Instigator / Pro
turk082's avatar
0
turk082
1464
rating
3
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#2807

The Egyptians did not build the Pyramids (Final)

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
2

After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

Theweakeredge
Tags
History
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
Theweakeredge's avatar
2
Theweakeredge
1706
rating
33
debates
80.3%
won
Description

There is actually a lot of evidence that the Egyptians did not build the pyramids. For one, corundum is the second hardest material on earth, second to diamond. And the number of marble slabs used to build the pyramid (2.5 million slabs make pyramid at Giza in all), doesn't seem possible for human achievement. I did the math. The amount of workers it would take to create all of them doesn't add up. Lastly, it is true that Ramses chiseled his name in on all of them but that doesn't mean he commissioned them. More significantly, you could tell someone chiseled his name abruptly. It looks like graffiti. If I go to Paris today and write my name on it in a thousand years they will say I built the Eiffel Tower.

When the Greeks went to Egypt the Egyptians themselves admitted that they didn't build the pyramids, the gods did. The Greeks had no quarrels admitting the imperfection of their statutes, they weren't perfect. When you look at a Greek statue it looks beautiful, but you can tell it was hand-made. Even if you're not thinking about it, you are subconsciously reminded that this is only a human achievement. Not so much with Eyptgian statutes. They're perfectly symmetrical. Even today we could not make the statues that the Egyptians made. It's amazing. Either our understanding of Egyptian history is flawed or something is going on because I think there’s a lot of evidence to support my theory, which makes sense.

Round 1
turk082's avatar
turk082
Pro
#1
There is actually a lot of evidence that the Egyptians did not build the pyramids. For one, corundum is the second hardest material on earth, second to diamond. And the number of marble slabs used to build the pyramid (2.5 million slabs make pyramid at Giza in all), doesn't seem possible for human achievement. I did the math. The amount of workers it would take to create all of them doesn't add up. Lastly, it is true that Ramses chiseled his name in on all of them but that doesn't mean he commissioned them. More significantly, you could tell someone chiseled his name abruptly. It looks like graffiti. If I go to Paris today and write my name on it in a thousand years they will say I built the Eiffel Tower.

When the Greeks went to Egypt the Egyptians themselves admitted that they didn't build the pyramids, the gods did. The Greeks had no quarrels admitting the imperfection of their statutes, they weren't perfect. When you look at a Greek statue it looks beautiful, but you can tell it was hand-made. Even if you're not thinking about it, you are subconsciously reminded that this is only a human achievement. Not so much with Eyptgian statutes. They're perfectly symmetrical. Even today we could not make the statues that the Egyptians made. It's amazing. Either our understanding of Egyptian history is flawed or something is going on because I think there’s a lot of evidence to support my theory, which makes sense.

Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
Con
#2
Resolution:  The Egyptians did not build the Pyramids (Final) 
Position: Con

Opening Statement:

Thank you for the debate Turk,

This debate will certainly be interesting, considering the highly interpretable nature of history; however, that isn’t to say that it will be hard to support my position. You, as in the audience and my opponent. Will find that the evidence that the Egyptians built the pyramids is overwhelming. As my opponent has failed to provide definitions of his terms I will provide ones for the debate moving forward. 


Furthermore, as Pro is rather ambiguous with his resolution, I will interpret it using our new definitions.

Interpretation of the Resolution:

“The people of Egypt did not make pyramid structures built in Egypt as tombs by putting materials together.” As anyone can see by now, the literal definition of pyramids asserts that the Egyptians built them, to say that Pro has a massive burden is understating it. 

