It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Debate: PatrickGarrow17 vs. Adjensen: Atlantis Existed

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:13 PM
Greetings Reader,

What follows will be a discussion between myself and Adjensen about the history of humanity. We will be debating a question that is a favorite among members on ATS:

Did Atlantis exist?

The term "Atlantis" will be defined as an ancient civilization that's advancement rivals or exceeds our current one, predates the ancient civilizations that are included in the current historical narrative, and has for some reason been lost to the official record.

In this debate, I will seek to persuade the readers that Atlantis did indeed exist. Adjensen will argue in opposition to my position.

I'd like to thank Adjensen for participating in this debate, ATS for hosting, and anyone who chooses to spend time pondering the subject with us.

Before I begin, here are some of the best threads on this subject from ATS:
Atlantis located off the west coast of Ireland
Origins of Atlantis/Lemuria myth Part One
Part Two

An Incomplete Puzzle

My position is difficult to prove. Absent empirical evidence, I will ask the readers to take a leap of the imagination. In order to accept that the hypothesis of Atlantis is a good one, we must accept circumstantial evidence and make inferences.

Before refusing to do so, let's take a moment to acknowledge that when studying history we must always accept that we view an incomplete puzzle. Over time stories get lost and evidence gets buried - sometimes deliberately. The more time that passes, the more erosion there is on the picture we attempt to view.

In the case of Atlantis, we are attempting to view a picture that has undergone thousands of years of such erosion.

In my opinion, this is one of the great qualities of our lives. Mysteries outnumber facts. The bigger the question, the farther removed the subject, the more difficult it is to reach an answer.

Consider that in most truly challenging intellectual endeavors, we must take a similar leap of thought as the one it takes to conclude the the existence of a great lost civilization is a significant possibility.

People have been around for a long time.

The fossils found near Ethiopia's Omo River are considered to be the oldest known remains of anatomically modern humans.

The 195,000-year-old date coincides with findings from genetic studies on modern human populations. Such studies can be extrapolated to determine when the earliest modern humans lived.

To the best of our knowledge, Homo Sapiens seem to have come into existence around 200,000 years ago in Africa. Prevailing theory holds that, over time, people migrated out of Africa and populated the globe.

We see that as of 15,000 years ago (at the earliest), humanity was living all over Earth. We know of great civilizations rising in China, India, and the Middle East thousands of years before the common era.

These last 15,000 years represent less than 10% of the time man has spent on Earth. Why is it that civilization is believed to be such a new phenomena in the history of man?

There is a major hole in our history. People living 50,000 years ago were pretty much identical to people today, in terms of genetics. We must acknowledge that an empire having existed in the distant past is a possibility, in terms of the capability of the people living to create society. They were no less capable than we are now.

With that in mind, let's consider the common links between the empires that formed in more recent history. Great civilizations have existed on all continents for thousands of years: some of the earliest being in Mesopotamia, India, Mesoamerica, China, Anatolia, and Egypt.

These civilizations that are proposed to have developed independently share many striking characteristics in architecture, philosophy, and language.

A researcher analyzing the sounds in languages spoken around the world has detected an ancient signal that points to southern Africa as the place where modern human language originated. The finding fits well with the evidence from fossil skulls and DNA that modern humans originated in Africa. It also implies, though does not prove, that modern language originated only once, an issue of considerable controversy among linguists.


My argument, in trying to fill in the sparsely completed puzzle of human history, is that there was sophisticated civilization in the human world before those considered the earliest in the current paradigm.

During the period between 200,000 and 15,000 years ago there was a civilization with wide reach. Due to one of many plausible scenarios, the civilization at large collapsed but it's lineage lived on and played a significant role in the developing of the various states that rose in the past 10,000 years.

There are logical explanations for the lack of evidence. One being that secrecy could be deliberate. Experience may have taught that people are best administrated from the shadows.

Or, perhaps, a major geologic event destroyed all evidence. Another possibility is war caused destruction.

