The Instigator
PonticGreekMacedonian
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Emilrose
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Why do the people of FYROM call themselves Macedonians when they are not!!!?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/16/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 738 times Debate No: 81038
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (24)
Votes (0)

 

PonticGreekMacedonian

Pro

Why would the people of FYROM call themselves Macedonian when they have no connection with the Ancient Macedonians and Alexander The Great!!!?
Emilrose

Con

Accepted.

Pro hasn't specified whether the first round is for acceptance or not, so I will just begin with my opening argument.

Case

Firstly, Pro provides no reason on exactly what people from the FYROM [the republic of Macedonia] are not actually Macedonian themselves.

Moreover Pro has not *explained* what they mean in that people that now currently inhabit Macedonia, assuming that he's referring to the majority, are not related to ancient persons who lived in the region before. Pro additionally refers to Alexander the Great, who existed over 2,300 years ago. Alexander was born in the present day Greek city of Pella to a mother [named Olympias] who originated from Epirus which is again located in Greece. She became the fourth wife of King Phillip II of Macedonia, who considered to be Alexander's father.

Macedonia is a land that has been inhabited by more than one type of ethnic group throughout the years, a primary one being Slavs [1.] https://en.wikipedia.org...(ethnic_group)

As with all southern Slavic groups, their genes are mixed. The same can in fact be said for *some* people that inhabit Greece, that have predominantly Slavic roots.

So far Pro has failed to elaborate on their resolution and/or offer any evidence for their assertion that Macedonians are somehow not Macedonian. As also indicated in my argument, one must keep in mind that Alexander the Great lived an extremely long time ago, so naturally any 'close' connection to him and indeed the children that he had would not be particularly prevalent. However, Alexander is celebrated and recognized with favour by many Macedonian people due to his significant role in their history.
Debate Round No. 1
PonticGreekMacedonian

Pro

If they really were the Ancient Macedonians then how come was there was no existence of a Slavic Macedonia before 1944? How come they avoid to see the tomb of Phillip II in Greece? Are they afraid that Greece have more proof than them of the history of Macedon belonging to them. It was written throughout the centuries that Macedon was a Greek Kingdom and no one argued about that and everybody agreed with that until 1945 when Yugoslavia was on the urge of falling apart and then the Yugoslavian Government avoided the nation Darvar be a part of that war and Darvar did not want to be a part of Bulgaria so they named themselves Macedonia to gain access to the Aegean and to take some of Northern Greece. This was an insult to the Greek people. Then Greece showed their proof with the ancient Macedonian artifacts with Ancient Greek writing and then the people of FYROM began the argument saying that the Greeks stole the ancient writing from them. Then they started building statues of famous people of history belonging to Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia then they created their own saint with Alexander The Great then they say Jesus Christ was a Macedonian and they denied he was a Jew and then they said he was the son of Zeus and Mary and that the Greeks stole the Gods from them. If Jesus was the son of Zeus then how can they have an Orthodox religion when the Religion is about God and his son Jesus Christ. Orthodox Religion has nothing to do with the Greek Gods yet they say that Jesus was the son of Zeus. They have made claims which are now starting to become ridiculous and there a lot of historians out there that agree that their claims are ridiculous and you don't see Greeks making that stuff up.
Emilrose

Con

Pro asserts that there was 'no existence of Slavic Macedonia before 1944', which on a genetic basis is absolutely incorrect.

As stated in my previous argument, there has been a Slavic presence in Macedonia for centuries and there is a source to affirm that.

However, even if Pros comment was technically true--they'd still essentially be arguing that something happened to all the non-Slavic Macedonians that were inhabiting the country prior to 1944, which is evidently not a logical possibility.

As for the Macedonian people supposedly avoiding to see the tomb of Philip of Greece II or not, that is quite simply irrelevant to the question of whether Macedonians are indeed 'Macedonian'.

As regards basic geography, Macedonia is situated in [southern] Eastern Europe and therefore not on Greece. Like Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, and other countries-- it was an official part of Yugoslavia. In addition to that Macedonia has long spoken 'Macedonian' as its national language, which is again is a south-Slavic dialect that has more similarities with Bulgarian than Greek.

