Instigator / Pro
7
1500
rating
21
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#6173
What is the most likely location for the lost ancient capital city of Atlantis?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
0
After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
Tickbeat
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
3
1500
rating
4
debates
12.5%
won
Description
This is a debate about what the most likely location is for the lost ancient capital city of Atlantis. Both sides should present both what they believe is the most likely location for Atlantis, as well as why the other side's proposed location, contrary to their own, is not. This is not pertaining to whether or not Atlantis existed in the first place, though I personally think that if a location is found that happens to match every single specific detail given, that it is at least plausible that it was real. But setting that aside, this is just about what is the most likely location for Atlantis, whether or not it was real in the first place. Note that I am going to argue for the richat structure, so if you also believe that is the most likely location for Atlantis, you'll have to play devil's advocate, however I think I'd rather debate someone who genuinely believes that the richat structure isn't the most likely location for Atlantis.
Some ground rules:
1. Use common sense to always act upon the most obvious interpretation of what is being said. No abusing technicalities that you know were not the intended point of the argument, and no making technicalities of your own that you later use to argue that your opponent interpreted your argument wrong, when in fact they were just interpreting it in the most obvious way.
2. Keep the quality of your arguments relatively steady, this just means don't be bad and then dramatically increase the quality of your arguments in the very last argument so I can't respond to the actually good arguments.
If my opponent is not adequate, I will likely start this debate up again with a better opponent so that I may properly challenge the position.
Round 1
Pro
#1
In c.428 - c.347 BC, Plato published two dialogues called Timaues and Critias. And in these dialogues, he introduced us to something seemingly new. A powerful empire called Atlantis, consisting of ten kingdoms. Plato tried to the best of his abilities to describe Atlantis adequately, so as to preserve the information. Atlantis was described as being comprised of concentric circles, three rings of water, and two of land. It had subterranean springs, one of warm water, and the other of cold water. There were white, black, and red stones in the area. Atlantis had a great population of elephants. Atlantis was exceedingly wealthy in gold. Atlantis was surrounded by a large rectangular plain. Atlantis had impressive mountains nearby. Atlantis was surrounded by rivers. And, its ultimate fate was a cataclysm that sunk the city into the depths of the sea, and completely destroyed everything.
Today, Atlantis is considered by most people to be fictional. People who believe otherwise are often labeled as nothing more than pseudoarcheologists and alternative history proponents. However those people may not be aware of the sheer amount of characteristics that line up with Plato's very specific description of Atlantis. What possesses said characteristics?
The reason these people are talking about Atlantis being real is because of the richat structure, also known as the eye of the Sahara or the eye of Africa. This is a unique structure located in Mauritania comprised of concentric rings, an opening to the south, and has impressive cliffs to its north called the Adrar Plateau. Sound familiar? These unique characteristics match that of Atlantis, which is why some people have started talking about it, and even believing it to be real. However, some people are under the impression that the only evidence they can provide are the concentric circles, which is very little to work with, and therefore very little reason to believe it was real, so they call them pseudoarcheologists.
But there are way more characteristics of Atlantis that line up with the richat structure than that. I will address every single characteristic I listed in the beginning, and more, which is far more than just one. And whether or not Atlantis existed, I will at least be making the case that the richat structure is the most likely location for the lost ancient capital city of Atlantis.
First, observe this map by Pomponius Mela. This map is oriented with east pointing up. This map maps out their known world. In the bottom right, it curiously has the word "Atlantae" near the location of the richat. It is shifted north a bit, but everything else is also warped, as the map was made by hand, and if you compare the map to that actual area in Africa, you'll see there's all kinds of shifts, but it's not that much, and it still basically maps out the shape of that area. It may be hard to notice where you are, but if you either rotate the picture 90 degrees clockwise, or tilt your head 90 degrees to the left, you will see that you are in Africa, with Mauritania in the Sahara in view.
The richat structure consists of concentric circles. Specifically, if you were to fill up the richat with water part of the way, it would have three rings of water, and two rings of land. There would also be a piece of land in the center, but that would be completely filled, unlike a ring, so that doesn't count as one of the rings of land.