Like I said, a leap of the imagination is required. I am not only arguing that "Atlantis" existed, but that there was a sophisticated civilization which passed on the knowledge that our current world is built upon.

edit on 11-2-2013 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 02:49 PM
Thanks to PatrickGarrow17 for offering up another debate on a mysterious subject and to the ATS Debate Forum for hosting, reading and judging!


There are a number of points that Patrick made in his opening post that I completely agree with:
  1. History is incomplete
  2. Mankind has been around for a long time
  3. Roughly 15,000 years ago, we had largely settled the planet
I'll add some facts that are also germane:
  1. Atlantis was first referenced by Plato
  2. Plato was a philosopher, not an historian
  3. Plato dates Atlantis to about 9,300BC
  4. Recorded history goes back to about 3,000BC
Right here, we see a significant problem -- if Atlantis existed 6,000 years before recorded history, how did Plato know about it? In Critias, he implies that he learned of it from an Egyptian source, but this doesn't really address the problem, since nothing else exists from that time.

Secondly, the stories regarding Atlantis are in regards to them being at war with Athens, a war the Atlantians lost, implying that Athens had a similar level of technology in 9,300BC, but the city itself didn't even exist until thousands of years later. Finally, though his description of Atlantis is one of a powerful nation, there is nothing in Plato's dialogues that implies a significantly higher level of technology (and the fact that they were beaten by Athens furthers that point.)

Therefore, we can conclude, from the facts that are known, that a technically advanced civilization called "Atlantis" did not exist when and where Plato said it did. In reading his dialogue, it is clear that Plato is using this fictional place, along with standard Greek mythology, to illustrate philosophical principals, predominantly honour, perseverance, justice and the search for truth.


With that in hand, we turn to the wider picture, whether an ancient civilization with technology on a par with our own (or even exceeding it) could have existed. When we look into the empty container that is Patrick's 200,000BC to 15,000BC, it seems like it certainly is possible -- look at what we've accomplished in the past 150 years, and just imagine what we could manage in 185,000 years!

But this is a misnomer, because those 185,000 years, along with the 17,000 subsequent to it, have already been used, in getting us to the point where we could do that technological leapfrog in the past 150 years. Technology, no matter how advanced or crude, is built on two things -- first, technology and knowledge which precedes it and second, a society able to afford its development.

The vast majority of those 185,000 years were spent, as Patrick notes, with humanity just wandering around, filling out the planet. That happened because man was nomadic.

Nomadism - A form of social organization where people and animals move from place to place in search of pasture. The itinerary of movement may take the form of a routine pattern but, as rainfall varies, there may be movement away from this routine. True nomads have no fixed abode and no sedentary agriculture. (Susan Mayhew, A Dictionary of Geography)

At this stage of human existence, we were hunter/gatherers, and so people wound up leaving Africa to populate Europe, Asia and the Americas because they were following herds or seeking out new ones, along with new sources of vegetation. Nomads are not innovators, because they are focused on finding food, are constantly relocating, and there are no "free hands" to fiddle about with inventing things -- everyone is focused on survival.

The agricultural revolution and domestication of animals for food was a critical step toward civilization, in that it allowed people to stop shifting about constantly and led to the development of urban areas. Referred to as the Neolithic Revolution, this took place over about a 5,000 year period prior to about 5,000BC. As with other technology, this didn't happen overnight, it was a gradual process that resulted in dramatic changes to human lifestyles and behaviours.

Now, unlike human history, which we recognize as being incomplete, we have a pretty good handle on planetary history, specifically climate. To that end, we know that, for about 100,000 years of Patrick's 185,000 year "hole", much of the planet was covered in glaciers or otherwise uninhabitable:

(Full size picture here)

With this in mind, we know that any technically advanced civilization, at least from about 100,000BC to 10,000BC, would have been confined to a very small geographical area. In addition, we can correlate the Neolithic Revolution to the climate change that happened with the ending of this ice age, as we will see in the next post.