Observations:

  • My BoP is to prove that the Egyptians did build the pyramids, nothing else, the possible existence of aliens is irrelevant unless Pro can directly demonstrate that aliens built the pyramids. 
  • As Pro’s own resolution and the definition implies, we are discussing the pyramids found in Egypt, not the ones found in central or southern America. 
  • As this debate is inherently historic, the standards of evidence will be as follows: consensus of primary sources, the consensus of secondary and tertiary evidence, singular primary sources, etc, etc


The Wealth of Information

“There was no history writing during the Old Kingdom but there were annals... These are only incompletely preserved. We also have lists of kings, although they date from later periods, mostly from the New Kingdom, which started about a thousand years after the Old Kingdom ended. The most important among the annals is the so-called Royal Canon of Turin, copied in about 1250 BC. In the third century BC, Manetho, a priest from the town of Sebennytos (Samannud) in the Nile delta, wrote a history of Egypt based on ancient records. Unfortunately, his work has survived only in brief excerpts.” [4] 

The most ironic part is that these are not the majority of our history of Egypt, in fact, there is another, much more prominent, and much more useful source of information on them. They all come from the Pyramids and other monuments of Egypt.

“Documents written on papyri were found in some pyramid temples. They concern such matters as lists of priests on duty, records of offerings brought to the temple, accounts, inventories of temple equipment and passes authorizing access to the temple. Several settlements of priests, involved in the running of pyramid temples, have been located, in particular at Giza.” [4]

“Sometimes, especially in the later part of the Old Kingdom, the tombs contained biographical texts. Many are just self-praising but others are real records of the tomb owner's achievements. This is how one of them, an official called Weni, described a mission assigned to him by King Merenre of the Sixth Dynasty:” [4]

“The logbook was written in hieroglyphics letters on pieces of papyri. Its author was an inspector named Merer, who was "in charge of a team of about 200 men," archaeologist Pierre Tallet... wrote in an article published in 2014 in the journal NEA. Tallet and Marouard are leaders of an archaeological team from France and Egypt that discovered the logbook at the Red Sea harbor of Wadi al-Jarfin 2013. It dates back about 4,500 years, making it the oldest papyrus document ever discovered in Egypt.” [5]

“The Pyramid Texts are the oldest religious writings in the world and make up the principal funerary literature of ancient Egypt. They comprise the texts which were inscribed on the sarcophagi and walls of the pyramids at Saqqara in the 5th and 6th Dynasties of the Old Kingdom (2613-2181 BCE).” [6]
The overwhelming amount of primary sources of information all informs us that not only did the Egyptians build the pyramids, but that they used them as a primary way of storing information, that they were used often, and even plans to build more pyramids. Furthermore, just like with any build, there were designs before the great pyramids, ones which were failures and designs which were improved upon [7].

They began as nothing more than pits for the dead, and slowly grew more elaborate, a big step was the step pyramid, and then a medium pyramid [8]. This clearly lays out that these were not mysterious buildings or built by any other type of civilization. However; if you were to look you could find other examples of pyramids being built. Such as Mesopotamia, Mesoamerica, India, China, Spain, Nigeria, and Sudan [9].
 
How were they built:
An interesting, but ultimately pointless question. It does not actually matter how the temple was built, simply that it was built by Egyptians. At least in terms of this debate that is. Good thing that researchers have known the answer to this question for at least two decades. And that is a very simple answer. Ramps. 

Well, ramps and sheer manpower:
“If a work year consists of 300 days, that would mean almost 18,000 man-years, which, spread over 20 years, implies a workforce of about 900 men.” [10]
This is explained using basic physics, but I’ll get into it to explain to the voters and my opponent. Essentially, what we have to explain is the total amount of work (here defined as the transfer of energy such as the potential to kinetic), that it would take to construct the great pyramids. This is luckily not very hard, all that’s required is the potential energy that would be stored within the great pyramid; according to the calculations provided by my previous source, it would be 2.4 trillion joules. 
 
Then we would have to calculate if the Egyptians had the manpower to accomplish this much work in twenty years using their workforce. My source uses the metabolic rate of expenditure of energy to calculate how much energy a man could exude a day and using that spread out over 20 years, calculated that the workforce would have to be about 900 over a twenty-year period. Considering the cemeteries provided for workers [11] this is not at all a stretch, in fact, it is the most reasonable explanation.
 