And there are a few extensive piles of salt at various areas at the bottom of the richat, which isn't just evidence that water once filled that space, but specifically oceanic water, for if access to the ocean was cut off like it is today, all of the water would slowly eventually evaporate, but the salt wouldn't, leaving behind an extensive pile of salt at the very bottom, just like we see today (salty sediments are marked in blue).
And it's been discovered that aquatic life including mollusks once existed in the richat, clearly showing that there was once water here.
At the richat, there are also plenty of white, black, and red colored stones. There's also blue stones.
It is a well authenticated fact, that previous to the discovery of America, Europe was supplied, to a great extent, with gold from Mauritania (end of page 36).
At first, this description actually appears to be a reason why many have discredited the idea that the dry barren richat structure is the most likely location for Atlantis. But you have to remember what the richat looked like back then, rather than today, because even the great Sahara desert was once very green, covered with grass, trees, and lakes. And the center of the richat structure is described as an isolated Cretaceous alkaline–hydrothermal complex.
In Mauritania, ivory is found in considerable quantities (middle of page 23). Ivory is almost only elephant tusk, sometimes mammoth tusk as well. In addition to this, there are plenty of cave paintings in Mauritania depicting elephants. So it's obvious that elephants used to roam Mauritania, including the richat, all the time, and the ancient Mauritanians were very familiar with them.
This is another reason that some may dismiss the idea of Atlantis existing in the dry barren richat structure. But once again, you have to think about what Mauritania was like back then. Because it has been discovered that a river once ran through the Sahara, called the Tamanrasset River, and it ran directly in the path of the richat.
There are actually two mountain ranges that fit this description, the Adrar Plateau, and the Atlas Mountains. Both of these are impressive mountain ranges north of the richat, and the Atlas Mountains in particular just so happen to share the same name with the first king of Atlantis, who was also named Atlas. However there was also the legendary king of Mauretania who was also named Atlas, and it's where the Atlas mountains are, so that would have happened whether they were the same person or not.
This is an arguable similarity between Atlantis and the richat, however it is worth noting that not only is the richat surrounded by two rectangular plains, but it also has the Atlas Mountains located farther north that match the description. But it is also worth noting that these two large rectangular plains exist directly in the path of the water erosion I will talk about later in this round, so that doesn't say a lot about what it looked like back then. That wouldn't apply to the mountains though of course.
Out of all of the reasons to believe that Atlantis was not in the richat structure, this is by far the biggest. Anyone skeptical of this claim will immediately turn to this first, wondering how the richat structure could possibly be the location of Atlantis if it is about 400ft above sea level. How could the richat have been buried under thousands of feet of water? Well, it wasn't. Observe this quote here:
A shallow depth of mud being capable of keeping visitors out shows that the water was never thousands of feet deep, rather he's basically describing something like reed-filled salt marshes. There was not that much water to evaporate, considering the entire surface vaporizes simultaneously, and thus it would all drain into the air at the same time. It takes 67 days for a full cup of water to vaporize at room temperature, so every foot of water depth takes 0.44 years to vaporize. So given this, it is worth noting that even a lake with 5,000ft deep waters left in a newly barren wasteland desert with no new feed of rain as a result would still only take 2,200 years to completely vaporize. Which, while that is a long time, is still far before today given the time period. Regardless, Plato described relatively shallow water, not vastly deep water.
And if you look at the Sahara desert from space, and look at the west half where Mauritania is, you'll see absolutely catastrophic amounts of water erosion sweep through the areas of lowest elevation, just as water would naturally direct itself. And this water erosion goes directly over the richat.
Not only that, but there is a massive seafloor slide called the Mauritanian slide on the west coast of the Sahara, and is directly in the path of the water erosion, and therefore also the richat. And the Mauritanian slide is believed to have been tsunamigenic.
