was an active
program of domestic ritual that escaped the
notice of most Spanish observers.
Archaeological excavations of Aztec houses
have turned up domestic altars, several forms
of incense burners, and clay figurines probably
used in curing ceremonies and other household
rituals.
mackoman_93

Pro

In my last rebuttal I spent a LOT of time talking about how my opponent doesn't show how the Aztecs were not savages he merely explains how their savage like behavior was justified. I would like to point out that he does the EXACT same thing in his last argument.

Everything that my opponent has said through out this entire debate can be summed up in these words. THE AZTECS WERE SAVAGES, BUT THAT'S OKAY. While this is a dandy position (and I whole heartedly agree) this does not negate the resolution as my opponent is suppose to do.

When he says things like "the religion is savage" and "their religion required them to be savage" he is basically agreeing with my position (as he has been doing through the entire debate). He of all people should know (since he was the one who made the resolution) that this is not a debate about whether the Aztecs being savages is OKAY, this is a debate about whether or not they WERE IN FACT SAVAGES.

This entire debate I have show you how the Aztecs WERE savages and through out the entire debate my opponent has shown you how they WERE SAVAGES but they were because of their religion.

I don't know how to stress this enough. Due to the wording of the resolution "The aztecs were salvages" my opponent's job as the CON is to show how they were NOT savages. When my opponent says things like "their religion required them to be savage" he is not doing his job of arguing that they were NOT savages (on the contrary he is doing MY job of showing how they ARE savages).

Given that my opponent and I are both saying the same thing (except one of us is suppose to say it and the other is suppose to argue against it) *cough cough CON*

In light of this my opponent and I strongly urge you to vote PRO

Thank you
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
Lol, "salvages". xD
Posted by Me100 6 years ago
Me100
The aztecs were Salvages!!! XD
Posted by tBoonePickens 6 years ago
tBoonePickens
Human sacrifice is DEFINITELY savage. Hernan Cortez kicked their butts and then taught them to civilized and believe in a proper God!
Posted by shlebear_94 6 years ago
shlebear_94
Since when did Con use more reliable sources?
He had no sources whatsoever.
Pro actually had legitimate sources that are being ignored, while con assumed pro was using an illegitimate source. Con was wrong. It was a lie. No one can make a source judgement based off of the idea that somehow con magically knew exactly where pro got his info (wikipedia), when in reality pro got his info from an entirely different slew of sources that he listed off later on in the debate.

And, yes the definition was broad, but under the definition that went uncontested throughout this entire round, pro does in fact win by a longshot. The definition was never attacked by the con, nor did con offer a counter definition, thus we as the judges have that framework to vote under.
Obviously the pro wins.
Con, please write a resolution that has the correct wording you want this debate to be about.
Posted by natpoe 6 years ago
natpoe
This died on the definition of "savage."

Pro's definition of "savage" allows him to prove easily that Aztecs were savages: If savages behave in ways that are "ferocious and marked by extreme and violent energy," and Aztecs behaved in ways that were "ferocious and marked by extreme and violent energy," then Aztecs were savages. But that's not much of an assertion - the accepted definition of "savage" in this debate is so broad, every human civilization in history can be described as "savage"!

Con could've narrowed the scope of the debate by arguing for a more appropriate definition of "savage" as "uncivilized," making for a much deeper, more complex discussion
Posted by Teleroboxer 6 years ago
Teleroboxer
I have to state that I agree with Con, because I do not agree that the Aztecs were "salvages," whatever that means.
Posted by philosphical 6 years ago
philosphical
salvages... lulz.
Posted by Radicalguy44 6 years ago
Radicalguy44
A little tip to both sides: Try not to use wikipedia.. that takes pts off ur votes :P
Nevertheless, good job both sides.. very nice debate
Posted by mackoman_93 6 years ago
mackoman_93
line by line... :D I should have sign posted sorry about that :P
Posted by Radicalguy44 6 years ago
Radicalguy44
consider that big chunk of argument his contention.. consider the supporting details, the subpoints
just attack it all :P
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
Antonio12mackoman_93Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Me100 6 years ago
Me100
Antonio12mackoman_93Tied
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 UnFascism 6 years ago
UnFascism
Antonio12mackoman_93Tied
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 BlazingSleet 6 years ago
BlazingSleet
Antonio12mackoman_93Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 sherlockmethod 6 years ago
sherlockmethod
Antonio12mackoman_93Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by ur_mom 6 years ago
ur_mom
Antonio12mackoman_93Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by shlebear_94 6 years ago
shlebear_94
Antonio12mackoman_93Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Antonio12 6 years ago
Antonio12
Antonio12mackoman_93Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Radicalguy44 6 years ago
Radicalguy44
Antonio12mackoman_93Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Vote Placed by Teleroboxer 6 years ago
Teleroboxer
Antonio12mackoman_93Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01