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

<" you cannot judge a person by a limited amount of incriminating information."> The reason the information is "limited" is because these are relatively short arguments were posting. Since these arguments are fairly short, I get a few quotes which particularly outline the point I am making. You can not criticize my limited usage of quotes from Columbus' diaries/letters, when you have referred to none. If you wish to show the reader that there is plenty of good quotes from his diaries and letters to the king and queen, just provide some, instead of vaguely referring to them. <"i'll assume that any first person accounts we have from Columbus himself bieng one single man may be all within one or two diaries."> I have already proved this wrong with my quotes from Las Casas, so this point is invalid. Las Casas wrote an entire multi-volume book called "History of the Indies" which explains most of what we know. And a multi-volume book is much more that "one or two diaries". <" this mans ACHEIVMENTS should be celebrated."> What achievements? That he accidentally and against his knowledge discovered the Americas? That's hardly reason to "Honor" him, as the resolution is stated. The only one of these "ACHEIVMENTS" you have been able to name to Columbus' merit, and it is hardly even worth mentioning. An accident of which you die not knowing of, does not make someone worthy of having a holiday in his name. < "imagine if the world had acess to about half of the thoughts you ever had, whether they were good or bad, racist, philisophical, education, slanderous, guilty,or criminal half of them…">> It is not merely the moral standards with which we judge men of history, but the mind with which they go about it. Columbus acted for his own self-gain, because he went to the Americas for gold. <"he will see that [Las Casas] tried in VAIN to convince the king and queen of Spain that the native Americans WERE EVEN PEOPLE!"> I fail to see how royalty represent the common man of the era. Here is the difference between Las Casas and the Spanish monarchy. Las Casas had a strong sense of morals, and was motivated to spread knowledge of the Spaniards grievances. Therefore, his opinion is verifiably genuine, and is based merely on good-will and morality. Las Casas not only went to the Indies, but was amongst the Spaniards, and for a time contributed to their conquest. The Spanish monarchy were gaining much from Columbus' tirade, so their belief was biased. There actions were based on getting slaves and gold, and this is how Columbus pleased them. The Spanish Monarchy had never been to the Indies, but only received their knowledge of the Indians through Columbus' letters. Their views were that of Columbus' because he was the one who gave the accounts. <<"How could you claim that slavery was deemed immoral in the 1400's when it was practiced, profited upon, and even justified in the bible by bartolome's rivals.">> My opponent used the key word, here: "profited". It was not so much a sense of morality with which this was carried through, but with a sense of profit. My opponent, however, has digressed and focused too much on the idea of slavery. Slavery was one of the lesser grievances of Columbus. He performed mass genocide of the Arawak Indians. If my opponent goes so far as to claim that genocide was somehow morally accepted at this time in history, I would like to refer to the sixth commandment of the bible, which states "thou shall not kill". Most of Europe followed a Christian moral system. And even if they didn't perfectly follow it all the time, it still guided their idea of what "moral" was. And if on an individual basis they did not see a single act of murder as bad, mass genocide was surely not accepted. <<"since the U.S celebrates the holiday, i would assume they beleive his motives were pure.">> This is a misleading line of logic. Lets focus on what "his motives" exactly were: to get gold, to please the king and queen. Therefore his motives were that of self-gain entirely, and I think most Americans would not think this was "pure". The reason it is celebrated yet because they don't know what his motives were. Few people know that much about Christopher Columbus. The only thing, basically, that is taught in school is: "he discovered the Americas" (which is false on many levels). And Americans for the most part have not heard or care to know that he murdered thousands of people for the purpose of getting gold. I would like to clear up a misconception on my opponent's part on the nature of this debate. My opponent seems to have the impression that this is a debate about "Columbus day", as it is celebrated now. It is not. Columbus day is, as my opponent seems to avidly agree, not a holiday about the man himself, but his accomplishments. This is not a debate about THAT holiday. It's about a holiday as suggested by the resolution: "Christopher Columbus should not be honored with a holiday in his name." <" he claims that if one man holds slaves, and benefits from them it is okay, but if another holds slaves it is not okay."> Jefferson did have a sense of morality about his slaves. It was not that he was a vile person, but he was confused. Columbus had no respect or care for his slaves. He seemingly had no sense of morality. Unlike Jefferson, his will was bad. He did not work for the good of society, save his accident which he never knew about. Also, you are ignoring the fact that Columbus committed genocide. <<"He speaks as if the purpose of discovering America was to find slaves. Need i remind him Columbus discovered America by accident.">> You misunderstand me. He did not go across the ocean for slaves, he went across the ocean to get gold. <<"So i have a question for my opponent, How is declaring war for independence against the wills of loyalist Americans and your mother country more pure than…">> In Thomas Jefferson's mind, he was helping the American people. Whether or not some of them didn't agree, the point was that his intentions were good, and that he was trying to be beneficial to society. <<"And Jefferson declared American independence for self gain, to dodge what he felt was unfair taxation without representation…"> Self-gain is not NECESSARILY wrong, but it doesn't make you a hero. Jefferson's main accomplishment was helping with the revolution. This was for the good of his society, in his mind. And as for taxation without representation, that was for the good of society, not just for himself as you claim. Columbus' main accomplishment was an accident, done because he wanted gold. This does not give him reason to be honored. Columbus commited genocide for self-gain. <<"Columbus birth didn't discover America his actions did. So we celebrate his action of discovery,">> That outside the range of this debate. This is a debate about whether we should have a holiday to honor COLUMBUS, not Columbus' actions. Stop pretending that's what the debate is about. If you are implying that we should not celebrate Christopher Columbus, then you are conceding this debate, considering the resolution at hand. To recap: -My opponents arguments are all about having a holiday to celebrate his actions, which is outside the range of this debate, given the resolution to which my opponent agreed to. -Something that is a complete accident does not contribute to the integrity of you're character, therefore his accidental discovering of the americas is not cause to celebrate him. -Christopher Columbus Killed and enslaved thousands of Arawak Indians, in the name of greed. This shows that he was a vile person with a cruel nature.