What on earth could have caused a biblical sized flood to blast its way through the western Sahara and utterly obliterate everything in its path? You would need a lot of water to raise the sea level up to flood the richat. But this is a very close-minded way of thinking about tsunamis. The people who wonder how the sea level could have raised so high in order to flood the richat are the same people who agree with the African Humid Period (most others would agree obviously, except maybe some tinfoilers or something), which consisted of water being in the Sahara. Plenty of rivers ran through the Sahara, which connected to the ocean. If we know this, then we know that obviously, the Sahara was not nearly as high up back then as it is today. You don't have to raise the sea level to cause a tsunami, you could also simply lower the ground level. If a continent sunk deeper into the floor, more seawater would flood it. And Plato described excessively violent earthquakes, so we already have a contender for continental sinking.
That being said, I have no idea what actually caused this tsunami, all I know is that the evidence clearly shows that it happened, and I know what Plato described. He also described the god Poseidon carving out the region of Atlantis, but that may have just been his way of saying "mother nature" because it translates to "husband of the earth" or "Lord of the earth." And despite that, they probably interpreted a lot of things with religious intent in mind, so the natural formation of the richat may have been later believed to have been carved by the god Poseidon. So that warping of the actual story may not have been simply because of the story corrupting over time, and thus the accuracy of the other stories is still for the most part validated.
Now that I have presented my case, it is now worth noting some of the first counterarguments to this case. These are:
- Plato said that Atlantis was located west of the Pillars of Heracles, which we now know to be the Strait of Gibraltar, whereas the richat is south of the strait. But if you actually find this quote that they're talking about, what Plato actually said was, "For at that time this ocean was passable, since it had an island in it in front of the strait that you people say you call the ‘Pillars of Heracles.’" As you can see, he never said "west," rather he merely said "in front of." And if you were to actually exit the Strait of Gibraltar, the Canary Current would take you down the west coast of Africa and over to the richat. The distance is large enough that it's not unreasonable to refer to the richat as "in front of" the Strait of Gibraltar when you look at the majority of the direction traveled.
- The richat does not match the measurements Plato provided. Its largest ring was said to be 3 stades wide. Since 1 stadion is approximately known to be anywhere from 150-210m, 3 stadia could be anywhere from 450-630m. But the richat is 23.5km wide. However I would argue that the exact units of measurement and numbers given may have been lost in translation, for it is difficult to keep track of those kinds of things, especially over such a long period of time.
- Plato said that Atlantis was an island, whereas the richat is not, and never was, an island. However, the original Greek word that Plato used was νῆσος ("nesos"), which actually has five different meanings: Island, promontory, peninsula, coast, and land within a continent surrounded by lakes rivers or springs. That last definition is key, because the richat could absolutely meet that definition during its ancient, more green past.
So, to sum up:
- A map by Pomponius Mela curiously has the word "Atlantae" right where the richat is.
- If the richat were filled with water until sea level, it would have 3 rings of water and 2 rings of land, just like Atlantis. And there is salt at the bottom of the richat as well as mollusk fossils, which clearly shows that water once ran through it.
- The richat has white, black, and red colored stones, just like Atlantis.
- The richat, and all of Mauritania for that matter, is rich in gold, just like Atlantis.
- The center of the richat is a hydrothermal complex, just like the center of Atlantis.
- The richat and Mauritania was once populous with elephants, just like Atlantis.
- There was once a river called the Tamanrasset River that ran right in the path of the richat, just like Atlantis.
- The richat has an impressive mountain range to its north, just like Atlantis.
- A large portion of land in the Sahara has a devastating amount of water erosion that sweeps through it, going directly over the richat, and arriving at a potentially tsunamigenic seafloor slide called the Mauritanian slide, clearly indicating that a tsunami once ran through the Sahara and Mauritania and the richat, just like Atlantis.
Coming to this conclusion also clears something up about the way the population of Atlantis was described.
Although today Atlantis is widely considered to be fictional, people still have concluded that its location was in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, which would of course now make it sunken. So tell me: why would a city that contains people who have arrived from all over the world just to sell some things be located in the middle of the ocean? The ocean is a very treacherous place, so unless people had flight back then, I doubt people from all over the world would come visit such a place just to visit, such as a merchant.