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:47 PM
First, I'd like to make a few points about Plato:

1.) Our definition of Atlantis extends beyond Plato's tale- it may have been an island at war with Athens in 9300 BC.

2.) Plato was much more than just a philosopher. He was also a mathematician, founder of the Academy in Athens, and probably the most educated and credible thinker of his time. Clearly, he felt the need to share the legends of a lost great civilization.

3.) Elements of his account are likely allegorical.

But this is still an aspect of a key line of evidence in favor of Atlantis. If Plato had been alone in his proposal of a great lost civilization, than it may be dismissed. But he was not. And once again, being on of the great thinkers in history- his voice adds credibility to the legends. Also, some of his own students were under the impression that the story was one of historical fact:

As for the whole of this account of the Atlanteans, some say that it is unadorned history, such as Crantor, the first commentator on Plato. Crantor also says that Plato's contemporaries used to criticize him jokingly for not being the inventor of his Republic but copying the institutions of the Egyptians. Plato took these critics seriously enough to assign to the Egyptians this story about the Athenians and Atlanteans, so as to make them say that the Athenians really once lived according to that system.

Since Plato, the story of Atlantis has been the subject of great interest. Writers in the first few centuries AD referred to Atlantis often, as fact (Philo).

Various ancient societies have legends that add to the theory of a lost civilization.

One notable example is that of the Great Flood.

Nearly every culture in every region of the world has a myth about a great flood that was sent to earth from a higher being in order to punish humans for their transgressions and cleanse the world of impurity. In Europe, there are Greek, Germanic, and Irish versions of the tale; there are Sumerian, Hebrew, and Babylonian renditions in the Middle East; the Americas are home to Aztec, Hopi, Incan, and Mayan interpretations; there are Indian, Chinese, and Indonesian versions in the East; and Australian Aboriginal and Polynesian adaptations come out of the Pacific region

Although I said that we need not take Plato's account as totally factual, a melt off at the end of the ice age may be what spawned the flood legends- and coincidentally Plato's date of 9300 BC is a fair estimate for such an event.

It is very possible that the capital city of a great civilization was located on land that was flooded in the ice age melt.

With this in mind, we know that any technically advanced civilization, at least from about 100,000BC to 10,000BC, would have been confined to a very small geographical area.

The above quote, I believe to be false. In fact, there was more than enough viable land on which to build a city. Possible locations include Southeast Asia and Indonesia- much of which is now submerged, and places in India, Africa, and Mesoamerica.

We've established that the globe was populated by 15,000 years ago or so. This is indication in itself that people had a high innovative capacity. In order to continuously adapt in different environments must have taken significant intellectual wherewithal.

Considering the swift rise of city states around the globe starting shortly after the Ice Age, it begs the question whether or not there was a predecessor.

Combined with the phenomenal feats of architecture- in Egypt, Southeast Asia, and Mesoamerica- it seems as if these would be empires had a running start. By 3,000 BC, archaeological evidence proves the existence of city states in the Middle East, India, and China.

It is well known that humanity builds it's cities near sources of water. When glaciers melted, it is possible that an ancient civilization was destroyed. Evidence from that long ago is not guaranteed to survive. Depending on building material, erosion underwater may leave behind no recognizable trace. Buildings may have been destroyed and materials recycled. Warfare may have further compromised evidence. Much of the planet is still unexplored, evidence may be waiting to be discovered.

The ancient world as we know it rose concurrently across continents, supposedly independently. Legends and myths from nearly every culture suggest a forgotten civilization.

