The Instigator
Harlan
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points
The Contender
varsityLD
Con (against)
Losing
11 Points

Christopher Columbus should not be honored with a holiday in his name.

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 7 votes the winner is...
Harlan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/17/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 21,071 times Debate No: 5966
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (7)

 

Harlan

Pro

Christopher Columbus was a terrible person who killed and enslaved many for self-gain. It is disgusting that to this day we celebrate him annually with a national holiday in his very name: Columbus Day. We as a society should not honor this man. We need to acknowledge that he was not a hero but a greedy mass-murderer.

The atrocity that I hint at is his genocide against the Arawak Indians. After encountering these Indians, he wrote thus in his log of them:

"They would make fine servants…With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want."

He also said this:

"As soon as I arrived in the Indies, in the first island which I found, I took by force some of the natives, in order that they might learn and might give me information of that which there is in these parts."

From the very start he treated the peaceful Indians forcefully. He later sent many as slaves to Spain. In 1495, he sent 500 Arawak slaves back to Spain, 200 of which died on the voyage. He wrote:

"Let us in the name of the Holy Trinity go on sending all the slaves that can be sold"

Christopher Columbus also forced all Arawaks 14 years or older to pay a certain amount of gold to them per month. If they failed to do this, they were killed. Many fled, and were hunted down and killed by Columbus and his men. Indians were worked endlessly in mines. With these terrors, mass suicides started being committed amongst the dwindling Indians. And point in case, in 2 years, half of the Indians on Haiti were dead.

And so when we go back and look at history, we see that Christopher Columbus was a terrible human-being who should not be honored with his own national holiday.

-Harlan
varsityLD

Con

Hey my name is varsity LD recently i have lost a tourney, so im using this deabte to practice the basics which i have lost touch with, so excuse me if my debates are overly simple. OK so now to begin.

Ladies and gentelman,

I Varsiy LD will be arguing the Negative for this debate. Rather than concentrating on definitions, this debate will rather concentrate on the purpose of Columbus Day, and why it is important to the nation that celebrates it. The United States.

My first contention is that Columbus day isn't celebrating christopher columbus, but rather his achievments Making knowledge of the Americas known, Finding a land for Spain to colonize, and Ultimately paving the way for the U.S to exist are some of the reasons he is celebrated. Allow me to explain this through a quick world history lesson. Basically in an atempt to find a direct trade route to Asia to commence the race of Imperialism Columbus ran into the New World, and helped begin the inevetible colonization of the Americas. After a Number of years Britan jumped on the colonial wagon. Later their colony rebelled creating the U.S. So in a sense the U.S owes it's existance to Columbus. Since if this process were to have happened in the 1990's than in the 1400's the U.S would have never rebelled since technological advancements would have solved all the problems that led them to. Thus, every Columbus Day U.S citizens celebrate the ACHIEVMENT that has allowed thier fair nation to be a reality.

My Second Contention is that the Affirmation isn't fairly portraying Columbus. Ladies and Gentelmen, if you are told that there once existed a man who held slaves until their dying days, has had an affair with a one of his female slaves pocreating childnren all of whome worked for him until his death, and druing his life he claimed that none of these children belonged to him. Would you think he was a bad man for cheating on his family, and making his family fortune of the backs of hundreds of others. For working people to death just because of the color of their skin. Now what if i told you we celebrate what this man has done for our country every fourth of July, and that his name was Thomas Jefferson. I hope that this example has helped the reader see that if one only shows the negative side of someone, then the person will be seen by the public as negative. On the Contrary if you only portray the positive side of someone then they will be revered, so i beleive for this debate to be judged fairly the judge must understand both things that the Negative has mentioned so far. That Cristopher Columbus was not all bad, and that it is his positive acheivments that are celebrated rather than the man himself. So in order for the Affirmation to win this debate he must prove that the negative acheivments outweigh the positive acheivments in the eyes of Modern America, and prove that by celabrating christopher colubus's acheivments we are in fact celebrating his negative qualities, rather than his posotive acheivments

My third contention is that actions such as slavery were acepted at the time, and according to Spanish Monarchy during the 1400's Native Americans were not deemed people, so in essence he wasn't doing anything wrong in the eyes of his time period. What my opponent is doing is using modern philosophies to interpert the past. For example in the future people may say we shouldn't celebrate martin Luther king because he ate animals, and in the future eating animals may be seen as morally wrong. What Columbus did in his time period is no different than Mc Donalds selling burgeres that have been proving to cause death causing disease to people, or cigarette companies selling cigarettes, or even people driving cars causing global warming. To add on to my earlier point at the time Native Americans were not deemed as people as immoral as it may sound it is no different than people mistreating animals simply because they are animals.