Whereas a place located in Mauritania in Africa, a place that, including the Sahara, was entirely green and full of very habitable areas, and thus lots of civilization, could fit that description perfectly. Mauritania connects to the rest of Africa, which also connects to the entire continent of Asia. So people from all over the world could visit Atlantis without ever having to traverse the treacherous oceans by boat.
And plus, a population description like this makes it sound like it could have possibly had a population in the millions. And modern metropolitan areas with a population of millions, such as the Paris metro area and modern-day Cairo, are very comparable to the size of the richat. And a city whose capital has a population in the millions would make perfect sense for how powerful Plato described Atlantis to be.
Fun fact: If Atlantis really were in the richat structure, this is how big it would be. The lower areas would have been water, the higher areas would have been land. That's quite the city!
Conclusion: The most likely location for the lost ancient capital city of Atlantis is the richat structure located in Mauritania. It matches up with even the most specific descriptions of Atlantis, like no other location on earth can do. Personally, the fact that it lines up so perfectly with everything is a clue to me that Atlantis may have actually existed, considering the odds that Plato would make a fictional city that ended up accidentally aligning perfectly with one particular geographical location. But that's just my opinion, and that is not the point of this debate.
Con
#2
RICHART STRUCTURE IS NOT ATLANTIS. WHY?
1. BECAUSE ATLANTIS WAS AN ISLAND. RICHAT IS NOT.
Plato explicitly states in Critias and Timaeus that Atlantis was a large island—larger than Libya and Asia combined—that was submerged beneath the ocean. The Richat Structure is neither an island nor has it ever been. It is a geological uplift 400 meters above sea level, in the middle of the Sahara Desert.
You attempt to deflect this by citing the Greek word “nesos” as potentially meaning “land surrounded by rivers or lakes.” However, Plato clearly contrasts Atlantis with "the continent that surrounded the true ocean", showing he meant a real island in an ocean, not an inland geological formation.
Plato also said Atlantis "sank beneath the sea," not “dried up” or "was eroded.” There’s no credible geological evidence that the Richat was ever under the ocean, nor is there any mechanism that could plausibly submerge or un-submerge a 25-mile wide landmass like the Richat without leaving a global geologic trace.
2. PLATO’S GEOGRAPHY CONTRADICTS THE RICHAT
Atlantis was “beyond the Pillars of Heracles,” generally accepted as the Strait of Gibraltar. The Richat Structure is deep in the Sahara, about 1,300 km southeast of the strait, and not beyond it in the Atlantic Ocean, as Plato explicitly states.
You downplay this by saying Plato said “in front of” rather than “west of,” but that’s cherry picking language. Plato's Atlantis is across a real ocean — not down a river system or on a continental landmass. Also, Atlantis supposedly blocked access to the Atlantic Ocean, which is impossible for Richat’s location. That only makes sense for an island straddling key maritime routes, not a desert crater.
3. SIZE DISCREPANCY IS FATAL
Plato says the central island of Atlantis had a diameter of 3 stadia (about 600 meters), with the outer ring city being 127 stadia (around 23 km) across. The Richat Structure is over 40 km wide, and its internal dimensions do not match Plato's measurements.
You try to dismiss this as a translation error or exaggeration, but when you claim the Richat “matches every detail,” hand-waving the details you don’t like is inconsistent. If you believe Plato’s other details (like elephants, hydrothermal springs, etc.), then you must take the measurements seriously too — or admit you're selectively interpreting the source.
4. GEOLOGICAL MISINTERPRETATION
The Pro claims that Richat’s concentric rings were once filled with water, supported by salt deposits and mollusks. But these geological features do not prove an advanced civilization existed there — only that it was once wet, which is true of much of North Africa during the African Humid Period.
Concentric circles occur naturally in dome-shaped erosional structures. The Richat is a known eroded anticline — a geological feature where softer rock erodes faster than harder layers. No evidence of artificial construction, canals, or a harbor system like Plato described has ever been found at Richat.
