Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Historical Debate

Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 5:56:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm looking for some History Debates. As History is my undisputed strong point. Any takers? Just post what you are willing to debate history-related, and I'll take a look.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 10:47:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Nice to see you back in the site :)

Topic Idea: Had the treaty of Brest-Litovsk come earlier and been less harsh, the Central Powers would've likely won the war.

Or something like that. Gimme a few days to think...but let me know if you're not interested. I'd be Pro.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 5:07:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 10:47:11 AM, bsh1 wrote:
Nice to see you back in the site :)

Topic Idea: Had the treaty of Brest-Litovsk come earlier and been less harsh, the Central Powers would've likely won the war.

Or something like that. Gimme a few days to think...but let me know if you're not interested. I'd be Pro.

Thanks.

It depends on how much earlier. Had it been say 2 years earlier, before tanks enter the fray, perhaps. Of course I don't do well with speculative war debating. Too much guessing.

I always felt that had Germany switched it's strategy it might have work. Remember, it wanted to hold off Russia, while taking out France, then moving against the Russians. They didn't expect Russia to be on the front nearly that fast, nor for the Austrians to be so easily beat by the Russians. Had they pulled a holding motion against France (which would see alot of French dead if they tried to break through), and instead quickly knocked out the Russians, before surging that massive army against the French Flank, I think they had a much better chance.
lannan13
Posts: 23,029
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 5:55:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 5:56:20 AM, Unitomic wrote:
I'm looking for some History Debates. As History is my undisputed strong point. Any takers? Just post what you are willing to debate history-related, and I'll take a look.

Resolved: The United Kingdom should return Northern Ireland back to the Republic of Ireland.
Resolved: The Irish Republican Army are a freedom fighter group not a terrorist organization.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 6:12:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 5:55:15 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 9/16/2015 5:56:20 AM, Unitomic wrote:
I'm looking for some History Debates. As History is my undisputed strong point. Any takers? Just post what you are willing to debate history-related, and I'll take a look.

Resolved: The United Kingdom should return Northern Ireland back to the Republic of Ireland.
Resolved: The Irish Republican Army are a freedom fighter group not a terrorist organization.

I feel the second one relies too much semantics. The First one I think relies too much on what constitutes "should" in international politics.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 6:21:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 5:56:20 AM, Unitomic wrote:
I'm looking for some History Debates. As History is my undisputed strong point. Any takers? Just post what you are willing to debate history-related, and I'll take a look.

What about... On balance, the British Conquest of Native lands was justified?
Idk if I can debate it right now, but it's something for you to think about.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 6:25:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 5:07:57 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 9/16/2015 10:47:11 AM, bsh1 wrote:
Nice to see you back in the site :)

Topic Idea: Had the treaty of Brest-Litovsk come earlier and been less harsh, the Central Powers would've likely won the war.

Or something like that. Gimme a few days to think...but let me know if you're not interested. I'd be Pro.

Thanks.

It depends on how much earlier. Had it been say 2 years earlier, before tanks enter the fray, perhaps. Of course I don't do well with speculative war debating. Too much guessing.

Okay. Well, I'll see if I can settle on a wording for the topic, and if you don't like it, that's okay.

I always felt that had Germany switched it's strategy it might have work. Remember, it wanted to hold off Russia, while taking out France, then moving against the Russians. They didn't expect Russia to be on the front nearly that fast, nor for the Austrians to be so easily beat by the Russians. Had they pulled a holding motion against France (which would see alot of French dead if they tried to break through), and instead quickly knocked out the Russians, before surging that massive army against the French Flank, I think they had a much better chance.

Perhaps, but, based on the information they had at the time, I think the Central Powers made the right call.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 6:41:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 6:25:10 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/16/2015 5:07:57 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 9/16/2015 10:47:11 AM, bsh1 wrote:
Nice to see you back in the site :)

Topic Idea: Had the treaty of Brest-Litovsk come earlier and been less harsh, the Central Powers would've likely won the war.

