Denmark committed atrocities during the conquest of Greenland.

1. "There's one problem with this: I'm not talking about medieval times. I'm talking about the 18th century." The 18th century contained no conquest of Greenland, as Greenland was already a subject of Denmark via a royal marraige with Norway, each entirely peaceful. My opponent as offered nothing but red herring arguments involving other nations and peoples, such as the Visigoth Kingdom, which is several hundred miles from Denmark, and has nothing to do with this debate. The Visigoths also only existed from 5th to the 8th centuries, not the 18th century. The last Visigoth King ruled in what is now modern day Spain, in the 700s. SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org... Ostrogothic Kingdom- also ended in the 6th century, a full 1000 years before the 18th century. There is actually no such thing as the "kingdom of danelaw" as Danelaw is a name for a regional culture, not a nation. It also left existence roughly 1000 years before the 18th century. SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. " what we're talking about is Denmark's cruel hold on it during the 18th, 19th and first half of the 20th century." My opponent has yet to show examples of any conquest on the part of the Danes, nor has he shown any atrocities committed during the fictional conquest. 2.1 - LOGICAL FALLACY - "Obviously an unfortunate lack of common knowledge shown here (and is all too common in corrupt schools)." Rather than attempt to refute the claim, my oponent has chosen to use the logical fallacy of ad hominem, by claiming my education is "corrupt". Again, without soures. 2.2 - " Yes there were people in Greenland, a good decent amount of people, so there was no uninhabited territories. " My opponent has not provided a source for this claim, aside from his opinion. His picture of colonial holdings does not refute the myriad of historic accounts which state Greenland was uninhabited when the first settlers arrived. SOURCE: http://en.wikisource.org... SOURCE: http://www.greenland-guide.gl... 2.3 - more red herrings - "If Greenland had been uninhabited, which for some weird reason my opponent claims, it wouldn't be listed as an overseas territory, but rather as a research zone much like the Norwegian and British zones in Antartica." My opponent here is attempting to confuse readers. He has attempted to claim that because his provided map does not indicate Greenland is currently uninhabited, that it never was uninhabited, which is not a sound argument at all. Greenland is not considered an overseas territory,specifically because it was a nearby trade settlement, rather than a colony,The words for colony and trade settlement are the same in Danish. "Again, the Middle Ages. No Catholic country was really into conquest during those times. The only thing they did was the Crusades which was more a war than conquest" Likely because Erik the Red was not Christian. And the Crusades were conquest, European nations took several pieces of territory in the Holy Land. 2.4 - "see the source. Obviously this is a lack of knowledge on part of con." My opponent uses Ad hominem and the Genetic fallacy. My opponent has also cited wikipedia, so it is hypocritical for them to claim my citation is not credible. 3. The moving goalposts "However, this also happened in the Middle Ages. So the Norse peacefully colonized the area, and the Inuits and Norse got along (but I'm not talking about Norway or the Norse, I'm talking about Denmark in the 19th century)." My opponent wants to dismiss the cultural history of Greenland, because he realizes the Norse ancestral claim is very strong, and there was never any conquest on the part of the Danes. Also, my opponent refuses to acknowledge the source which detailed the aggressive nature of the Thule/Inuit migrants who discovered the original Norse settlers. "The Icelandic Annals are among the few existing sources that confirm contact between the Norse and the Inuit. They report an instance of hostility initiated by the Inuit against the Norse, leaving eighteen Greenlanders dead and two boys carried into slavery."" SOURCE: Wahlgren, Erik (1986). The Vikings and America. New York: Thames and Hudson SOURCE: Fitzhugh and Ward, 2000: p. 336 (FOUND: http://en.wikipedia.org......) 2.1 - "Again, this is not about the Middle Ages. We're talking Denmark during the 19th century, when they were Protestant.' We are discussing the entire history of Greenland, so it can be illustrated that Denmark has never conquered or set it's military against Greenland. My opponent has yet to show a single instance where Denmark used it's military against Greenland. 2.2 - Another red herring - "That pretty much is a concession. Greenland had tribes in the north. Maybe the south was inhabited (and even then the Norse were the peaceful ones, not the Danes). Pretty soon the Inuits would come there." The Thule/Inuit cultures arrived in southern Greenland in the 1300's. About 500 years after the first Norse settlements. They were not native to the region. As a matter of fact, the Inuits (descendants of the Thule) Did not migrate to Greenland in large numbers until the 1800's. SOURCE: http://www.arcticjournal.ca... Paleo-Eskimos lived in the most northern reaches of Greenland as far back as 4500BC, but never moved to the southern coasts until the Thule/Inuit migration between 1350-1850 CE AKA the little Ice age. The Paleo-Eskimos died out due to harsh conditions. Their descendants migrated back to Greenland in the 13th century. SOURCE: http://www.cbc.ca... "Maybe the south was inhabited " It wasn't, and my opponent has not shown otherwise. 3. The Napoleonic War "That doesn't prove they weren't cruel (common knowledge). " Claiming something is "common knowledge" does not make it so. My opponent claims it is common knowledge that the Danish people are "cruel", yet he cannot provide sources to indicate there was any conquest or cruelty in the 17th -19th century on behalf of the Danes toward Greenland. This indicates my opponent has a cultural bias. "What it means was that Denmark was awarded the whole of Greenland, as the map showed wasn't really Danish until the early 19th century, which was when the Napoloenic Wars. So there wasn't conquest. " My opponent has admitted the Danes did not commit any conquest, so there really isn't any point in continuing the debate. I will address some of their other arguments briefly, but this admission proves they already knew there was no conquest. Further, Denmark was not "awarded" Greenland, as they already had sovereignty over the settlement via their personal Union with Norway, which was established In 1380, a full 400 years prior. They LOST claim on Norway due to siding with France in the Napoleonic war. They were not awarded anything. They were forced to cede Norway to Sweden. SOURCE: Wahlgren, Erik (1986). The Vikings and America. New York: Thames and Hudson. SOURCE: http://en.wikisource.org...... SOURCE: http://www.academia.edu...... SOUREC: http://www.greenland-guide.gl...... 4. "It wasn't during conquest, because Greenland had long belonged to Denmark. Obviously this was pretty much like the atrocities the British did in India during rule." A single example of a human rights violation which occurred during a time of peace is nothing compared to the brutality of England's occupation of India. England did not found India, the Norse did found Greenland. Apples and oranges. 5. My opponent repeated his unsupported claim that the spread of settlements equates to conquest. 6. "That implies that conquest indeed did happen. Has to. This is common knowledge." The expansion of settlement was entirely trade oriented, not conquest. My opponent has no sources to the contrary. There is not a single example of violence from the Danes.