5. NO EVIDENCE OF CIVILIZATION
Atlantis, as described by Plato, was a technologically advanced, urban maritime civilization with architecture, a navy, agriculture, and a large population. Despite decades of aerial and ground surveys, no artifacts, ruins, roads, harbors, or inscriptions consistent with a major Bronze Age or pre-Bronze Age city have ever been found at Richat.
Richat is rich in geology, not archaeology.
You mention elephants, gold, and hydrothermal springs — but these are regional characteristics of all of ancient Africa. None of these proves the existence of an Atlantean civilization at that precise location. Correlation IS NOT causation.
6. THE FLOOD/TSUNAMI HYPOTHESIS IS SPECULATIVE AND UNSUPPORTED
You argue that a tsunami or cataclysm (Mauritanian slide) might have destroyed Richat, causing its abandonment. But there’s no archaeological layer of destruction, no oceanic sediment, no buried city, and no indication of sudden disappearance like what Plato described.
Even if a tsunami hit the region, where’s the city? There’s no evidence of human habitation there on a large scale. And without a city, you can’t claim a destroyed Atlantis.
7. MAP BY POMPONIUS MELA IS A MISLEADING
The map cited is a Roman-era guesswork of geography over 500 years after Plato’s writings. The name “Atlantae” on it could refer to the Atlas Mountains, which are mentioned elsewhere by ancient writers, not a city. The map is distorted and symbolic, not a GPS blueprint.
It cannot reasonably be used as strong evidence for a specific city’s location.
Alternative Possibility: Santorini / Minoan Civilization
If we're to seriously entertain plausible real-world candidates for Atlantis, Santorini (Thera) and the Minoan civilization are far stronger contenders:
Located in the Mediterranean (still beyond the “Pillars” if interpreted symbolically)
Destroyed by a massive volcanic eruption and tsunami =>1600 BCE
Known for advanced architecture, plumbing, seafaring, and wealth
Connected to myths passed down through oral history, possibly reaching Plato’s time
Unlike Richat, Santorini actually had a civilization, a harbor, a central structure, and a real cataclysm;all elements Plato mentions.
CONCLUSION
The Richat Structure is an eye-catching geological formation, but the Pro side over-interprets coincidences and natural features to fit a story not meant to be taken literally. The supposed alignments between Richat and Atlantis are superficial, and the deeper one digs, the less plausible the match becomes.
There is:
No city at Richat.
No artifacts.
No flooding that submerged it in the ocean.
And a clear mismatch with Plato’s descriptions of an island civilization beyond the Pillars of Heracles.
The Richat Structure is not Atlantis. It is a natural geological dome in the wrong place, the wrong size, and with no evidence of any lost civilization.
MY SOURCES:
I have some more links but due to technical problems I am unable to paste them here.
Round 2
Pro
#3
You attempt to deflect this by citing the Greek word “nesos” as potentially meaning “land surrounded by rivers or lakes.” However, Plato clearly contrasts Atlantis with "the continent that surrounded the true ocean", showing he meant a real island in an ocean, not an inland geological formation.
Interesting the way you described a perfectly rational counterargument as my "attempt to deflect this," because that Greek word can in fact mean that. But nonetheless, Plato also said this:
I'm only proposing the location for the capital city of Atlantis, however I do not know what the most likely locations are for the other 9 kingdoms of Atlantis, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were in the sunken islands such as the Azores, but I don't know. But the way Plato described it, you can travel to the entire continent on the other side by using those islands. And when he says "beyond," that could mean beyond in any direction, including along the coastline. I'm not entirely sure what he's trying to say, however I'm pretty sure this doesn't contradict the richat.
Plato also said Atlantis "sank beneath the sea," not “dried up” or "was eroded.”
That's because the richat hadn't dried up yet. Plato told this story about 2,300 years ago, and the water from the tsunami wasn't gone yet.
There’s no credible geological evidence that the Richat was ever under the ocean, nor is there any mechanism that could plausibly submerge or un-submerge a 25-mile wide landmass like the Richat without leaving a global geologic trace.
Except for the giant amounts of water erosion that sweep through the Sahara and go directly over the richat, and the Mauritanian slide, a seafloor slide that is believed to have been tsunamigenic. There was clearly a tsunami that went over the Sahara. And yeah, I have no idea how that tsunami happened, but I think it was that the continent was sunken deeper into the sea than it ever had been before. I don't know what caused it to sink so deep, but the evidence clearly shows that a tsunami did sweep across the Sahara at some point, east-to-west, and some north-to-south in the middle. Even the source you cited describes the richat structure as a deeply eroded geologic dome, meaning that the richat was under water, and given the amount of salt at the bottom areas of the richat, we know it was ocean water.
The Richat Structure is deep in the Sahara, about 1,300 km southeast of the strait, and not beyond it in the Atlantic Ocean, as Plato explicitly states.
This is why I pointed out in my previous argument just how large of a distance it is from the Strait of Gibraltar to the part of the west coast of Africa that is directly west of the richat. Because although the distance from the richat to the nearest coastline is large, that distance is not that much when compared to the distance from the Strait of Gibraltar down the coastline of Africa over to the northern coordinates of the richat. So it's not unreasonable to refer to that as "in front of" the Strait of Gibraltar.
You downplay this by saying Plato said “in front of” rather than “west of,” but that’s cherry picking language. Plato's Atlantis is across a real ocean — not down a river system or on a continental landmass.
Again, the way you describe my rational arguments doesn't appear to be in good faith. Regardless, if you're referring to Plato's quote about Atlantis surrounding "that real sea beyond," again, I think he's saying that you can get to the other side of the continent using the other islands, which cover a large distance of sea beyond.
Also, Atlantis supposedly blocked access to the Atlantic Ocean, which is impossible for Richat’s location.
I tried finding this quote, and so far, I'm out of luck. So until you can provide the source for that quote, I'm not inclined to believe you. Notice in my sources for Plato's quotes that it brings you straight to the page you need, as well as the keyword searches necessary to identify the precise location of the quote. If you go to a certain page, and do a keyword search, and then you copy the link, that link will contain both the page you were on and the keyword search you did (using the keyword search feature in the website, not ctrl + f). So when citing Plato quotes, make sure you do that, so we can find what quote you are talking about.
The Richat Structure is over 40 km wide, and its internal dimensions do not match Plato's measurements.
Apologies from my previous argument, I said that the richat is "23.5km wide," I meant to say 25mi, I don't remember where I got 23.5 from. Anyway, as I said earlier, I would argue that the exact measurements may have been lost in translation, due to the difficulty of the task of keeping track of new units of measurement and exact numbers, especially over such a large time period. This stretch of time is so large that entirely new units of measurement would have come and gone in that time, leaving many different instances where that would need to have been kept track of.
If you believe Plato’s other details (like elephants, hydrothermal springs, etc.), then you must take the measurements seriously too — or admit you're selectively interpreting the source.
Specific details like elephants, hydrothermal springs, etc., are different in nature from specific details such as specific numbers and specific units of measurement. It's harder to keep track of exact units of measurement and exact numbers over such a large period of time than it is to keep track of general specific details such as having a lot of elephants and having a warm and cold spring. Those details don't contain specific numbers or units to keep track of, they're just a description of its appearance, and that is much easier to keep track of than units of measurement and numbers. So that's why I'd say the units of measurement may have been lost in translation, but the other descriptions, I mean there probably has undoubtedly been some distortion, but not enough to make the story unrecognizable, and definitely not enough for it to not still fit the description of one particular geographical location (coincidence?).
The Pro claims that Richat’s concentric rings were once filled with water, supported by salt deposits and mollusks. But these geological features do not prove an advanced civilization existed there — only that it was once wet, which is true of much of North Africa during the African Humid Period.