 
Rebuttals:
let’s analyze individual claims
“corundum is the second hardest material on earth, second to diamond.”
The pyramids were typically built out of limestone, granite, basalt, etc - none of these are extraordinarily durable [12]. Furthermore, Diamonds are four times as hard as Corundum, but diamonds are not the hardest material on Earth. [13] [14]. This is a blatantly false claim.

 
“ number of marble slabs used to build the pyramid (2.5 million slabs make pyramid at Giza)”

“The sample chemistries the researchers found do not exist anywhere in nature. "Therefore," says Barsoum, "it's very improbable that the outer and inner casing stones that we examined were chiseled from a natural limestone block."” [15]
What did this mean and how does it refute my opponent? Simple. The Egyptians didn’t use solid chiseled pieces of limestone, so this is an inappropriate way to regard the pyramids - they were cast, almost like modern-day concrete - thereby reinforcing the idea that ramps were used. 

 
“doesn't seem possible for human achievement. I did the math. The amount of workers it would take to create all of them doesn't add up.”
Then I would ask that Pro shows his math, simply asserting that something seems off, and the claim that it isn't possible, are both simply appeals to incredulity, just because you cannot comprehend an occurrence does not lend less credibility to its existence. How does it not add up? What calculations did you use? Do you have some authority that makes actually qualified people’s math off and not yours? 

 
“Lastly, it is true that Ramses chiseled his name in on all of them but that doesn't mean he commissioned them. More significantly, you could tell someone chiseled his name abruptly. It looks like graffiti. If I go to Paris today and write my name on it in a thousand years they will say I built the Eiffel Tower.”
I would like to see Pro’s evidence for this claim to be fulfilled. Even more, the appearance of something to Pro does not constitute truth, please explain in precise terms how it appears as graffiti. To continue, Egyptians did not have a written language at the time of the buildings of the constructions, this was using hieroglyphics, just like an old king’s seal of approval in a rubber stamp. This is how many historians put paintings to a painter, and buildings to architects.  [16]

 If your name was on the original blueprints of the Eiffel Tower, in that time period french, and matched all of the earlier recordings of your signature then that would be comparable. Not your baseless assertion and false equivalence. 

 
“When the Greeks went to Egypt the Egyptians themselves admitted that they didn't build the pyramids, the gods did.”
Provide evidence for that assertion, and I would like to point out that the Egyptians thought of anybody in top positions as gods among men, such as the Pharaoh's and their advisers. 

 
“The Greeks had no quarrels admitting the imperfection of their statutes, they weren't perfect. When you look at a Greek statue it looks beautiful, but you can tell it was hand-made. They're perfectly symmetrical. Even today we could not make the statues that the Egyptians made.”
Were you not aware of the countless examples of symmetrical buildings throughout both Rome and Greece [17]?  Furthermore, the statues are not perfectly symmetrical [18]. And we attain perfect symmetry in artwork all the time, take a look: [19]
 


Round 2
turk082's avatar
turk082
Pro
#3
Thank you for defining some terms. I think it is very relevant and important to the on-going debate. I included some links in my response for further reading. I intend to read the links you sent me, in the interim, here is my rebuttal. Answering briefly now. 
 
    l. True, the pyramids were caped with marble on top and coated in gold so that you could see them for miles. But even if you are right that they were built with limestone, I disagree with the ramp theory. It has been debunked on multiple occasions. Just to build a ramp would cost more slabs than the pyramids themselves. This doesn't make any sense. See this link here for further reading: https://www.cheops-pyramide.ch/khufu-pyramid/pyramid-theories.html

    2. True, they were made of marble, but the closest marble quarry was hundreds of miles away. Only 85% of the Great Pyramid was built with limestone and soft sandstone (with only 15% of it being granite for the series of slabs with that famous apex to distribute weight above the King's Chamber). Now let us consider that the Pyramid was constructed without the wheel! How is it possible to move tons of slabs for a ramp or pyramid, or from hundreds of miles away, for that matter, without the wheel!?