Or something like that. Gimme a few days to think...but let me know if you're not interested. I'd be Pro.

Thanks.

It depends on how much earlier. Had it been say 2 years earlier, before tanks enter the fray, perhaps. Of course I don't do well with speculative war debating. Too much guessing.

Okay. Well, I'll see if I can settle on a wording for the topic, and if you don't like it, that's okay.

I'm not big on military speculation sadly.

I always felt that had Germany switched it's strategy it might have work. Remember, it wanted to hold off Russia, while taking out France, then moving against the Russians. They didn't expect Russia to be on the front nearly that fast, nor for the Austrians to be so easily beat by the Russians. Had they pulled a holding motion against France (which would see alot of French dead if they tried to break through), and instead quickly knocked out the Russians, before surging that massive army against the French Flank, I think they had a much better chance.

Perhaps, but, based on the information they had at the time, I think the Central Powers made the right call.

Certainly. Hindsight and all that.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 6:42:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 6:41:58 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:25:10 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/16/2015 5:07:57 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 9/16/2015 10:47:11 AM, bsh1 wrote:
Nice to see you back in the site :)

Topic Idea: Had the treaty of Brest-Litovsk come earlier and been less harsh, the Central Powers would've likely won the war.

Or something like that. Gimme a few days to think...but let me know if you're not interested. I'd be Pro.

Thanks.

It depends on how much earlier. Had it been say 2 years earlier, before tanks enter the fray, perhaps. Of course I don't do well with speculative war debating. Too much guessing.

Okay. Well, I'll see if I can settle on a wording for the topic, and if you don't like it, that's okay.

I'm not big on military speculation sadly.

Okay then.

I always felt that had Germany switched it's strategy it might have work. Remember, it wanted to hold off Russia, while taking out France, then moving against the Russians. They didn't expect Russia to be on the front nearly that fast, nor for the Austrians to be so easily beat by the Russians. Had they pulled a holding motion against France (which would see alot of French dead if they tried to break through), and instead quickly knocked out the Russians, before surging that massive army against the French Flank, I think they had a much better chance.

Perhaps, but, based on the information they had at the time, I think the Central Powers made the right call.

Certainly. Hindsight and all that.

True.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 6:45:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 6:42:45 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:41:58 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:25:10 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/16/2015 5:07:57 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 9/16/2015 10:47:11 AM, bsh1 wrote:
Nice to see you back in the site :)

Topic Idea: Had the treaty of Brest-Litovsk come earlier and been less harsh, the Central Powers would've likely won the war.

Or something like that. Gimme a few days to think...but let me know if you're not interested. I'd be Pro.

Thanks.

It depends on how much earlier. Had it been say 2 years earlier, before tanks enter the fray, perhaps. Of course I don't do well with speculative war debating. Too much guessing.

Okay. Well, I'll see if I can settle on a wording for the topic, and if you don't like it, that's okay.

I'm not big on military speculation sadly.

Okay then.

I always felt that had Germany switched it's strategy it might have work. Remember, it wanted to hold off Russia, while taking out France, then moving against the Russians. They didn't expect Russia to be on the front nearly that fast, nor for the Austrians to be so easily beat by the Russians. Had they pulled a holding motion against France (which would see alot of French dead if they tried to break through), and instead quickly knocked out the Russians, before surging that massive army against the French Flank, I think they had a much better chance.

Perhaps, but, based on the information they had at the time, I think the Central Powers made the right call.

Certainly. Hindsight and all that.

True.

What are your thoughts on Roman topics?
TheDebater_101
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 7:13:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 6:45:40 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:42:45 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:41:58 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:25:10 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/16/2015 5:07:57 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 9/16/2015 10:47:11 AM, bsh1 wrote:
Nice to see you back in the site :)

Topic Idea: Had the treaty of Brest-Litovsk come earlier and been less harsh, the Central Powers would've likely won the war.