Pro has once again failed to present any evidence to affirm their statements or indeed make any valid argument[s].
Debate Round No. 2
PonticGreekMacedonian

Pro

In the old Yugoslavian archives there was no known Macedonia part of Yugoslavia but what owned that area that FYROM owns today was a Serbian region known as Darvarska. If you look in Ancient history, FYROM claims that the little country they own today was a part of Ancient Macedon but that little part had nothing to do with Macedon. Only a small south part of FYROM belonged to the Greek Kingdom of Macedon. There were many historical writings from Phillip II and Alexander The Great speaking to the Greek people and a addressing them as Greek brothers. Let me repeat that "Greek BROTHERS." Before 1944 all other countries agreed that Macedon was a Hellenic Kingdom and they spoke a Greek dialect. But during the fall of Yugoslavia, the people of Darvarska disagreed to become a part of Bulgaria so then Yugoslavia named them Macedonia and told them to forget about their Darvarska past and use the Macedonian history to gain access to the Aegean and to some parts of Northern Greece.

Also there was no existence of a Slavic Macedonia before 1944. There are a lot of so-called "Macedonian" people that claim they are not related to the Ancient Macedonians and Alexander The Great and one of those people was the first President of FYROM. They reveal that they are either Serbians or Bulgarians because at first it was a region in Serbia until Bulgaria occupied many parts of it and then the fall of Yugoslavia began. If you say this is not evidence then you are wrong because I have done many research and I have listened to elderly people who were there. If you class that as not evidence then you are just denying it.
Emilrose

Con

**Additional Rebuttals**

Once again Pro has failed to support their assertions with any sources and *linked* information. Personal experience does not necessarily qualify as valid evidence--as does the research that Pro claims they have done, as this far I have seen no real substantive proof of this. Virtually anyone can state that they're extensively knowledgeable on a subject but until they present a case affirming this, such statements are not go be taken seriously. Obviously Pro has an interest in this particular topic but to reiterate, that neither equates knowledge or accuracy.

In addition Pro has still *not* affirmed the resolution or addressed that in round one, they left their debate description extremely vague. Due to this, the resolution can be negated by the fact that Macedonians *technically* are Macedonian. If Pro was exclusively arguing that they are not 'ancient Macedonians' or that they not share their ancestry with 'ancient Macedonians', they should have explicitly stated in the *resolution* and added some more details of their debate in the first round.

However, the main point of what they've changed the argument into can still b negated. Fundamentally Pro has absolutely no proof that the people now living in Macedonia are *not* related to ancient Macedonians. I will point out once more that it's undoubtably that at least *some* people living on the Baltic region and in that particular country, share genetics with Greeks and thus the ancient Greeks.

Though I would also like to remind Con that Slavs (this a point they have consistently ignored) have lived in Macedonia for an extremely long time, which is entirely contrary to Pro's argument stating that Slavs are more or less 'new' to the country of Macedonia. They weren't just in this land while it was a part of Yugoslavia, but indeed centuries prior to that.
Debate Round No. 3
PonticGreekMacedonian

Pro

PonticGreekMacedonian forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
PonticGreekMacedonian

Pro

Sorry I have been away, I was doing work experience. Now where were we. Oh!!
The third Prime Minister of FYROM even admitted that the people of FYROM are not descendants of Ancient Macedonia and Alexander The Great. He used valuable sources that were written before 1944 which is before the Republic of Macedonia was created.

It was confirmed by many historians from other countries including Bulgaria and Serbia who also had some history that is being used by FYROM. Bulgarian and Serbian historians stated that Rep of Macedonia was created to gain access to the Aegean and to take some areas of Northern Greece. There were ancient writings written by Alexander The Great himself and it was written in Ancient Greek and in those words it said "To all my Greek brothers, sisters, sons and daughters." Now if he was an enemy of Greece (Like some FYROMians state) then why would he address the Ancient Greeks as family.

People of FYROM still deny that Macedonia was a Greek Kingdom and is now a Greek region and there is proof all over the world. Russia, Bulgaria, Serbia etc. are Slavic countries and so is FYROM but these countries do not like the fact that FYROM is using a name that has been used in Greece for centuries. FYROM has been celebrating times that blonged to other countries like for example the founder of Modern Turkey Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the FYROMians celebrate his birthday and anniversary of his death because they claim he was a Macedonian but he was actually a Turk born in Thessaloniki, Greece. They also claim that Jesus Christ was a Macedonian and that he was the son of Zeus. They also claim that Greece stole the ancient writing and the Gods from them but it was proven that Gods have Hellenic names and the ancient writings are in a Hellenic style. You say I do not provide proof, well this is a degree.