    3. Sculptors didn't place their names in their work, so we have no idea who made them. But one thing is certain. It wasn't the Egyptians. For whoever did much has been very advanced. Even our modern technology could not reproduce their magnificence. Ramses did chisel his name onto all the ancient, ornate statues. These statues are well made, save the chiseling. Even though the Pyramids at Giza are attributed to Khafre (he was not a king but a god), Ramses took the credit for himself.

    4. "Provide evidence for that assertion" Here it is: the Greeks didn't use basalt for their statues. They had steel tools. But, because they were made by hand, you can tell, at the subconscious level, that something is off. They weren't perfectly symmetrical. In contrast, these statues in Egypt were over 20 feet high, and they're dozens of them all over the place. This is something that you don't hear discussed often by orthodox archaeologists. Please see this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZFN29FdCM0&ab_channel=UnchartedX 
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
Con
#4
I haven't the time to go as in-depth as I did last time, I've already proved my burden and thoroughly debunked my opponent, my opponent has no grounds to stand in.


 True, the pyramids were caped with marble on top and coated in gold so that you could see them for miles. But even if you are right that they were built with limestone, I disagree with the ramp theory. It has been debunked on multiple occasions. Just to build a ramp would cost more slabs than the pyramids themselves. This doesn't make any sense. See this link here for further reading
That link is neither written by experts in the field, nor is it current, being published in 2006. Furthermore, you must actually debunk the ramp theory yourself. Present your argument you are simply saying: here's my position take this source that happens to agree with me. If you were reporting a statistic that would be fine, but you aren't. I have already presented my sources debunking this. Ramps were the most likely way of building it. Please demonstrate these claims


True, they were made of marble, but the closest marble quarry was hundreds of miles away. Only 85% of the Great Pyramid was built with limestone and soft sandstone (with only 15% of it being granite for the series of slabs with that famous apex to distribute weight above the King's Chamber). Now let us consider that the Pyramid was constructed without the wheel! How is it possible to move tons of slabs for a ramp or pyramid, or from hundreds of miles away, for that matter, without the wheel!?
Several of the sources I provided went into the fact that they had quarries nearby, furthermore please demonstrate that the quarries were 100 miles away, demonstrate that they couldn't move such a thing slowly and over time... you know, considering they had work forces of over 1000 men ad had over 20 years to do such a thing. They also used the Nile river as a good transportation source. Please demonstrate these claims.


Sculptors didn't place their names in their work, so we have no idea who made them. But one thing is certain. It wasn't the Egyptians. For whoever did much has been very advanced. Even our modern technology could not reproduce their magnificence. Ramses did chisel his name onto all the ancient, ornate statues. These statues are well made, save the chiseling. Even though the Pyramids at Giza are attributed to Khafre (he was not a king but a god), Ramses took the credit for himself.
You have simply repeated your claims, I explained and demonstrated that we have more than remade what the Egyptians made. You have proven nothing, furthermore, yes, we do have a signature in the pyramids and it mirrors how several other civilizations did. Demonstrate your claims or concede. 


"Provide evidence for that assertion" Here it is: the Greeks didn't use basalt for their statues. They had steel tools. But, because they were made by hand, you can tell, at the subconscious level, that something is off. They weren't perfectly symmetrical. In contrast, these statues in Egypt were over 20 feet high, and they're dozens of them all over the place. This is something that you don't hear discussed often by orthodox archaeologists.
What about the other 6 nations? Such as Mesopotamian? Furthermore, neither did the Eyptians, they used limestone mostly.


