Atlantis :D

I have one thing to say before I begin…thank you and your welcome :D I have thoroughly enjoyed this debate. Attack on Minoan Claim as a whole Exactly. Details matter, if the details described the person as a ruthless man who lived during the 10th century. Yes, you can still make the argument it describes Julius Ceasar but, it will not be accurate at all. You can make the argument about anything you would like. That does not mean the argument carries any weight. Plato wrote X, if the Minoan civilization was Y. How can it be Atlantis? The only reason anyone knows of Atlantis is because of the major details, the massive, the fact it was a civilization in the 9th century, etc. There would be no reason to write about the civilization especially, I mean Plato was not a historian, he was a philosopher. The story of Atlantis had to have some philosophical importance, or just be so very outlandish for Plato to even begin to write about it. History was left to Herodotus. Atlantis == Minoan civilization "I am merely saying that because of historiographical errors, we can assume much of Plato's tale is incorrect, but this does not mean the story has no truth whatsoever. " My opponent claims that much of Plato's tale is incorrect. Fine, I'll concede this point. But, How does this work in my opponent's favor? If Plato was wrong about Atlantis why should we assume Atlantis existed? We should not. "My argument is based off the skeleton outline of Plato's Atlantis, the only parts which we can assume are actually true (the rise, trade, and fall of the civilization). " But, Atlantis, by definition, contains those events which have to be proven. I mean the only reason anyone knows of Atlantis is because it did sink beneath the ocean in one night. That is a major part of the lore. Another major part of the lore is a technologically advanced civilization. Should we just ignore major parts of the story so it fits my opponent's argument? Because that is what my opponent is doing. The fact is, my opponent provided no evidence of the Minoans conquering Algeria, which is major, while, in myth, the Atlantians did. The conquering of a foreign people is extremely important. And is part of that "skeleton outline. " The Atlantean's apparently conquered great swaths of land as far. In many of these places, there is no record of Minoan civilization. If Plato was totally, then, why should we hold anything Plato says as fact? We should not. Atlantis Existed "I am arguing that because Plato uses a factual tone in his discussion, he is not creating an allegory" Once again, I reiterate, the Odyssey, is in no way shape or form, real. My opponent has not even gone down that path to prove it's real, yet, it is told as if it was historical fact. We can safely assume that there is a deeper point to the story. Unless my opponent wishes to argue that the ten year return journey occurred and that many of the mythical beasts existed we can safely say much of it is allegorical. The Odyssey, by Homer, is nothing more than a great legend to make a point. "Passing of the story through many generations as described in the text itself, we cannot trust every aspect, either. " My opponent basically says the final derived story of Atlantis was the resultant of "whisper down the lane. " But, if we hold this true we can hypothesis anything about what the beginning truth was. The ancient Egyptian's could have been passing down a mythological, allegorical, warning. My opponent has not proven Atlantis existed without a doubt. "this historiographical error does not mean we should dismiss the entire tale as legend" If the final product is resultant from the "whisper down the lane" effect, why should we not dismiss the entire tale as legend? I mean if the 1) the dates wrong, 2) the geographic location and size is wrong, 3) everything which makes Atlantis…Atlantis is wrong, then what are you left with? A civilization which existed sometime in history which is a great naval power and fell due to some event, you basically have described almost every collapsed power from the beginning of civilization until present day. It would be ridiculous to assume they are all Atlantis. Defense 1: Size/Location It is true, Greek historians did exaggerate some. But, they would never think of exaggerating to the point where saying an island the size of Crete is actual the size of the Iberian Peninsula or the size of Libya and Asia combined. That is just too much of a stretch to argue a tiny island is, in fact, continent. Same thing with the date, Plato describes Atlantis as existing circa 9000 BCE. The Minoan's existed circa 2000 BCE. Unless you are flat out saying Plato lied there is an entirely implausible 7000 year "exaggeration. " Defense 2: Philosophy My opponent may have shown the Trojan War occurred. But, they have not shown in any way shape or form, that the 10 year return journey depicted in the Odyssey occurred. It is more logical to think the Odyssey did not happen and is merely showing some point, just as it is more logical to assume Atlantis never existed and was just showing a point. Defense 3: Destruction date My opponent is picking and choosing what is right and wrong. They pick the skeleton of the story to be right. And anything that makes Atlantis…Atlantis to be wrong. Atlantis is what it is because of entirely illogical propositions shown throughout Plato's dialogues. :D