Atlantis :D

This will be my final round of rebuttals. Defense of my Minoan claim as a whole In response to my defense of the entire Minoan-Atlantean correlation, my opponent replies: “You can make the argument about anything you would like. That does not mean the argument carries any weight. ” My opponent is correct – this does not explicitly mean the argument carries any weight. However, providing evidence certainly reinforces an argument. I could claim that the man who was stabbed was Jesus, but without any substantial evidence, this argument would fail – there needs to be actual, considerable evidence for a correlation between the Minoans and the Atlanteans; I have provided extensive examples throughout my argument of an actual connection of the stories of Minoa and Atlantis, which, as I will show, my opponent has not properly refuted. Atlantis was the Minoan civilization. My opponent makes the concession that “much of Plato’s tale was incorrect. ” My opponent asks how this works in my favor, and then continues to argue that if parts of Plato’s tale was incorrect, why should the entire tale hold any weight? As I have stated before, Plato was speaking with a historical tone, was describing a Greek-esque civilization that rose before any other civilization they knew of, traded and built a navy, and then fell suddenly due to a cataclysm. The Minoans, a direct precursor to Hellenic civilization, rose before any other European civilization,1 traded and built a navy, as I have shown before, and then fell due to the eruption of the volcano on the island of Thera, which also sent a tsunami upon the island of Crete. These parallels are astounding and must be considered. My opponent goes on to argue that I must prove the sinking and advanced technology of Atlantis in order to prove my Minoan claim as a whole. Although these details could have been part of the historiographical error, I feel the need to point out that the Minoans were wiped out due to the Theran explosion, “likely have generated an even larger tsunami and pyroclastic flows that traveled much farther over the surface of the sea. ”2 The complete sinking under the water was obviously an exaggeration. As for the North African reach, I have shown that the Minoans actually did have a powerful navy which was known to have traveled as far south as Egypt, in northern Africa.3 The Minoans also were known to have traveled west, as they reached Spain.4 Algeria is, of course, a very specific location, and the record of their actual exploits in North Africa was recorded as Algeria when it may have in fact just meant the North African region as a whole; or, even, this could just be another historiographical error due to word-of-mouth legend. Atlantis existed. My opponent has seemingly dropped the Iliad as I have proven places and events in the Iliad, such as Troy and the Trojan War, have archaeological evidence to support their existence and occurrence. In fact, a University of Minnesota research team reported, “The reality of Homer’s description of place, event and topography correlated with geologic investigation helps show that the ‘Iliad’ is not just a legend but regularly consistent with paleogeographic reconstruction. ”5 Though parts of the Iliad are obviously legend and exaggeration, such as the “face that launched a thousand ships” bit, it is safe to say that the places and events of the Iliad are rooted in historical fact. He now moves on to the Odyssey, saying, “[…] 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. ” Odysseus could not have possibly escaped monsters such as Polyphemus and Charybdis, and met Greek deities such as Aeolus, correct? No, I agree. Parts of the Odyssey are completely fictional. However, just as I have been arguing this entire time, each of these stories has a historical basis. Because the Odyssey is more of a legendary one-man journey than a major historical conflict, the references to historical fact are more minute, but there are still instances where the Odyssey has factual basis. For instance, the monsters of the Odyssey were based on fossils found by the Greeks. The Cyclops, for instance, “When fossil elephant bones turned up [in Sicily] in the 5th century B. C. , Empedocles interpreted them as Cyclops-bones…. In the 14th century A. D. , Boccaccio repeated the identification, citing Empedocles. ”6 Moreover, significant astronomical events that took place in the Odyssey, however obscure, have been pinpointed in historical context, such as a possible total solar eclipse in 1178 BC.7 Then, we must remember, there are also the actual islands mentioned such as Odysseus’s home of Ithaca as well as other Greek islands. As anyone can see, there is factual truth in even the most exaggerated of stories. With this in mind, it is not much of a stretch to say the idea of Atlantis was based in reality, however divergent the story may have become later. My opponent lastly states: “[…] 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? ” You are left with, as I have stated, the mere outline of Atlantis, which is all we can trust. An ancient, naval, Greek-esque power which rose, traded around the Mediterranean, and fell due to a maritime catastrophe. There is only one civilization that fits this description: the Minoans. Rebuttal 1: Size and location My opponent humbly concedes that Greek historians exaggerated; he has been reduced to disputing the magnitude of this exaggeration. All I have to do is point out that an actual estimate of the perimeter of the city of Babylon’s walls was 17 miles; Herodotus exaggerated to a total 56 miles.8 Herodotus later exaggerated the number of Greek warships destroyed in a storm from an actual estimate of 400 to almost 7200.9 There is really nowhere Greek historians did not exaggerate. Again, there is no reason to argue Plato would not make the same far-reaching exaggerations when relaying the history of the Minoan peoples. Rebuttal 2: Philosophy My opponent again graciously concedes that the Trojan War as described by Homer in the Iliad actually did occur. He then goes on to further the claim that the Odyssey never happened; I have shown that while most of the information in the Odyssey is untrue, there are key historical and geographic points in the Odyssey that have been found by historians to be based in truth, such as the Cylopean interpretation of elephant bones, the actual astronomical occurrence of a total solar eclipse, and the reality of Greek islands described in the work. Rebuttal 3: Destruction date Again, I am accused of picking and choosing what to believe and not believe. I am arguing based on a skeleton outline of Plato’s Atlantis. Just as a historian should only look at the major events of the Iliad, such as the Trojan War, rather than the overstated described size of the forces or the inflated, romantic causes of the event, a historian should only look at the big picture of Atlantis – to reiterate, “an ancient, naval, Greek-esque power which rose, traded around the Mediterranean, and fell due to a maritime catastrophe. ” Conclusion I, of course, had the Burden of Proof in this debate. I had the Burden to show that Atlantis existed. I have shown that: Atlantis was the Minoan civilization Historical errors account for the inconsistencies Plato’s tone was historical rather than philosophical My opponent was unable to refute my evidence. Therefore, I have shown that Atlantis existed. References1. . http://goo.gl... p. 232. . http://goo.gl...3. . http://goo.gl...4. . http://goo.gl... p. 12915. . http://goo.gl...6. . http://goo.gl... p. 6 – 77. . http://goo.gl... 8. . http://goo.gl... p. 1409. . http://goo.gl... p. 303 – 304