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 08:01 PM
Before we carry on, a few points regarding Patrick's last post.
  1. Again, Plato originated the story about Atlantis. He may have been basing parts of it on some oral legends, but there is no reference to it prior to his dialogues
  2. As Patrick's quote regarding Crantor's comments shows, Plato pretty much admitted to making up the Egyptian source
  3. Glacial melting could not have destroyed an advanced civilization - yes, sea levels rose, but they rose over the course of centuries, not overnight

If we go back and look at the map I posted earlier, it is important to note the areas that are uninhabitable on it -- if you look at the United States, that magenta area that extends all the way to the Gulf of Mexico is Tiaga, the predominate climate today of Alaska, Canada and Siberia. Combined with the low levels of technology afforded to the nomadic society (furs and campfires for warmth,) it is clear that, for 100,000 years, the habitable belt of the planet, for the vast majority of peoples, was the middle third, and a lot of that is desert.

So, once again, not a lot of real estate to have a secluded technically advanced civilization in. Lost continent in the middle of the Atlantic? Maps of Pangaea don't support such a landmass, and undersea topography charts similarly demonstrate nothing sizable on the ocean floor.

There are a few problems that geography presents to any hypothetical ancient highly advanced civilization. The first is that it would have to exist in a fashion that was isolated from the hunter/gatherers, due to the obvious lack of cultural contamination. The second is that, like any city-state, it would require a significant area of land for agriculture to support the civilization. As we are assuming technology similar to our own, let's assume a local population of a million people, and agricultural production such as we currently have:

The minimum amount of agricultural land necessary for sustainable food security, with a diversified diet similar to those of North America and Western Europe (hence including meat), is 0.5 of a hectare per person. This does not allow for any land degradation such as soil erosion, and it assumes adequate water supplies. (Source)

This equates to about 1.25 acres of land per person, so with our sample population, about 1,250,000 acres of land is needed to produce food, which is about the same size as the entire state of Delaware.

The final huge problem that geography presents is resources. If we use an automobile as an example, the raw materials that are used in its construction come from all over the world -- rubber, aluminum, steel, copper, plastic, cloth, and so on. There is no one place on the Earth where all of these materials exist, so our mythical technically advanced society could not be geographically isolated because technology couldn't be developed that was based on resources that were not local. Never mind building it, it could never be invented in the first place.

When the whole world is involved, as it is today, it is one thing. But when you have one advanced society and the rest of the world filled with, essentially, savages, there is not going to be a viable rubber, steel and petroleum industry.

As an example, here is a partial list of resources that the US imported in 2007 (Source):


So, as we have seen, there is no physical location that meets the requirements of an ancient technically advanced civilization, providing isolation, sufficient arable land, and a wide diversity of resources. In addition, it was the climatic change that took place at the end of the ice age that allowed humanity to shift from nomadism to the Neolithic Revolution.

New evidence suggests that the development of farming in the two regions was not just coincidental but was a direct response to climate change and its interaction with soil resources, which had a critical impact on the viability and sustainability of early agriculture in these cooler, maritime regions of north-west Europe. (Climate Change and the Adoption of Agriculture in North-West Europe)

It was only the change in climate that allowed for the rejection of the nomadic lifestyle, the adoption of agriculture and domestication of livestock, and the development of both the urban landscape, and the luxury of allocating some people for the advancement of technology, all in exact lockstep with what history tells us actually happened.
edit on 26-1-2013 by Skyfloating because: broken link fixed

posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 07:33 PM
A large portion of my reasoning for the existence of a lost super-civilization is in the realm of the near unexplainable. Debates are by and large won by the position with the strongest logic and most compelling empirical evidence. Formulating such an argument for Atlantis was more difficult than I imagined.

After conducting some more research, I finally feel confident proceeding. I apologize for taking so long. It is only now that I feel I can finalize this debate and do justice to the topic.

A leap of the imagination...

As I said, my position was founded on a "near unexplainable reasoning. A good word to describe this may be intuitive. I am far from the first to theorize about Atlantis based on such reasoning.

As we've established, Atlantis mythology traces to Plato. Platonism has many mystical qualities. Atlantis has been associated with paranormal-esque phenomena ever since. Writers of Atlantis are by and large mystics and theologists. They include Saint Thomas Moore(16th century), Ignatius Donnely(1882) Mayanists, Madame Bravatsky(1888)(, and Edgar Cayce (1920's).