Since my opponent is insinuating that Columbus day shouldn't be celebrated since christopher columbus held slaves, the he is suggesting that noone who has ever held a slave, or mistreated another culture should be celebrated. This means every single American hero who is responsible for the deaths of innocence, or who perpetuated slavery shouldnt be celebrated. Including Franklin roosevelt who dropped the A bomb, Lincoln who said "if he could save the union without releasing a single slave he would" Andrew Jackson who sent the native AMericans on the trail of tears, George washington who held slaves, Thomas jefferson who held slaves, Ulysses S. Grant who broke native american treaties, and many more of the people AMerica has celebrated. While all these men have positive track records that supersceed their misdeeds like columbus, because they have misdone they ought to be slandered.

Also i would like to point out that y oppenent hasn't posted the source of the quotes that he has taken, so I am unable to find quotes that support my stand point. I hope that my opponent offers the internet source he has received the quote, and if he cannot i ask that the quotes be held void, for i do not know if he made them up or not.

Sorry if this debate is a bit choppy i wrote it over a couple of random days, and i dont like to waste tim on speeling because i don think that it is a big deal, so i wont. And i don't expect my opponent to waste time on spelling either as this debate is moot.
Debate Round No. 1
Harlan

Pro

Hello and thank you for accepting.

This is a debate about whether Christopher Columbus should be "honored" with a holiday, and therefore this debate is about whether he should be honored, and not about the holiday itself.

For the sake of organization and to assure that no point will go unheeded, I will quote each of your points and then provide my rebuttals.

<<"My first contention is that Columbus day isn't celebrating christopher columbus, but rather his achievments Making knowledge of the Americas known">>

This contention is valid, yet outside the range of this debate. If you will notice the resolution, it is not whether we should have a holiday to celebrate his achievements, but whether we should have a holiday to honor him. This debate is about whether he as a person is worthy of being honored with a holiday. Not whether we should have a holiday to celebrate the events leading to American independence.

Saying that Columbus has merit, because his actions very indirectly led to the existence of the United States, is akin to giving Hitler merit because his actions indirectly led to the formation of The United Nations. The United Nations was formed after WWII so that a diplomatic crisis such as a world war would not occur again. Since Hitler played a large part in the starting of World-war II, he "paved the way" to the UN. So basically, having a holiday to honor Columbus is about as sensible as having a "Hitler day" on September first (the day he invaded Poland).

http://www.un.org...

<<"My Second Contention is that the Affirmation isn't fairly portraying Columbus.">>

I gave the general gist of what Columbus did: went across the ocean driven solely by self-gain, found aborigines, and then used them for his self gain, by using them as slaves and using them for gold. The ONLY "good side" that you can attest for in his nature is that his actions inadvertently set off a chain reaction which led to the US. This does not contribute to the virtue of his personality or good-intent of his actions in any way. It merely illustrates that horrible actions from people like Columbus can accidentally bring good things…centuries later.

The comparison to the Fourth of July does not fit for the following reasons:

1. The Fourth of July celebrates the independence of the US, not the guy who wrote the declaration of thus. It is not "Jefferson day", but "The Fourth of July". Unlike the holiday which is implied by the resolution, the Fourth of July celebrates the instance that was incurred by the man, and not the man himself.

2. While Thomas Jefferson had many quality attributes, Columbus had none worthy of note –nor have you denied this- but the persistent idea from you that he should be honored because his wickedness inadvertently led to the independence of America 300 years later. This however is not an attribute to his nature as a person, but the fortunate turn of events that history took. Thomas Jefferson had many virtues and his motive was pure, unlike Columbus who acted merely on the Motive of self-gain. Morality and virtue can only be measured by the intent with which actions are partook, and not the consequence of said actions.

<<"My third contention is that actions such as slavery were acepted at the time, and according to Spanish Monarchy during the 1400's Native Americans were not deemed people, so in essence he wasn't doing anything wrong in the eyes of his time period.">>

You have seemingly made this assertion about the time period with no backing. And my guess is that you aren't exactly an expert on the 1400's, either. With some research you will find that the very nature of the documentation of Columbus' grievances denies that slavery was the morally accepted standard of the time period.

Much of what we know about the matter stems from what is written by Bartolome de las casas, who thoroughly opposed the selfish grievances of Columbus. He originally helped in the conquest of Cuba, but then realized that it was wrong. He wrote "History of the Indies", which provides much information for historians on what Columbus did. Here is a quote from book 2 of this series:

"[Columbus] was so anxious to please the king that he committed irreparable crimes against the Indians…"

Are these the words from someone of a period where genocide and slavery were morally acceptable? No. It was just that the Spaniards where greedy and acted immorally.

After recording the horrible conditions of the dwindling Indians, who were reverting to suicide, and who were quickly being depopulated, he said thus:

"My eyes have seen these acts so foreign to human nature, and now I tremble as I write…"

Even if it was 500 years ago, there was still many basic ideas about human nature and morality that persist today. Things such as religion make sure of this. The ten commandments are very, very old. Las Casas wrote:

"Two of these so-called Christians met two Indian boys one day, each carrying a parrot; they took the parrots and for fun beheaded the boys."

I hope these quotes from Las Casas served to illustrate the point that people with a sense of morality at the time did not approve of the actions of Columbus and the other Spaniards. And as far as you're assertion that Indians were not considered Human, the quotes have also contradicted this. You're only backing for that claim was that of "according to Spanish Monarchy". To this I reply: the biased views of those in power do not reflect upon the moral code of the era.

"Since my opponent is insinuating that Columbus day shouldn't be celebrated since christopher columbus held slaves, the [sic.] he is suggesting that noone [sic.] who has ever held a slave, or mistreated another culture should be celebrated."

The words you have put in my mouth are an absolute statement, stating that "noone" of those specifications should be celebrated. I do not imply this, however. Columbus should not be celebrated because he had absolutely no virtuous attributes that are worthy of note. If he did, then it would be acceptable to celebrate him. Not only was he not a hero, though, but he was greedy and performed acts of genocide solely for self-gain. Once more, morality can only be measured by the intent of actions, and the intention of Columbus was evil, unlike so many great people in history who did great things and were good in nature, contributing greatly to humanity, but also had slaves.

You have yet to provide any positive quality about the nature and personality of Columbus. The only thing you have provided is that he very distantly and inadvertently caused American independence to occur.

<>

I apologize that I have not provided the sources yet, but I would like to point out that holding them void would be unnecessary, because I made the only real citation that was necessary: Citing that it was the words of Christopher Columbus. However, for you're convenience I will tell you where I found the quotes. I got the quotes and subsequent information from "A people's History of The United States", by Howard Zinn. Alas, it is not an internet source, as you assumed, but a book. If you wish to use it for reference, you may find it at you local public library.

If you wish to seek whether the quotes are "made up" or not, that is you're burden. I give you my word those are quotes from Columbus, and I have provided the way in which you may verify this. If for convenience you would like to find the quotes from another source (internet), than that is also upon you.

-Harlan
varsityLD

Con

Ok round two ladies and gentlemen if you read the comments my opponent said he got his information from a book and it just so happens that i am familiar with a different book that is like the one my opponent speaks of, so his quotes are valid, however im not ganna go through the trouble of checking them, so he has my trust.

So if this book is like the one that i have it is full of first person recollections, such as diary entries, and letters and such. Tying into my contention from my first speech i am going to piggy back on the fact that you cannot judge a person by a limited amount of incriminating information. Now the information that my oponent is speaking of is probably from a diary of christopher columbus himself explaining all of the things that he had done or thought in the indies. Now,since the 1400's were about 600 years ago i'll assume that any first person accounts we have from Columbus himself bieng one single man may be all within one or two diaries. So what does this tell you might you ask, This tells you that from a man who had probably written hundres of literary works in his lifetime we are to jusdge him on simple 3 or 4 lines. Of the thousands of sentences Columbus wrote were are to judge whether or not this mans ACHEIVMENTS should be celebrated. Maybe it is just me, but it doesnt seem fair to say that they shouldnt be.

If you would be so kind as to picture this it would be appreciated. imagine if the world had acess to about half of the thoughts you ever had, whether they were good or bad, racist, philisophical, education, slanderous, guilty,or criminal half of them. Now imagine if the world 1000 years from know had a holiday celebrating you as the first man or women to bring about world peace. Now imagine if one day someone said hey, we can't celebrate this guy he once thought that holding pets was okay. Didn't he know that holding a pet is slavery didnt he know that that was wrong. What if someone said look it says here in his diary " i put my dog on his leash" Oh my god he was a horrible person. Would that be fair? what if you were a member of Peta? thay wouldnt hear of that information, they would only hear that you put your dog on a leash, and from that one line they would judge your whole life, and all of your acheivments.

That little scenario, and what my opponent is doing to christopher Columbus is no different. LAdies and gentlmen you cannot judge a person by a couple of lines from their personal diary.

My opponent claims that slavery wasn't morally justified in the 1400's, but i dont agree. Know my opponent brings up Bartolome de las casas, however if he reads up on bartolome some more, he will see that he tried in VAIN to convince the king and queen of Spain that the native Americans WERE EVEN PEOPLE! My opponent says bartolome thought that their treatment was wrong, well to my opponent i say bartolome was one person in a sea of thousands. If Bartolome couldnt even convince the king and queen that the native Americans were people, how could you say that he convinced the general populace that slavery was immoral, if he did Spain wouldnt have practiced slavey well into the 1700's 300 years after bartolome died. How could you claim that slavery was deemed immoral in the 1400's when it was practiced, profited upon, and even justified in the bible by bartolome's rivals. Since slavery obviously was the accepted norm my previous argument that columbus was practicing the beleifs of the time still stands. and to add on the the argument since the Monarchy of spain did not deem the native Americans people taking them as slaves would have been no different than taking pets during the 1400's under spanish rule.

For my second contention my oponent says that the motives of Thomas Jefferson were pure, so his holding of slaves is okay, rather than christopher whose motives were impure. Well i ask my opponent. Who is the judge of whether motives are pure or impure, i would assume the people who decide wether or not to celebrate the holiday, and since the U.S celebrates the holiday, i would assume they beleive his motives were pure. Now My opponent contradicts himself he claims that if one man holds slaves, and benefits from them it is okay, but if another holds slaves it is not okay. How can you support thoman jefferson holding slaves, but not support chirstopher columbus holding slaves. Also my opponent speaks as if Columbus knew he was going to discover the New Word. He speaks as if the purpose of discovering America was to find slaves. Need i remind him Columbus discovered America by accident. So i have a question for my opponent, How is declaring war for independence against the wills of loyalist Americans and your mother country more pure than discovering a completely new continent by accident? How did columbus holding native Americans as slaves lead him to discovering America as you imply when you say "I gave the general gist of what Columbus did: went across the ocean driven solely by self-gain" Also Jefferson held slaves for self gain, to make money. And Jefferson declared American independence for self gain, to dodge what he felt was unfair taxation without representation. Everything everyone does in the world is driven by self gain.We even breath for self gain, To survive. So how can you say doing something for self gain can be right here, but wrong somewere else.

Also i am going to go back to the hitler comment my opponent made. What Adalf Hitler did by invading Poland is what any dictator in the history of time could have done. What Christopher Columbus did is something that could have only been done once by one man. And yes we could attribute the U.N to Hitler, hovewever hitler didnt acheive anything, and we don't celebrate the creation of the U.N so we dont celebrate hitler. However if we did we wouldn't celebrate Adolf Hitler we would celebrate his act of invading Poland wich sparked the need for the U.N. Hitlers birth didnt spark the need, but his action did. Columbus birth didn't discover America his actions did. So we celebrate his action of discovery, and if we did celebrate the begingin of the U.N we would celebrate the action of Germany invading Poland. New Years day doesnt celebrate that there is a new year, but rather that the action of the new year is hapening, Birthdays dont celebrate your existance, but rather your birth. Holidays don't celebrate that things are, but ratehr the actions that led things the be the way that they are. This shows that Columbus day isnt celebrating that columbus existed ( celebrating the man) but rather that he discovered the New World, An Astronomical feat considering that people were telling him that he was going to fall off the earth before he sailed. Columbus day celebrates Chhristophers action, and letting a few slanderous remarks against the man taint the integrity of his positive actions is wrong. So in Closing i would like to paint out that by voting negative you claim that yes christopher columbus did do horrible things, as everyone has done something horrible to some degree in thier life, however you beleive that the actions of one done later in life, doesn't affect the motives of something done before. And by going with the affirmiative you are saying that if you do anything bad you are forever a bad person, and wlays had been a bad person, and you beleive that a person should be held accountable for their beleifs even if they were the common beleifs of the tim period.

I would like to point out that if i seem mean or rude in my debate im not trying to seem like that, also i dont waste time on grammer or spelling, and wont expect my opponent to. Also i am aware of the book my opponent speaks of, it just so happens i have a different version i use for history class, and thank you for reading te deabte, and i am out of characters remaining right about now!
Debate Round No. 2
Harlan

Pro

<" you cannot judge a person by a limited amount of incriminating information.">

The reason the information is "limited" is because these are relatively short arguments were posting. Since these arguments are fairly short, I get a few quotes which particularly outline the point I am making. You can not criticize my limited usage of quotes from Columbus' diaries/letters, when you have referred to none.

If you wish to show the reader that there is plenty of good quotes from his diaries and letters to the king and queen, just provide some, instead of vaguely referring to them.

<"i'll assume that any first person accounts we have from Columbus himself bieng one single man may be all within one or two diaries.">

I have already proved this wrong with my quotes from Las Casas, so this point is invalid. Las Casas wrote an entire multi-volume book called "History of the Indies" which explains most of what we know. And a multi-volume book is much more that "one or two diaries".

<" this mans ACHEIVMENTS should be celebrated.">

What achievements? That he accidentally and against his knowledge discovered the Americas? That's hardly reason to "Honor" him, as the resolution is stated. The only one of these "ACHEIVMENTS" you have been able to name to Columbus' merit, and it is hardly even worth mentioning. An accident of which you die not knowing of, does not make someone worthy of having a holiday in his name.

< "imagine if the world had acess to about half of the thoughts you ever had, whether they were good or bad, racist, philisophical, education, slanderous, guilty,or criminal half of them…">>

It is not merely the moral standards with which we judge men of history, but the mind with which they go about it. Columbus acted for his own self-gain, because he went to the Americas for gold.

<"he will see that [Las Casas] tried in VAIN to convince the king and queen of Spain that the native Americans WERE EVEN PEOPLE!">

I fail to see how royalty represent the common man of the era.

Here is the difference between Las Casas and the Spanish monarchy.

Las Casas had a strong sense of morals, and was motivated to spread knowledge of the Spaniards grievances. Therefore, his opinion is verifiably genuine, and is based merely on good-will and morality. Las Casas not only went to the Indies, but was amongst the Spaniards, and for a time contributed to their conquest.

The Spanish monarchy were gaining much from Columbus' tirade, so their belief was biased. There actions were based on getting slaves and gold, and this is how Columbus pleased them. The Spanish Monarchy had never been to the Indies, but only received their knowledge of the Indians through Columbus' letters. Their views were that of Columbus' because he was the one who gave the accounts.

<<"How could you claim that slavery was deemed immoral in the 1400's when it was practiced, profited upon, and even justified in the bible by bartolome's rivals.">>

My opponent used the key word, here: "profited". It was not so much a sense of morality with which this was carried through, but with a sense of profit.

My opponent, however, has digressed and focused too much on the idea of slavery. Slavery was one of the lesser grievances of Columbus. He performed mass genocide of the Arawak Indians.

If my opponent goes so far as to claim that genocide was somehow morally accepted at this time in history, I would like to refer to the sixth commandment of the bible, which states "thou shall not kill". Most of Europe followed a Christian moral system. And even if they didn't perfectly follow it all the time, it still guided their idea of what "moral" was. And if on an individual basis they did not see a single act of murder as bad, mass genocide was surely not accepted.

<<"since the U.S celebrates the holiday, i would assume they beleive his motives were pure.">>

This is a misleading line of logic. Lets focus on what "his motives" exactly were: to get gold, to please the king and queen. Therefore his motives were that of self-gain entirely, and I think most Americans would not think this was "pure".

The reason it is celebrated yet because they don't know what his motives were. Few people know that much about Christopher Columbus. The only thing, basically, that is taught in school is: "he discovered the Americas" (which is false on many levels). And Americans for the most part have not heard or care to know that he murdered thousands of people for the purpose of getting gold.

I would like to clear up a misconception on my opponent's part on the nature of this debate. My opponent seems to have the impression that this is a debate about "Columbus day", as it is celebrated now. It is not. Columbus day is, as my opponent seems to avidly agree, not a holiday about the man himself, but his accomplishments. This is not a debate about THAT holiday. It's about a holiday as suggested by the resolution:

"Christopher Columbus should not be honored with a holiday in his name."

<" he claims that if one man holds slaves, and benefits from them it is okay, but if another holds slaves it is not okay.">

Jefferson did have a sense of morality about his slaves. It was not that he was a vile person, but he was confused. Columbus had no respect or care for his slaves. He seemingly had no sense of morality. Unlike Jefferson, his will was bad. He did not work for the good of society, save his accident which he never knew about. Also, you are ignoring the fact that Columbus committed genocide.

<<"He speaks as if the purpose of discovering America was to find slaves. Need i remind him Columbus discovered America by accident.">>

You misunderstand me. He did not go across the ocean for slaves, he went across the ocean to get gold.

<<"So i have a question for my opponent, How is declaring war for independence against the wills of loyalist Americans and your mother country more pure than…">>

In Thomas Jefferson's mind, he was helping the American people. Whether or not some of them didn't agree, the point was that his intentions were good, and that he was trying to be beneficial to society.

<<"And Jefferson declared American independence for self gain, to dodge what he felt was unfair taxation without representation…">

Self-gain is not NECESSARILY wrong, but it doesn't make you a hero. Jefferson's main accomplishment was helping with the revolution. This was for the good of his society, in his mind. And as for taxation without representation, that was for the good of society, not just for himself as you claim. Columbus' main accomplishment was an accident, done because he wanted gold. This does not give him reason to be honored.

Columbus commited genocide for self-gain.

<<"Columbus birth didn't discover America his actions did. So we celebrate his action of discovery,">>

That outside the range of this debate. This is a debate about whether we should have a holiday to honor COLUMBUS, not Columbus' actions. Stop pretending that's what the debate is about. If you are implying that we should not celebrate Christopher Columbus, then you are conceding this debate, considering the resolution at hand.

To recap:

-My opponents arguments are all about having a holiday to celebrate his actions, which is outside the range of this debate, given the resolution to which my opponent agreed to.

-Something that is a complete accident does not contribute to the integrity of you're character, therefore his accidental discovering of the americas is not cause to celebrate him.

-Christopher Columbus Killed and enslaved thousands of Arawak Indians, in the name of greed. This shows that he was a vile person with a cruel nature.
varsityLD

Con

ok, my oponents main paoints are,

1. Columbus is a bad man so he shouldnt have a holiday

2. there is information proving that he is a bad man, and did bad things to the native Amiercans

3. he discovered America so that he could further himself, and that the discovery of the America's coud have been done by anyone.

Now to counter these points i have said

1. Whether or not Columbus is bad is subjective to the person viewing him, and since our society chose to celebrate him our society has decided that his positive attribute outrule the negative

2. Columbus was merely fallowing the orders of his boss the king and queen of Spain

3. The monarchy of spain ruled that the native Americans werent people, so in Columbus's point of view keeping these people as slaves would have been no different than the way we keep pets today

4. The information saying that Columbus is a bad man is limited, historians don't have access to every single thing written about Columbus, so it isn't fair to base our opinion of a man off of the extremily limited text we have left. Keep in mind that the text we do have was written by only 3-5 different people offering only the opinions of 5 men on columbus rather than taht of that of the masses.

5.Many men do things that is socially acceptable Thomas Jefferson held slaves, and even held one as a mistress gainst her will, and after she bore his children he forced them all the continue to be slaves for him, and denied being their father so that he wouldn't have to leave them anything in his will. My opponent said what Columbus did was acceptable, however I don't understand how he could say it is acceptable for one man to do something yet unacceptable for others to do the same thing. That would be discriminatory

6. To refute my opponents argument that columbus discovered America for self gain. Ireminded him that columbus discovered America by ACCIDENT and he beleived he had found an alternate trade route to the indies until he died. And even if Columbus had actually discovered an alternate trade route he did it so that his nation could trade with Asia directly rather than have to go through the middle easterners. So if anything Columbus discovered America through wanting to better the economic situations of thousands of europeans. While his most internal motive may have been to get slaves for himself, Not only can we not know for sure unless it says in his diary "im doing this to get slaves" but we cannot deny there were other more philantrapic motives present.

So in the end this is an argument over whether or not Chrisopher Columbus is worthy of a Holiday, The only main reason my opponent has for christopher not to receive his holiday is because he claims that christopher is responsible for numerous hanous acts. However, i have pointed out numerous times during the deabte that whether or not Christopher is a bad man or not is subjective to minds that are interperting him. Since the U.S is the only nation that celebrates Columbus day I assumed the argument was over whther they should celebrate it. Sincs the U.S has also done many hanous acts to native Americans (trail of tears, stealing of land, holding them as slaves. are just a couple) we can assume that the U.S and Christopher have a similar philosophy towards the treatment of native Americans. Due to this Christophers treatment of the indians may not be viewed by the U.S as bad, or at least not bad enough to denounce him. or else they wouldnt celebrate him.

Also another point i had is that Christopher is being portrayed falsely. Note that my opponent brings up only incriminating single sided information on christopher. If we only share one half of a story anyone can look better or worse that wjho they truly are. As in my thomas jefferson example.

ok im out of time so im ganna cut myself off srry. basically i was ganna recap that chris was doing orders, his acts were acceptable, and he is being mis represented
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Harlan 4 years ago
Harlan
Suicide bombers are brave- do they deserve to be honoured with their own holidays?
Posted by Koopin 4 years ago
Koopin
Christopher Columbus was the one brave enough to sail the sea's when h was told that monsters and giant whirl pools were out there
Posted by brian_eggleston 5 years ago
brian_eggleston
Aha! A debate worth reading at last. Very interesting indeed. Thank you both!
Posted by Harlan 5 years ago
Harlan
I know, but I wanted to stress that it wouldn't matter even if he had discovered it, rather than using semantics to say that he didn't technically discover it for the first time.
Posted by Mangani 5 years ago
Mangani
By the way, you both completely ignored the fact that Columbus did not discover ANYTHING if in fact there were people present when he arrived!
Posted by Mangani 5 years ago
Mangani
Before/After: Pro
Columbus does not deserve a day of remembrance and/or celebration. Con did not present ONE reason to rebut this.

Conduct: Pro
Con failed to present an argument in favor of his position, and instead relied on hypothetical situations that, frankly, insulted the readers intelligence.

Spelling/Grammar: Pro
In Con's own words- "I do not bother with spelling and grammer."

Convincing Arguments: Pro
Though Pro could have presented hundreds more sources to back up his negative view of Columbus, Con never presented an alternative view and left the reader to rely on this one negative view. Con's hypothetical situations did not present and alternative view to Columbus. Common knowledge is that Columbus was exiled from his own colony of Hispaniola (Dominican Republic and Haiti) for atrocities he committed against the natives as well as the Spaniards. It is common knowledge that he groveled before the King and Queen of Spain to return on subsequent voyages, all documented by various sources including his own son. Columbus was obsessed with discovering a passage to Asia, and the facts support Pro's premise that his actions were for self gain. Columbus did not discover North America- the site of the United States of America- and this refutes Con's claims that he is somehow responsible for the establishment of this country. The fact that neither Spaniards nor Italians celebrate Columbus the way Americans do also supports Pro's arguments.

Sources: Pro
Con did not present any sources that supported his position.

All points Pro.
Posted by varsityLD 5 years ago
varsityLD
i only had like 1 min left to turn in my speech so i had to cut myself off
Posted by baby_cheetah 5 years ago
baby_cheetah
Christopher Columbus = genocidal murdering maniac, whether slavery was "accepted" in that era or not. Using his "accomplishments" for America as justification for the holiday is no different than using Adolf Hitler's "accomplishments" for Germany as justification for a Hitler Day. End of story.
Posted by varsityLD 5 years ago
varsityLD
i liked ur arguments itll be tough to fit my counters in liek u said but watever
Posted by Harlan 5 years ago
Harlan
I did it. I shortened the hell out of that thing. If it seems like it is rushed in places, it's because I cut out a bunch of stuff.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by KyleLumsden 5 years ago
KyleLumsden
HarlanvarsityLDTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by JoeSmurfs 5 years ago
JoeSmurfs
HarlanvarsityLDTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by theitalianstallion 5 years ago
theitalianstallion
HarlanvarsityLDTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Vote Placed by schoolglutton 5 years ago
schoolglutton
HarlanvarsityLDTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Mangani 5 years ago
Mangani
HarlanvarsityLDTied
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 varsityLD 5 years ago
varsityLD
HarlanvarsityLDTied
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 JBlake 5 years ago
JBlake
HarlanvarsityLDTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33