Christopher Columbus should not be honored with a holiday in his name.

Hello and thank you for accepting. This is a debate about whether Christopher Columbus should be "honored" with a holiday, and therefore this debate is about whether he should be honored, and not about the holiday itself. For the sake of organization and to assure that no point will go unheeded, I will quote each of your points and then provide my rebuttals. <<"My first contention is that Columbus day isn't celebrating christopher columbus, but rather his achievments Making knowledge of the Americas known">> This contention is valid, yet outside the range of this debate. If you will notice the resolution, it is not whether we should have a holiday to celebrate his achievements, but whether we should have a holiday to honor him. This debate is about whether he as a person is worthy of being honored with a holiday. Not whether we should have a holiday to celebrate the events leading to American independence. Saying that Columbus has merit, because his actions very indirectly led to the existence of the United States, is akin to giving Hitler merit because his actions indirectly led to the formation of The United Nations. The United Nations was formed after WWII so that a diplomatic crisis such as a world war would not occur again. Since Hitler played a large part in the starting of World-war II, he "paved the way" to the UN. So basically, having a holiday to honor Columbus is about as sensible as having a "Hitler day" on September first (the day he invaded Poland). http://www.un.org... <<"My Second Contention is that the Affirmation isn't fairly portraying Columbus.">> I gave the general gist of what Columbus did: went across the ocean driven solely by self-gain, found aborigines, and then used them for his self gain, by using them as slaves and using them for gold. The ONLY "good side" that you can attest for in his nature is that his actions inadvertently set off a chain reaction which led to the US. This does not contribute to the virtue of his personality or good-intent of his actions in any way. It merely illustrates that horrible actions from people like Columbus can accidentally bring good things…centuries later. The comparison to the Fourth of July does not fit for the following reasons: 1. The Fourth of July celebrates the independence of the US, not the guy who wrote the declaration of thus. It is not "Jefferson day", but "The Fourth of July". Unlike the holiday which is implied by the resolution, the Fourth of July celebrates the instance that was incurred by the man, and not the man himself. 2. While Thomas Jefferson had many quality attributes, Columbus had none worthy of note –nor have you denied this- but the persistent idea from you that he should be honored because his wickedness inadvertently led to the independence of America 300 years later. This however is not an attribute to his nature as a person, but the fortunate turn of events that history took. Thomas Jefferson had many virtues and his motive was pure, unlike Columbus who acted merely on the Motive of self-gain. Morality and virtue can only be measured by the intent with which actions are partook, and not the consequence of said actions. <<"My third contention is that actions such as slavery were acepted at the time, and according to Spanish Monarchy during the 1400's Native Americans were not deemed people, so in essence he wasn't doing anything wrong in the eyes of his time period.">> You have seemingly made this assertion about the time period with no backing. And my guess is that you aren't exactly an expert on the 1400's, either. With some research you will find that the very nature of the documentation of Columbus' grievances denies that slavery was the morally accepted standard of the time period. Much of what we know about the matter stems from what is written by Bartolome de las casas, who thoroughly opposed the selfish grievances of Columbus. He originally helped in the conquest of Cuba, but then realized that it was wrong. He wrote "History of the Indies", which provides much information for historians on what Columbus did. Here is a quote from book 2 of this series: "[Columbus] was so anxious to please the king that he committed irreparable crimes against the Indians…" Are these the words from someone of a period where genocide and slavery were morally acceptable? No. It was just that the Spaniards where greedy and acted immorally. After recording the horrible conditions of the dwindling Indians, who were reverting to suicide, and who were quickly being depopulated, he said thus: "My eyes have seen these acts so foreign to human nature, and now I tremble as I write…" Even if it was 500 years ago, there was still many basic ideas about human nature and morality that persist today. Things such as religion make sure of this. The ten commandments are very, very old. Las Casas wrote: "Two of these so-called Christians met two Indian boys one day, each carrying a parrot; they took the parrots and for fun beheaded the boys." I hope these quotes from Las Casas served to illustrate the point that people with a sense of morality at the time did not approve of the actions of Columbus and the other Spaniards. And as far as you're assertion that Indians were not considered Human, the quotes have also contradicted this. You're only backing for that claim was that of "according to Spanish Monarchy". To this I reply: the biased views of those in power do not reflect upon the moral code of the era. "Since my opponent is insinuating that Columbus day shouldn't be celebrated since christopher columbus held slaves, the [sic.] he is suggesting that noone [sic.] who has ever held a slave, or mistreated another culture should be celebrated." The words you have put in my mouth are an absolute statement, stating that "noone" of those specifications should be celebrated. I do not imply this, however. Columbus should not be celebrated because he had absolutely no virtuous attributes that are worthy of note. If he did, then it would be acceptable to celebrate him. Not only was he not a hero, though, but he was greedy and performed acts of genocide solely for self-gain. Once more, morality can only be measured by the intent of actions, and the intention of Columbus was evil, unlike so many great people in history who did great things and were good in nature, contributing greatly to humanity, but also had slaves. You have yet to provide any positive quality about the nature and personality of Columbus. The only thing you have provided is that he very distantly and inadvertently caused American independence to occur. <> I apologize that I have not provided the sources yet, but I would like to point out that holding them void would be unnecessary, because I made the only real citation that was necessary: Citing that it was the words of Christopher Columbus. However, for you're convenience I will tell you where I found the quotes. I got the quotes and subsequent information from "A people's History of The United States", by Howard Zinn. Alas, it is not an internet source, as you assumed, but a book. If you wish to use it for reference, you may find it at you local public library. If you wish to seek whether the quotes are "made up" or not, that is you're burden. I give you my word those are quotes from Columbus, and I have provided the way in which you may verify this. If for convenience you would like to find the quotes from another source (internet), than that is also upon you. -Harlan