For whatever reason, mystics have long felt that there is a lost ancient great civilization. Mysticism is also associated with ancient architecture: megaliths, temples, pyramids, etc.

Seeing that Atlantis mythology is a common link between mystics/intuits, and seeing that there is commonalities in the architecture and philosophies in the ancient world, causes a strong stirring of the imagination for many. Based on this set of circumstantial evidence, many make Atlantis's existence a conclusion.

Then comes the opposition, asking where is the empirical evidence? Aside from the testimonies of some imaginative people and some similarities between countries in fairly modern history... what else is the belief in Atlantis based on? Where is all of the evidence?

For me, the intuitive evidence is a strong starting point.

The geologic evidence shows that the intuitive evidence is viable.

Toba Supervolcano

There was a massive volcanic eruption in what is now Northwestern Indonesia about 73,000 years ago. Many of the mystics associated with Atlantis have given 90,000 years ago as the time period. This may very well be the impact event that destroyed the capital of the great civilization. What is now Indonesia would have been an ideal location for the empire's capital, and land would have been continuous with lower sea levels during the glacial period.

Atlantis was located in Southeast Asia and had influence worldwide. The Toba Supervolcano threatened civilization worldwide. The resulting food shortages and destruction of supply chains caused the human population to die in large numbers. Genetic evidence proves there was a "population bottlneck" in humans about 50,000 years ago- with maybe 10,000 people remaining.

During the period between the Toba eruption and the beginnings of our recorded history there were numerous other geologic events: a recorded example is the volcanic eruption in Taupa, New Zealand. There were likely numerous high magnitude earthquakes around the world that further destroyed our ancient civilization with tsunamis wiping out coastal cities, and rising sea levels adding to the destruction.

We shouldn't assume 21st century technology when theorizing about Atlantis.

Intuition and circumstantial evidence suggest Atlantis. Geology verifies the possibility emphatically.

Here is our most likely scenario:

The capital of Atlantis was located in, or near, what is now Indonesia. Trade routes and cities extended across southern Asia and to Africa in the west, and to Western America via Polynesia to the east. Knowledge was sophisticated in the fields of shipbuilding, architecture, philosophy, psychology, and astronomy. Metal woking was not yet mastered.

The Toba explosion destroyed the infrastructure of the empire and devastated food supplies. Tsunamis from the explosion destroyed all of the coastal cities. Most building was with wood, mood and clay- which all deteriorated. Humanity dies on mass, while geologic events and rising sea level continue to destroy the ancient cities. Over the course of nearly 100,000 years nearly all physical evidence of the lost society deteriorates underwater.

There is still major exploration to be done, and even in the past few weeks there have been significant archaeological discoveries. The definitive evidence is out there.

A leap of the imagination, yes. But a scenario that is plausible and may fill some holes in our history.

posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 02:28 PM
(With apologies on a late reply -- I was out of town, though not in Atlantis

Yes, Atlantis has long been a topic of imagination, speculation and prognostication. Since the time of Plato, history is littered with various accounts of this mythical civilization, though interestingly, few have much in common, and none has been shown to be correct. In large measure, the very notion of Atlantis has been relegated to marketing campaigns, fringe theories and the odd cultural reference:

In response to Patrick's closing statement, I need to refer back to his opening statement:

The term "Atlantis" will be defined as an ancient civilization that's advancement rivals or exceeds our current one, predates the ancient civilizations that are included in the current historical narrative, and has for some reason been lost to the official record.

An ancient civilization whose advancement rivals or exceeds our current one cannot include one in which "Metal working was not yet mastered" or:

We shouldn't assume 21st century technology when theorizing about Atlantis.

By Patrick's original definition, we do need to assume 21st Century technology, at the least.