Take a look at this website which provides helpful information: http://www.macedonia.info...
Emilrose

Con

It seems that Pro has introduced *new* arguments and *new* sources in the final round, which undermines the structure of a debate.

Instead of logically responding to *each* of my points, they have simply continued to repeat the same arguments. Absolutely NO rebuttals have been outlined by Pro, which thus means that none of my own arguments have been negated.

Whereas I successfully negated Pros resolution in showing that Macedonians technically are Macedonian--with Pro offering no evidence confirming otherwise. Virtually all they have relied on in this debate is their own personal opinion, which of course, is biased and evidently not in favour of the Macedonian people in general.

Because Pro has failed to provide any evidence (as well *not* defining the terms of the debate properly in round one) and their lack of rebuttals, any potential voters should vote CON.

As can be seen, Pro also forfeited the fourth round.
Debate Round No. 5
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
Emilrose
You are unbelievably dense.

I'm not denying the ONE source, I'm merely stating that it was *not* credible and that you used it in the final round--why didn't you put it in your opening argument?

I mean really, you think providing one petty source suggests you have a better argument? I also used a source in round one which you ignored.
Posted by PonticGreekMacedonian 1 year ago
PonticGreekMacedonian
Oh so the sources I provided were not good information. You are just gonna brush them off as fake? Because it seems like you are just denying them.
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
Emilrose
Hm ms. 'christos', you showed a source and tried to present new arguments/evidence in the *last* round after forfeiting the previous one.

That is what I'm saying about debate 'structure'. Overall your case was entirely unconvincing and I will point out once again that it was on you to provide the evidence and make compelling (as well as objective) arguments.
Posted by PonticGreekMacedonian 1 year ago
PonticGreekMacedonian
I did show sources, you are just denying and calling them not reliable because you simply do not like them. I used sources from valuable sources and I specifically explained the things that took place when FYROM was created. All you did was deny any word, I didn't see any proof from you.
Posted by PonticGreekMacedonian 1 year ago
PonticGreekMacedonian
I did show sources, you are just denying and calling them not reliable because you simply do not like them. I used sources from valuable sources and I specifically explained the things that took place when FYROM was created. All you did was deny any word, I didn't see any proof from you.
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
Emilrose
Whether a debate is tied or not doesn't mean anything.

For the reasons previously outlined (I'm assuming you're the one who's blind here), I won--specifically on the basis that you faild to show how Macedonians are not Macedonian.

Again, I have very little patience for this kind of idiocy and my advice to you would be:

-Use proper structure in your debates.

-Define your terms.

- Present an objective and non-biased case.

-Refute the other persons arguments in a logical manner.

-Make what you have to say just that little bit more interesting.
Posted by PonticGreekMacedonian 1 year ago
PonticGreekMacedonian
Technically I did not lose. Are you blind? Because it says Tied!!!
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
Emilrose
Oh yes, and such credible sources they were...not.

I will highlight again that you did nothing to rebut my original argument and did not make any convincing case of your own.

To say that you included 'evidence' is absolutely laughable. And once more, your writing was absolutely tedious which is hence why I didn't respond with a great level of depth.

Nevertheless, you still failed to meet the BoP *and* thus lose the debate.
Posted by PonticGreekMacedonian 1 year ago
PonticGreekMacedonian
He also mentions that you denied more than show sources yourself. Which is true. All you did was deny the information but nothing that you said was helpful. At least I used sources!!!
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
Emilrose
My phone wouldn't let me finish the comment...

SO, using more 'appeals to the emotion' in replacement of valid arguments that use logic and evidence is what BlackFlags appears to be suggesting--that is of no benefit to you as a debater whatsoever.

Firstly, you seriously need to improve on 'what' you use as a resolution. I specified in the debate that stating: 'why do people of FYROM call themselves Macedonians when they are not!!!?' is an extremely easy resolution to negate and thus immediately favours the Con.

The fact that you use such poor grammar in the resolution (like excessive exclamation marks) shows how badly structured the debate was from the beginning.

In addition, using a question mark also benefited myself more because it undermined your position and made the resolution a *question* instead of a statement or assertion.

Because YOU did not define the terms or use a more appropriate theis, it's a resolution that I can negate easily--merely in showing that people from FYROM refer to themselves as Macedonian because they actually are.
No votes have been placed for this debate.