You tried shifting the goalposts from the point of that particular argument (there was in fact water there), to the point of the entire debate (there was civilization there). The conclusion that it is more likely that Atlantis was in the richat structure is concluded by combining every element of the debate round, and this element is just one of them, so you treating it like I was using this one particular argument to conclude that Atlantis most likely existed in the richat is dishonest. And plus, I was never claiming to "prove" anything, only to provide evidence that the richat is the most likely location for the capital city of Atlantis.
Despite decades of aerial and ground surveys, no artifacts, ruins, roads, harbors, or inscriptions consistent with a major Bronze Age or pre-Bronze Age city have ever been found at Richat.
Because it was destroyed in a tsunami, obviously. However this point does require some further clarification.
When you think of the tsunami that destroyed Atlantis, you might usually think of a biblical-sized cataclysmic flood like nothing any of them had ever seen before that completely obliterated everything the moment it impacted them. However the reality of this flood was actually very different, though still cataclysmic and life-threatening.
Looking at the richat, the average thickness of the third ring of sea is 6 miles. You could probably hardly even see the outside area from the edge of the outer ring of land. So when the tsunami rushed towards the richat, it would have fallen down the cliffs of the Adrar Plataea, and straight into the 6 mile thick third ring of water. These floodwaters would not have been capable of directly impacting any of the buildings, no matter what angle they come at, because there was a 6 mile thick outer ring of water it would impact instead.
And furthermore, this third ring of water was directly connected to the sea, so it all spills into the ocean and evens out. The tsunami was actually probably triggered by an earthquake, just like Plato described, which is common for tsunamis in recorded history. And these tectonic plate shifts raise the water level, and would have flooded the richat.
You mention elephants, gold, and hydrothermal springs — but these are regional characteristics of all of ancient Africa. None of these proves the existence of an Atlantean civilization at that precise location.
Here you are again focusing on just one particular argument and addressing it as if I used just that to come to the entire overarching conclusion of my first round. I mentioned elephants, gold, hydrothermal springs, concentric circles, impressive mountains, a large rectangular plain, black and white and red colored stones, a river, a map by Pomponius Mela, and a tsunami. Sure, a lot of places in Africa fit parts of my description, but when you look at every single characteristic as a whole, you will see that only one location fits that description: the richat structure. The rest of Africa may also have elephants and gold and hydrothermal springs, but it doesn't have concentric circles or those specific colors of stones. But even the elephants and gold and hydrothermal springs were worth mentioning, because while many places in Africa have those, we're talking about potentially anywhere in the world, so it is worth narrowing it down to that.
So when you only choose to mention some of the characteristics I listed, and then say that doesn't narrow it down to the richat structure, that is another dishonest tactic you are using. Stop doing that, and start trying to debate in good faith, please.
But there’s no archaeological layer of destruction, no oceanic sediment, no buried city, and no indication of sudden disappearance like what Plato described.
Yeah, there's no oceanic sediment, except for the Mauritanian slide that you chose to flat out deny. The Mauritanian slide is real, you can't just stick your fingers in your ears pretend it doesn't. As I said, if the capital of Atlantis was in the richat structure, its remains would all be in the stacked layers of debris sediment in the Mauritanian slide that is about a mile deep. That's why there's no remnants of a city in the richat structure, but rather the remnants could potentially be in the Mauritanian slide.
Even if a tsunami hit the region, where’s the city?
The Mauritanian slide, but the debris is probably crushed up. Materials may have also disintegrated into the water.
The name “Atlantae” on it could refer to the Atlas Mountains, which are mentioned elsewhere by ancient writers, not a city.
Yeah, it is possible that that wasn't necessarily referring to Atlantis, it's just a possibility, so I threw that out there.
Unlike Richat, Santorini actually had a civilization, a harbor, a central structure, and a real cataclysm;all elements Plato mentions.
Those were not all the elements Plato mentioned. Again, he also mentioned elephants, gold, concentric circles, black and red and white colored stones, a large rectangular plain, and rivers. When looking at the island, the most ring-like structure it has is a partially present piece of land broken up into two segments, and doesn't even go all the way around. So at best, this island has 1 ring of land, and I suppose 1 ring of water.
Regardless, looking at modern Santorini gives me a much clearer picture of the description Plato provided where he said that the Atlanteans utilized the red, white, and black colored stones in the area to construct their buildings, including the tightly packed residential buildings.
And Santorini contains black, white, and red colored stones. However it is not surrounded by a large rectangular plain, it is not rich in gold, and it was never populous in elephants. Santorini does not at all meet every description like you claim.
Conclusion: Con tried multiple times to use dishonest tactics to make me sound less correct. Some of his points were valid though, however they do not come without their answers, which doesn't discredit the idea of Atlantis having existed in the richat structure. And the location con did propose, Santorini, doesn't actually fit every characteristic like he claimed, and there are enough characteristics that don't line up with Atlantis that I can't justify considering it a possibility.
P.S. I discovered recently that if you select a piece of text, click on the chain link icon in the toolbar, and paste a URL into the text bar and confirm, it will turn that selected piece of text into a clickable link that sends you straight to the inputted URL. I discovered this while making my first argument, so you can see it all over when needed. That way, you can send the readers to specific pages of Timaeus / Critias with specific keywords in them right where you mention them, rather than having to reference the reader to a link at the bottom.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Fun fact: the Bible originally said "In beginning," not "In the beginning," in the Hebrew, the old testament's original language.
Round 4
Pro
#7
I will point out that in rule #2, you are not allowed to dramatically increase the quality of your argument in the very last argument because the opponent can no longer respond. However, knowing my opponent's history, I find that unlikely. What they usually do is enter one or two arguments that are mediocre, both in contents and in grammar, and then abandon it. If I enter another debate with this person, I will start a new debate.
Rd4 is your last chance here btw, if you don’t post anything worthwhile, no one’s gonna care about your Rd5
Different conversation.
The most likely location is your imagination
I gave you 30,000 characters and 2 weeks. That is plenty of character space, and the end of my first round still had like 17,000 available characters left. I set the debate up this way because I knew that the nature of this debate would involve scientific studies and research, things that would take a while to find, assess, and compile into the argument. I even advised you to use your 2 weeks well, and to ponder on your arguments to see if there's anything you could improve / add, so you can assess the validity of your round.
The amount of time you're given is plenty of time such that the amount of arguments I threw at you would be very easy to all respond to in detail, even if you dedicated an entire day to each argument, though it's absolutely possible to adequately assess multiple arguments in a single day. I myself have already constructed my entire set of arguments, however that was just the first draft and I still need to give it a rundown to improve my arguments and validity.
So no, I am absolutely not trying to "blitzkrieg strategy" on you, if that means what you described. I'm doing everything I can to make it possible to make the arguments as comprehensive and correct as possible.
Cut the crap. You're just using the blitzkrieg strategy against me. Bombarding me with huge loads of arguments and cherry picking too just hoping so that I miss out one or two argument and don't counter attack those. Because arguments not counter attacked by opponents are considered valid by voters and mods. But your little strategy isn't going to work against me
I think you're just lying about that. My arguments were structured and coherent just fine, not gibberish, and the only things I copy pasted were the Plato quotes, and the source links, both of which are very standard things to copy and paste.
After looking at your argument, I must admit that your argument is not at all catchy. It is some gibberish you copy pasted from some science website,wikipedia or ai. And it's all false. Richat structure IS NOT Atlantis. Why is this even an argument? For the sake of the debate I'll argue back I guess
ok.
After looking at my opponent's history with debating, I think there's a pretty good chance that this debate is going to end up being a dud, because he has a history of flaking, and has only ever showed up for an argument once. There's a good chance I'll have to remake this debate if that ends up being the case.
I think I may have accidentally invalidated the link I provided involving the study that showed that aquatic life including mollusks once existed in the richat, because whenever I click on it, it does nothing. So here it is in case that's a problem for everyone: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003552111000902
I encourage you to use well the two weeks of time you have. Even if you complete your argument by 3 days, maybe take a day or two to ponder and double check the argument, and refine it to make it as good and accurate as possible.