Part of the reason that we need to be somewhat sticklers for the original debate subject is that one can easily project an ancient civilization that was destroyed by natural calamity. One need not even project -- witness Pompeii, Thera Santorini and the Monoans. Our history is littered with examples of civilization dead ends, snuffed out by a natural disaster, which is exceedingly unlikely to happen to a society whose advancement rivals or exceeds our own.


Now, as regards the location that Patrick has proposed for his hypothetical civilization, southeast Asia, we can look back to the points raised earlier about the development and influence of advanced civilizations to demonstrate the low likelihood of such a civilization existing in that location, at that time.

For example, did human civilization arise from southeast Asia? No -- the "cradle of civilization" is known to be in the Middle East (writing, for example, was developed in what is now Iraq, by the Sumerians of Mesopotamia.)

As noted in this map, the earliest civilizations are found in southwest, not southeast, Asia. Significant human settlement is not found in southeast Asia until many thousands of years after it is established elsewhere and, as we saw in a previous post, civilizations do not exist in a vacuum, they inevitably influence other peoples that surround them, so that while it might be said that a civilization existed in southeast Asia 15,000 years ago, which was destroyed in some calamity, the lack of any residual society in that region makes such highly unlikely.

Once again, we can look to the historical record for an explanation of this map -- mankind originated in Africa and moved out from there as a nomadic species, and then began to develop agricultural centric societies, which allowed for the development of civilization, along the equator, and then that technology spread as the climate change that came with the end of the last ice age allowed it. We need not engage in idle speculation when the facts and historical record are laid out so orderly for us.


In conclusion, we have seen that Atlantis, specifically, came to our attention as a philosophical discourse by Plato and, while it most likely had some nugget of truth at its core, the speculation that Atlantis was a technologically advanced society has never been rooted in any historical evidence or hard facts -- it is, quite simply, a bit of fanciful imagining that has grown bigger in the telling over the centuries.

We have also seen that the development of a technically advanced society, while it owes much to small "leaps" of individualized innovation, cannot take place in a vacuum and that what we, as a species, have accomplished over the past 12,000 or so years since the Neolithic Revolution simply could not have happened within a small, isolated community that was constrained in the same manner as the rest of humanity.

Romantic notions aside, there is no space in our history for a human society that had technology on a par with ours, but was destroyed by natural calamity. That this logical conclusion is buttressed by a complete lack of hard evidence should come as no surprise -- Atlantis, in the sense of "an ancient civilization whose advancement rivals or exceeds" ours simply did not exist.

posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 02:54 AM
Judgment 1:

This was a great debate to read and I must admit that it seems PatrickGarrow17 had a tough task ahead of him considering the topic itself.

There is no doubt that PatrickGarrow17 made the case that it is entirely possible Atlantis existed, but adjensen's rebuttals were too strong to ignore.

adjensen was able to point out the most important flaws in an Atlantis theory including the origin of Plato's account, geological evidence that contradicts the theory, the technological state of Man during that period and the lack of necessary resources in a centralized location that would enable an advanced civilization to be considered as advanced as humans are today.

In the end, adjensen's final post drove the last nail home and therefore I must give the debate to adjensen.

Next Post Judgment 2
edit on 11-2-2013 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 02:56 AM

Atlantis Existed Debate:

Opening Statement


Your opening statement was constructed well. Your asking of readers to take a leap of imagination in believing consequential evidence, i feel was a wrong move. Considering you are trying to prove that Atlantis existed, it is probably unwise to ask the very members you are trying to persuade to take a leap of faith in believing consequential information (no matter how spectacular that information may be). I feel that it weakened your opening statement somewhat. Instead, you could have strengthened it by bypassing that initial request and going straight into proving the possibility of the existence of Atlantis, and just how it could be related to other societies. Furthermore, you could have used some information from the other ATS threads you linked to.

