History does not repeat it self.

My thanks to my opponent for his quick response. My apologies for assuming that an underhanded victory predicated on a literal misinterpretation of this phrase was your goal, but you have to admit it is understandable given the phrasing of your opening statement in round one. You chose such a literal definition of history, it was hard to see what angle other than literal interpretation you'd be taking. I will use my response to further clarify the point at hand, and hopefully my opponent will agree and begin debate in round 3 in support of his case. Pro suggests we limit the interpretation of history to that concerning the European continent, and by extension the United States. While I have absolutely no problem with doing so, I maintain that the specific culture we focus on is irrelevant to the debate, and one could easily substitute any or all other cultural groups and my arguments will remain valid. Pro then holds that we can eliminate the semantic technicality by specifying that the argument must concern social history rather than a history of wars, but I fail to see how this is the case. The obvious semantic technicality does not hinge upon the type of history being discussed, but rather the exactness by which my opponent defines the familiar saying contained in the Resolution. Specifically, one could argue that history does not repeat itself because molecules and atoms are always moving, and even if you have two otherwise identical events, such as a man walking to the store twice, those molecules will be in different positions, therefore history did not technically repeat. I maintain that arguments of this nature go against the spirit of the saying in question, and attempts to pursue arguments of this kind should be considered an attempt at semantics, which my opponent has expressed as undesired in this debate. Since my opponent has stated that he wishes to debate the merits of, and meaning behind the phrase "history repeats itself", rather than attempting a win by semantic technicality, I feel we should explore exactly what that intended meaning is. Pro further maintains that "[The phrase]...was created for a reason, one I believe to be false." I take this to be the main theme of his case, and thus of this debate. I am unsure of how a reason can be considered "false" or "true" inherently, perhaps my opponent will agree to substitute the word 'invalid', defined as "not true because based on erroneous information or unsound reasoning" for 'false', as that more accurately represents the issue at hand. Furthermore, if we are to debate the underlying meaning of the phrase, and not argue based on the literal interpretation of words contained within, then we must define what that meaning is, in the context of this debate. I propose the following definition, as put forward by Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings, which reads: HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF - "History follows a pattern of events that recur in different eras. Also used to refer to anything that happens more than once. The proverb has been traced back to 'Rufus Historie' . It was later used in 'Scenes of Clerical Life' by English novelist George Eliot (1819-80). First attested in the United States in 'Marian Rooke' by H. Sedley." (Source: http://www.phrases.org.uk...) It is clear that the phrase refers to 'a pattern of events',rather than specific identical events, that span multiple eras. That is to say, the material content of those eras are irrelevant to the underlying human and historical condition being commented upon (such as suffering caused by a tyrannical ruler, regardless of whether or not the population had computers and running water yet). This definition does present some difficulty however, due to Pro's assertion " "The phrase "history repeats it self" was created for a reason one I believe to be false. Further research indicates that the meaning behind the phrase can be traced back to Thucydides in 400BC with his statement: "I shall be content if those shall pronounce my history useful who desire to have a clear view both of the events which have happened, and of those which will some day, in all human probability, happen again in a same or similar way.~Thucydides, History, bk. 1, ch. 22 (c.400 BC)" (source: http://forum.quoteland.com...) This is the oldest quote I could find on the subject, and I am unsure if it can be considered an origin of the term, and since Pro holds that he will show the reason behind the creation of the phrase as invalid, then we have to agree upon what form of the phrase is to be considered the original. If it would be easier for my opponent to refute a more contemporary and widely accepted usage of the phrase, perhaps we can use the saying Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. ~George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905, ch. 12 as the basis for our debate. I leave the choice to my opponent, as it should be clear to him by now that he is debating a concept almost as old as humanity itself, and he's going to need every advantage he can get in defining the terms of this debate. If my opponent concurs with my above statements, then we have common ground upon which to debate. To summarize, we are agreeing to debate the spirit of the intended meaning behind the phrase "history repeats itself", rather than building arguments upon semantic technicality. Burden of proof falls on my opponent to show the invalidity of the statement 'history repeats itself.' He must prove, as per his own admission, that the phrase was created for no reason, and that, in terms of its commonly accepted meaning, it is incorrect in its claim. If Pro agrees to the definitions outlined above, he is of course free to begin his arguments to support his case. If he feels that further defining is in order, he may continue to do so as well. If he decides to pursue a semantic line of argument he is free to do so, although I will reserve the right to pursue my own line of semantic reasoning if that is the case.