European Jews are Descended Almost Entirely from the Khazars

Thanks Con. Likewise I will now proceed with rebuttals. Firstly, it should be noted that the Khazaria Kingdom allowing religious freedom does strongly suggest a form of advancement--particularly as other countries in Europe and additionally the Middle East at that time had huge restrictions on religion . Because the Khazaras were originally Pagan, there was obviously a neutrality there. As noted in round one, it isn't just this that made Khazaria advanced but the fact that economically it had success [which again classifies as advancement] and had an ideal geographical location as a point for trades. As for the origins of the term "Ashkenazim", this is something that Con has placed emphasis but is not overly relevant when determining actually if the Ashkenazim or more specifically Eastern European Jews do actually come from what used to be Khazaria. "Ashkenazim" is simply a term which means "German" in Hebrew, and later became used to describe Jews from Germany and Eastern Europe. The reason why a term like "Ashkenazim" was used was because a number of Eastern European Jews later settled in German [thus becoming known as "German Jews"] and other Jews that did remain in Eastern Europe maintained a cultural link to their German counter-parts. The main point of this term is that it used to describe European Jews, not necessarily Jews that have strong ethnic ties to the Middle East or the area in which they are supposed to have originated directly from. Once again, as Pro I'm not connecting the term to Khazaria as such, but more arguing that its peoples later became known as Ashkenazi Jews as Eastern European and German Jewish communities were established. From this point, Ashkenazim culture considerably differed to both Sefardic and Mizrahi cultures and had its own very unique system. One would naturally ask why the Ashkenazim didn't practice the same, or even slightly similar, forms of Judaism like their other two primary Jewish groups and why their culture differed to the extent that it did. Sefardi Jews were technically in Europe while living in Spain and Italy, yet they still retained the close connection to Middle Eastern Jews and kept the original Middle Eastern practices as part of their religion; as well as not really introducing anything new like the Ashkenazim, Rather, this heritage was kept. Con further argues that Middle Eastern Jews did very likely migrate to Eastern Europe but again provides little evidence to conclusively support this. It's correct that a number of Middle Eastern Jews were expelled from Muslim lands, but there is nothing to really suggest that these Jews migrated to Khazaria or would've settled in Eastern Europe. This is again where culture and geographical setting comes in, Khazaria was an area entirely different to the Middle East [or countries in which these Semitic Jews would have came from] and thus would not have attracted such large numbers of these expelled Jews. On the contrary to moving directly into Eastern Europe, they migrated to surrounding areas in the Mediterranean where the culture could thrive more and where they would have a similar setting to what they were used to. As also stated in my previous arguments, places like Greece, Italy and Spain became home to many Jews and there has in fact always been a Jewish presence in the Middle East. Even if Cons assertion was correct, it still doesn't answer why these Jews changed their culture so significantly and how they essentially became a different people. Middle Eastern Jews have always made it a priority to maintain the authenticity of their beliefs and cultural/ethnic background, without ever compromising them. I'll reiterate that Ashkenazim and Eastern European Jews do practice a different form of Judaism and do have non-Middle Eastern cultural practices, as well as general outlook which again just isn't attributed to being in Europe for some time. If Middle Eastern Jews did go to Khazaria in large numbers they would have invariably been the same as they were when they settled there, this is something that we cannot say about Ashkenazim Jews on a general basis. When more religious freedom was exercised in the Middle Eastern, they would also have quite possibly returned to their homelands or [like I've alluded to] more culturally accommodating countries. These factors alone can account for why Ashkenazim Jews originating from Khazaria is indeed very plausible. Con also admits to the fact that Yiddish did begin as a Slavic language, and that Eastern European Jews speak their own type of Slavic-based Yiddish. Cons additional arguments on the matter don't exactly bare a lot of relevance to the debate and resolution itself. Though I will argue it would have been remarkably difficult for German Jews to flee to Eastern Europe during this time period; for obvious reasons of being captured. Once more, Jews in Eastern Europe already spoke a form of Yiddish and did thus not begin speaking it after WW2--which is practically what Con alleges. Yiddish was and is the language of the entire Ashkenazim, from all of Eastern Europe to Germany. Even if Cons assertion was correct, it still doesn't answer why these Jews changed their culture so significantly and how they essentially became a different people. Middle Eastern Jews have always tried their upmost to maintain the authenticity of their beliefs and cultural/ethnic background, without ever compromising them. I'll reiterate that Ashkenazim and Eastern European Jews do practice a different form of Judaism and do have non-Middle Eastern cultural practices, as well as general outlook which again just isn't attributed to being in Europe for some time. If Middle Eastern Jews did go to Khazaria in large numbers they would have invariably been the same as they were when they settled there, this is something that we cannot say about Ashkenazi Jews on a general basis. When more religious freedom was exercised in the Middle Eastern, they would also have quite possibly returned to their homelands or [like I've alluded to] more culturally accommodating countries. Con then disputes that there is no direct evidence for Ashkenazi Jews largely originating from Khazaria, however, there are historical references and there is no other viable answer that can account for the large numbers of "Jews" that suddenly appeared and expanded within the area after the Khazars were defeated. Basically, entire new Jewish communities were founded--and ones that were again very different to the Sefardi and Mizrahi communities. Regarding Cons argument on Ernest Renan, this is more speculation than anything else. Ernest Renan was a historian who specifically studied the Middle East. Con make claims as to Renan being anti-Semitic without really including any specific evidence to support this.