Moving on, your second half of the opening statement is more of what is needed, hard evidence, which may very well link societies together. One thing i would have liked to see in your opening statement would be further links between ancient societies. You quote:

"These civilizations that are proposed to have developed independently share many striking characteristics in architecture, philosophy, and language. "

You went on to prove where modern language originated could have done the same with architecture and philosophy. All in all, you could have done a slightly better job, but i feel your opening statement was adequate.


Your opening statement is very well constructed and completely rips apart PatrickGarrow17's one. The use of Critias, Plato's very own source for the furthering of your opinion was very well done, and completely destroys PatrickGarrow17s' claim of Atlantis being a technologically advanced civilisation.

Adjensen continued to rebut PatrickGarrow17's statements effectively in regards to early human history. Still, i would have liked to see linked sources, just to back up said claims.

Winner: Adjensen takes the 1st round, simply due to the effective use of Critias and his/her knowledge on early human history.


Body Statement


Your Body Statement, is again, well written, but it could have had more substance. The sources used could have been better (for example, you had used a thread from Yahoo as evidence)...also, i would have liked you to incorporate further quotes from your sources. For example, you never quoted any material suggesting that Philo had actually believed in the existence of Atlantis, instead you linked to a lengthy source.

A major source you used in your body statement in regards to major flooding being recognised the world over by ancient humans is unreliable, as i quote directly from the source itself:

"The stories below are flood stories from the world's folklore. I have included stories here if (1) they are stories; (2) they are folklore, not historical accounts or fiction by a known author; and (3) they involve a flood."

Furthermore, while it may be true that the glacier melting could have caused floods of coastal cities (as you claimed), you failed to produce any source backing up those claims. Again, your body statement was well written, but the failure to produce credible sources (and minimal reliable ones) harmed it greatly.


Again, your Body Statement is constructed well. You successfully rebutted PatrickGarrrow17 by using the map as a source to prove just what areas were uninhabitable during the time of early humans.

You continued to rebut the point that Atlantis may have been a technologically advanced civilisation, even though PatrickGarrow17 had ceased with that claim. This i feel, was unnecessary, even though the points you made were still relevant to an Ancient society (which could have rivaled Egypt or Greece).

Winner: In my opinion, adjensen won the Body Statement, through the use of successful rebuttal points and adequate sources (with the exception of one count of Wikipedia).


Closing Statement


Patrick, your closing statement was well constructed, but your use of sources severely damaged its potential. Furthermore, the touching on the "Paranormal-eque phenomena" was, in my opinion, a wrong move. Simply because the field that some of the noted individuals "specialised" in have not yet been fully examined, thus questioning their legitimacy.

My final point in regards to your Closing Statement is that your assertion that Atlantis existed around the time of the Toba catastrophe, in Indonesia is wrong. This is seen by the fact that the Toba catastrophe occurred between 69,000 and 77,000 years ago, whereas Atlantis was said to have existed only 9000 years ago.

You finish your closing statement off well, claiming that there needs to be more research and exploration done, which is very true.


Your closing statement was constructed well, also. You adequately rebutted PatrickGarrow17's claim that the participants shouldn't assume 21st century technology in regards to Atlantis. You done this through quoting his very own definition, which was an excellent move.

You further rebutted PatrickGarrow17's claim that Atlantis existed "in or around" Indonesia by providing a map, thus proving that advanced civilisations did not exist around the South East Asian area until well after the time of Atlantis. Furthermore, the sources you used were reliable, unlike the ones used by PatrickGarrow17 (e.g. Wikipedia). You concluded your statement extremely well.

Winner: The debate was a good one, but i feel that PatrickGarrow17 struggled to get off the ground so to speak. You could have improved your side of the debate by including actual evidence of how Ancient civilisations were connected with each other (perhaps you could have found something to try and connect Atlantis with others for example). Relying on the viewers to take a leap of imagination, only to accept consequential evidence was the major driving force which led to your down fall in my opinion.

Adjensen performed extremely well throughout, and that is why i chose him/her as the winner of this debate.

Well done both fighters.

The Winner is adjensen!

new topics

top topics


log in