Or something like that. Gimme a few days to think...but let me know if you're not interested. I'd be Pro.

Thanks.

It depends on how much earlier. Had it been say 2 years earlier, before tanks enter the fray, perhaps. Of course I don't do well with speculative war debating. Too much guessing.

Okay. Well, I'll see if I can settle on a wording for the topic, and if you don't like it, that's okay.

I'm not big on military speculation sadly.

Okay then.

I always felt that had Germany switched it's strategy it might have work. Remember, it wanted to hold off Russia, while taking out France, then moving against the Russians. They didn't expect Russia to be on the front nearly that fast, nor for the Austrians to be so easily beat by the Russians. Had they pulled a holding motion against France (which would see alot of French dead if they tried to break through), and instead quickly knocked out the Russians, before surging that massive army against the French Flank, I think they had a much better chance.

Perhaps, but, based on the information they had at the time, I think the Central Powers made the right call.

Certainly. Hindsight and all that.

True.

What are your thoughts on Roman topics?
If you want we could debate roman topics some times. They're my historical strong point. Also I know this isn't completely historical, but would you like to debate my orion project debate
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 7:23:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 7:13:56 PM, TheDebater_101 wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:45:40 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:42:45 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:41:58 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:25:10 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/16/2015 5:07:57 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 9/16/2015 10:47:11 AM, bsh1 wrote:
Nice to see you back in the site :)

Topic Idea: Had the treaty of Brest-Litovsk come earlier and been less harsh, the Central Powers would've likely won the war.

Or something like that. Gimme a few days to think...but let me know if you're not interested. I'd be Pro.

Thanks.

It depends on how much earlier. Had it been say 2 years earlier, before tanks enter the fray, perhaps. Of course I don't do well with speculative war debating. Too much guessing.

Okay. Well, I'll see if I can settle on a wording for the topic, and if you don't like it, that's okay.

I'm not big on military speculation sadly.

Okay then.

I always felt that had Germany switched it's strategy it might have work. Remember, it wanted to hold off Russia, while taking out France, then moving against the Russians. They didn't expect Russia to be on the front nearly that fast, nor for the Austrians to be so easily beat by the Russians. Had they pulled a holding motion against France (which would see alot of French dead if they tried to break through), and instead quickly knocked out the Russians, before surging that massive army against the French Flank, I think they had a much better chance.

Perhaps, but, based on the information they had at the time, I think the Central Powers made the right call.

Certainly. Hindsight and all that.

True.

What are your thoughts on Roman topics?
If you want we could debate roman topics some times. They're my historical strong point. Also I know this isn't completely historical, but would you like to debate my orion project debate

Rome is my strong point as well.

My understanding of the subject of the Orion Project and the respective Nuclear Laws, nor their implications and precedence simply isn't developed enough to feel confident in a debate.
TheDebater_101
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 7:30:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I understand, though you could just research the topics, but I do understand, it would give you a disadvantage from the start
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 7:46:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 5:56:20 AM, Unitomic wrote:
I'm looking for some History Debates. As History is my undisputed strong point. Any takers? Just post what you are willing to debate history-related, and I'll take a look.

On balance, the British Conquest of Native lands was justified?
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 7:48:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 7:46:34 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/16/2015 5:56:20 AM, Unitomic wrote:
I'm looking for some History Debates. As History is my undisputed strong point. Any takers? Just post what you are willing to debate history-related, and I'll take a look.

On balance, the British Conquest of Native lands was justified?

Which side are you? And how exactly do we define "justified"
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 7:49:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 6:45:40 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:42:45 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:41:58 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:25:10 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/16/2015 5:07:57 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 9/16/2015 10:47:11 AM, bsh1 wrote:
Nice to see you back in the site :)

Topic Idea: Had the treaty of Brest-Litovsk come earlier and been less harsh, the Central Powers would've likely won the war.

