The Instigator
defnebasbakkal
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Pro (for)
Winning
40 Points

can history be rewritten

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 6 votes the winner is...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/8/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,267 times Debate No: 68000
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (6)

 

defnebasbakkal

Con

This house supports that history can be rewritten but we as against team don't believe this motion is right. Because we need to know our past to be better at the future
Zarroette

Pro

Thank you defnebasbakkal for instigating this debate.

Since no definitions are provided in the opening round, they will be up for debate.

Since Con is starting, it seems fair that the burden of proof be shared.

To make rounds even, I will await Con's initial argument.
Debate Round No. 1
defnebasbakkal

Con

History shouldn't be rewritten because it will effects nations culture and their values. As an example America changed the information's which is written on their history books an example of history re-written, let's go with The War of 1812 in which is often cited as a US fight to preserve the countries Independence... the war being fought because US ships were being intercepted at sea and US sailors pressed into Royal Navy service and the Brits were interfering with US trade and US trading partnerships. That is how the war is taught in the USA. Now let's look at the reality, verification of facts debunking the 'rewriting' included: Impressionist had virtually died out by 1812.
The Brits had signed an accord agreeing to cease meddling in US foreign affairs, again before the war began those reasons that are so often offered by the US as a reason for going to war - are not even mentioned as reasons in the 1812 US Declaration Of War against Britain with these new written information's the citizens will not now their loss and week times and they can be stronger for the future times
Zarroette

Pro

Thank you, Con.


Affirmative Case


A1: History can be rewritten

History. History. See? I have rewritten history. I have rewritten “history”, therefore I have affirmed the resolution.


A2: History can be rewritten

History can be defined as: a continuous, systematic narrative of past events as relating to a particular people, country, period, person, etc. [1]

In light of this definition, it is reasonable to assume that a “narrative of past events” can be rewritten in the sense of being written in a different way.

For example, it is commonly accepted that the Holocaust killed approximately six millions Jews [2]. Comparatively, historian David Irving argues that the Holocaust was largely a fabrication [3]. In order to have these conflicting narratives, history must have been rewritten, or else we would not have these two narratives. Hence, history can be rewritten.


Counter-arguments

“History shouldn't be rewritten because it will effects nations culture and their values. As an example America changed the information's which is written on their history books an example of history re-written, let's go with The War of 1812 in which is often cited as a US fight to preserve the countries Independence... the war being fought because US ships were being intercepted at sea and US sailors pressed into Royal Navy service and the Brits were interfering with US trade and US trading partnerships. That is how the war is taught in the USA. Now let's look at the reality, verification of facts debunking the 'rewriting' included: Impressionist had virtually died out by 1812.

This entire argument does not fit the resolution. We are not debating whether history *should* be written, rather whether it *can* be written.


“The Brits had signed an accord agreeing to cease meddling in US foreign affairs, again before the war began those reasons that are so often offered by the US as a reason for going to war - are not even mentioned as reasons in the 1812 US Declaration Of War against Britain with these new written information's the citizens will not now their loss and week times and they can be stronger for the future times”

I do not think my opponent realises that this instance is not all that relevant to the debate, so much so that even if it conceded, I could still win the debate by making arguments that show history can be rewritten.



References

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] Hare, Ivan; Weinstein, James (2010). Extreme Speech and Democracy. Oxford University Press. p. 553.

Debate Round No. 2
defnebasbakkal

Con

defnebasbakkal forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Shrek_sDrecKid 2 years ago
Shrek_sDrecKid
Wait! Are you going to make time travel as one of your arguments? We already know how to time travel, we just can't. Because according to Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking, reaching or being near the speed of light takes you into the future while surpassing the light barrier lets you go into the past. One problem: the formula E=MC2 states that only those with relatively little to no mass or equipped with near infinite energy can reach light speed. Oh, and Hawking also said in a documentary that even if it were possible, only 99.99%. So he concludes that we can travel to the future in the future, but we would most likely have to wait in the distant future to find a way to travel back into the past.
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
I am tempted to make a noob account to trap you....
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
defnebasbakkalZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by MrJosh 2 years ago
MrJosh
defnebasbakkalZarroetteTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: CON not only didn't debate the topic he set up, he also forfeited. PRO provided sources.
Vote Placed by darthebearnc 2 years ago
darthebearnc
defnebasbakkalZarroetteTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited and pro had better arguments.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
defnebasbakkalZarroetteTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con forfeited the final round which is rarely acceptable behavior in any debate setting. S&G - Pro, Con did have a few minor punctuation errors, which while normally is not enough to weigh against them, was when considering that Pro had none whatsoever. Arguments - Pro. Con presented a case that was unrelated to the resolution. Instead of arguing that history cannot be rewritten, as the resolution implies, Con argued that it shouldn't be rewritten. This has no bearing in the actual debate nor does it relate to the resolution. Pro pointed this out with her rebuttals as well as presenting arguments in affirmation which stand unchallenged. For these reasons, Pro wins arguments. Sources - Pro. Con failed to utilize source in this debate whereas Pro did. This is a rare, yet clear 7-point win for Pro.
Vote Placed by ZenoCitium 2 years ago
ZenoCitium
defnebasbakkalZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited. Also Con ignored the main point of the debate, which was whether history CAN be rewritten as oppose to SHOULD it be rewritten. In essence, if Con argues that it should or should not, in part, concedes that it could be rewritten. Otherwise, should or should not would not be relevant.
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 2 years ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
defnebasbakkalZarroetteTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit