Atlantis :D

By definition, the Atlantis my opponent and I are talking about is the one SPECIFICALLY described by Plato in the Timaeus and the Critias. This means any discussion of Atlantis is limited specifically to whether or not the Atlantis Plato envisioned existed. This means it is presupposed that any geographic and historical events envisoned by Plato are correct otherwise, it would not be Plato's Atlantis. Now I shall begin my attack on my opponent's arguments. 1. The Minoan civilization existed I am not going to even argue this because it did exist on Crete. 2. Atlantis was the Minoan civilization. Plato says Atlantis was in front of the Pillars of Hercules and facing Gibraltar (around 36ï¿½8′N 5ï¿½21′W). Plato depicts Atlantis sinking into the ocean. Literally sinking into the ocean. Crete still exists, which means Create has not sunk into the ocean. My opponent wishes to take Plato literally as depicted by his second rebuttal, yet, also does not want to literally believe anything Plato wrote. So if Plato is creating a "genuine communication of historical fact" then, we must also assume Plato is genuinely communicating factual information about Atlantis's demise, literally, sinking into the ocean. Furthermore, "Plato tells us Atlantis definitely conquered [Algeria] at one stage" (1) On the other hand, if the Minoan's were the Atlantians they would have conquered Algeria also, here's the thing "no evidence exists for a Minoan army, or for Minoan domination of peoples outside Crete. " (2) My opponent is assuming Plato was conveying a historical truth, yet, if he was, then since Atlantis conquered Algeria, then Crete would have had to also, since, they are the same. Crete did not, thus they cannot be the same. In Plato's dialogues, it is an uncontested fact that Atlantis had a powerful army and navy (they did conquer a country). According to history, the Minoans did not have an army, just a navy. Thus, if we hold Plato is writing about history, the Minoan's were not the Atlantians. 3. Therefore, Atlantis existed "As I have said before, I am not arguing that Atlantis was a separate continent in the Atlantic, or even underwater. " But, since Plato is conveying a historical truth, Atlantis must have literally sunk. Unless you want to hold the position that it is nothing more than an allegory. "Plato states that Atlantis had an "extent greater than that of Libya and Asia" and was located in the "Pillars of Heracles. " […]" An important aspect of a historical event is where it occurred. My opponent basically is saying Plato is a bad historian. If that is true, why should we take any of his stories as historical fact? We should not. If we do hold this as historical fact, then, we must also take what Plato said was the right geographic size as fact. I'll be generous; I'll grant that Atlantis is the size of the Iberian peninsula. Even then, it cannot fit where Plato said it was. Geography is an important part of history, if my opponent wishes to take Plato's dialogues as historical documents then they must also accept the geography as historical. Defense 1. Size and location "since Plato was actually describing the Minoan civilization, the size of the landmass Plato describes can be taken as a historical mistake in the discussion of the dialogues. " Compared to "Plato's tone does not resemble that of a parable or allegory, but rather that of genuine communication of historical fact. " So which is it? An exaggerated tale or historical fact? My opponent is basically saying here that Plato exaggerated or just made up every single solitary aspect of Atlantis. If this is true, then basically nothing Plato says about Atlantis is correct and so why exactly are we debating this if we are just going to go through some broad generalizations that fit my opponents argument but, say anything else is wrong. I mean I could say the same, Plato was exaggerating or lying about the points that Atlantis was a naval sea power or existed by the Pillars of Hercules. He was also underexageratting the size, in fact it is about the size of North America and Russia combined. Therefore, geographically it could not have existed. This is ridiculous…my opponent has provided no reason for us to believe Plato was wrong about some things but, right about others. I mean "Plato was adamant that the island had sunk in the Atlantic Ocean, and equally adamant that the story was absolutely true. " (3) 2. Philosophy Stories such as the Odyssey and the Iliad were portrayed as if actual events…but, obviously, were not. Atlantis could be the same. And according to Occam's razor, an allegory is the more logical explanation. 3. The date If Plato got this wrong, why couldn't the entire story be false? He could have gotten it all wrong. At this point my opponent is just picking and choosing what he wants to be right. Even if there was a little exaggeration, he would not exaggerate by 5000 years. That would be too big of a stretch. Source: 1. . http://lucasfic.mixnmojo.com... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://www.eridu.co.uk...