Or something like that. Gimme a few days to think...but let me know if you're not interested. I'd be Pro.

Thanks.

It depends on how much earlier. Had it been say 2 years earlier, before tanks enter the fray, perhaps. Of course I don't do well with speculative war debating. Too much guessing.

Okay. Well, I'll see if I can settle on a wording for the topic, and if you don't like it, that's okay.

I'm not big on military speculation sadly.

Okay then.

I always felt that had Germany switched it's strategy it might have work. Remember, it wanted to hold off Russia, while taking out France, then moving against the Russians. They didn't expect Russia to be on the front nearly that fast, nor for the Austrians to be so easily beat by the Russians. Had they pulled a holding motion against France (which would see alot of French dead if they tried to break through), and instead quickly knocked out the Russians, before surging that massive army against the French Flank, I think they had a much better chance.

Perhaps, but, based on the information they had at the time, I think the Central Powers made the right call.

Certainly. Hindsight and all that.

True.

What are your thoughts on Roman topics?

What Roman topics? I'm descended from the God Venus and am the reincarnation of Julius Caeser
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 7:51:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 7:48:05 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 9/16/2015 7:46:34 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/16/2015 5:56:20 AM, Unitomic wrote:
I'm looking for some History Debates. As History is my undisputed strong point. Any takers? Just post what you are willing to debate history-related, and I'll take a look.

On balance, the British Conquest of Native lands was justified?

Which side are you? And how exactly do we define "justified"

I'd lean towards Pro. That would be clarified in the debate, though it'd likely be morally permissible, logical, etc.

Actually, the resolution could be modified to "On balance, the European Conquest of Native lands was justified." That would include Spain and other countries whose impact was minor.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 7:52:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 7:51:26 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/16/2015 7:48:05 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 9/16/2015 7:46:34 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/16/2015 5:56:20 AM, Unitomic wrote:
I'm looking for some History Debates. As History is my undisputed strong point. Any takers? Just post what you are willing to debate history-related, and I'll take a look.

On balance, the British Conquest of Native lands was justified?

Which side are you? And how exactly do we define "justified"

I'd lean towards Pro. That would be clarified in the debate, though it'd likely be morally permissible, logical, etc.

Actually, the resolution could be modified to "On balance, the European Conquest of Native lands was justified." That would include Spain and other countries whose impact was minor.

Sadly you and I are on the same side then. I consider right by conquest to supercede any other.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 7:54:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 7:52:41 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 9/16/2015 7:51:26 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/16/2015 7:48:05 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 9/16/2015 7:46:34 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/16/2015 5:56:20 AM, Unitomic wrote:
I'm looking for some History Debates. As History is my undisputed strong point. Any takers? Just post what you are willing to debate history-related, and I'll take a look.

On balance, the British Conquest of Native lands was justified?

Which side are you? And how exactly do we define "justified"

I'd lean towards Pro. That would be clarified in the debate, though it'd likely be morally permissible, logical, etc.

Actually, the resolution could be modified to "On balance, the European Conquest of Native lands was justified." That would include Spain and other countries whose impact was minor.

Sadly you and I are on the same side then. I consider right by conquest to supercede any other.

Well, that's okay. :) I'd agree. Conquest is inevitable (or at least was). Besides, conquest implies war, which isn't just taking. It requires force.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 7:58:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 7:54:26 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/16/2015 7:52:41 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 9/16/2015 7:51:26 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/16/2015 7:48:05 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 9/16/2015 7:46:34 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/16/2015 5:56:20 AM, Unitomic wrote:
I'm looking for some History Debates. As History is my undisputed strong point. Any takers? Just post what you are willing to debate history-related, and I'll take a look.

On balance, the British Conquest of Native lands was justified?

Which side are you? And how exactly do we define "justified"

I'd lean towards Pro. That would be clarified in the debate, though it'd likely be morally permissible, logical, etc.

Actually, the resolution could be modified to "On balance, the European Conquest of Native lands was justified." That would include Spain and other countries whose impact was minor.

Sadly you and I are on the same side then. I consider right by conquest to supercede any other.

Well, that's okay. :) I'd agree. Conquest is inevitable (or at least was). Besides, conquest implies war, which isn't just taking. It requires force.

Now an unmitigated war might make it "wrong", but the land transfers afterwards are still justified. It's one reason I believe the Israelis are rightful owners of the West bank (that it wasn't exactly an unmitigated war doesn't help them). But that's a topic I plan to stay away from in debates.
thett3
Posts: 14,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 8:10:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 7:54:26 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/16/2015 7:52:41 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 9/16/2015 7:51:26 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/16/2015 7:48:05 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 9/16/2015 7:46:34 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/16/2015 5:56:20 AM, Unitomic wrote:
I'm looking for some History Debates. As History is my undisputed strong point. Any takers? Just post what you are willing to debate history-related, and I'll take a look.

On balance, the British Conquest of Native lands was justified?

Which side are you? And how exactly do we define "justified"

I'd lean towards Pro. That would be clarified in the debate, though it'd likely be morally permissible, logical, etc.

Actually, the resolution could be modified to "On balance, the European Conquest of Native lands was justified." That would include Spain and other countries whose impact was minor.

Sadly you and I are on the same side then. I consider right by conquest to supercede any other.

Well, that's okay. :) I'd agree. Conquest is inevitable (or at least was). Besides, conquest implies war, which isn't just taking. It requires force.

The right of conquest argument is the one I would make on that resolution. I think it's super unbalanced because true "justice" is such a lofty and unrealistic concept--it's really hard to come up with a good conception of justice that makes swooping in and taking over okay other than the right of conquest. I think it's not so much that the conquest was just but rather that it's like you said, it was inevitable. I'm also really annoyed by judging historical figures by modern standards, or how we act like the conquest of the Americas is the only conquest to ever happen and the Americans were so incredibly evil and how dare they....when in reality, that's just what history is. Our glorious leader Airmax once told me that the definition of sovereignty is "most recent military victor" and I have to agree. People are pretty evil to each other

I also take issue with the portrayal of native americans as stupid, peaceful, nature loving children of the Earth...the "noble savage" myth. Many of them were instead warriors who I'm sure would much rather accept defeat at the hands of a superior foe than to be remembered like that
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 8:33:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The right of conquest argument is the one I would make on that resolution.

Likewise.

I think it's super unbalanced because true "justice" is such a lofty and unrealistic concept

Welcome to LD. :P But, that's why I included the "On balanced" clause.

--it's really hard to come up with a good conception of justice that makes swooping in and taking over okay other than the right of conquest.

Exactly.

I think it's not so much that the conquest was just but rather that it's like you said, it was inevitable. I'm also really annoyed by judging historical figures by modern standards, or how we act like the conquest of the Americas is the only conquest to ever happen and the Americans were so incredibly evil and how dare they....when in reality, that's just what history is.

Yes!

Our glorious leader Airmax once told me that the definition of sovereignty is "most recent military victor" and I have to agree. People are pretty evil to each other'

Sounds quite reasonable, because yes, people are evil towards each other.

I also take issue with the portrayal of native americans as stupid, peaceful, nature loving children of the Earth...the "noble savage" myth. Many of them were instead warriors who I'm sure would much rather accept defeat at the hands of a superior foe than to be remembered like that

Exactly. They weren't exactly buddies with us either, their lifestyle in general was pretty hostile, so why should we have been treated any differently? The difference was, we were better prepared to handle Natives than were Natives with each other.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 8:34:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 8:10:02 PM, thett3 wrote:

Didn't you do this debate with Varrack?
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
thett3
Posts: 14,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 8:48:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 8:34:38 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/16/2015 8:10:02 PM, thett3 wrote:

Didn't you do this debate with Varrack?

I did, yes
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right