Pro dropped 90% of my claims and continued to assert things without evidence - Vote Con


Round 3
turk082's avatar
turk082
Pro
#5
Answering briefly now. 

You must actually debunk the ramp theory yourself.
Simple. Do you mean to tell me that they pushed 2,300,000 pieces of limestone and granite slabs (2.3 metric tons) without the wheel! There, I debunked it.

Several of the sources I provided went into the fact that they had quarries nearby
Again, what difference does it make if you haven't invented the wheel? How are you moving those stones? Yeah right, they pushed 2.5 tons of blocks for twenty years. Because that sounds right (sarcasm). How is it even possible to build the pyramids when you haven't invented the wheel!?

What about the other 6 nations? Such as Mesopotamian?
The question is not what the Mesopotamians did, but whether or not the Egyptians built the pyramids, when the debate is about the Egyptians. 


Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
Con
#6
Thanks for the response Turk,

Due to the fact that I have a little more time to make my arguments, I'll get into rebuking Pro more in-depth. However, voters should notice that Pro has failed to touch most of my arguments. You should also notice that now Pro has failed to even present sources for their claims, claims which are not supported by previously provided sources. First I'll give a little list of all of my dropped arguments, then get into my rebuttals. 


Dropped Arguments:

Contentions Dropped
  • Collection of primary sources informing the creation of the pyramids by eyptians: Extend
  • Sheer Manpower built the pyramids: Extend
Rebuttals Dropped
  • The unshown and unqualified math apparently used to debunk the pyramids, Pro has not responded to asking for the math; Extend
  • The symmetry of modern art: Extend

This by itself would uphold my burden of proof, even without responding to Pro's rebuttals, but I'll go into each one and explain them to Pro.



Defense (Counter Rebuttal):

Con: You must actually debunk the ramp theory yourself.
Simple. Do you mean to tell me that they pushed 2,300,000 pieces of limestone and granite slabs (2.3 metric tons) without the wheel! There, I debunked it.

Con: Several of the sources I provided went into the fact that they had quarries nearby
Again, what difference does it make if you haven't invented the wheel? How are you moving those stones? Yeah right, they pushed 2.5 tons of blocks for twenty years. Because that sounds right (sarcasm). How is it even possible to build the pyramids when you haven't invented the wheel!?

I put these two objections together because they are practically identical:

I suppose I must explain this one more in-depth for you. Let's say your a child who wants to move a stone, a particularly large stone, and all you have is a wagon. Well, the answer is fairly simple, you put the large stone into the wagon and you pull it forward. Now, I already hear your objection, "The eyptians didn't have wheels!" Correct you are; however, they did have something else: Sleds! Just like laying down a blanket and putting a heavy piece of furniture on it, the eyptians used sleds to move stones that were carved in nearby quarries [1].

Even more, they used a technique we call today; hydroplaning, where you put water underneath something in order to reduce friction. Of course, it's mostly known as something that happens to cars moving too quickly on wet roads, but applying enough water to paths, and pushing sleds over them made transporting any blocks they did use quite simple [2]. Once again, I must point out that Pro's incredulity isn't an actual objection. Furthermore... even without wheels, farmers pushed plows for miles using animals and livestock for moving no sleds or wheels required.


What about the other 6 nations? Such as Mesopotamian?
The question is not what the Mesopotamians did, but whether or not the Egyptians built the pyramids, when the debate is about the Egyptians. 
My point was that you were arguing that the Egyptian pyramids were "perfectly symmetrical" and that "we hadn't replicated such a thing today" when in fact we have, and in fact other nations had. Such as mesopotainans. This does delve into some of the points dropped by pro, and I would like to see them answered. 


Conclusions:

Not only are Pro's rebuttals lackluster, but the fact that he has dropped several of my own arguments pretending that they're answered should further convince you that they haven't fulfilled their burden. In contrast I have in-depth rebuttals, even while brief last round, and several strong contentions that have yet to be rebutted.
Round 4
turk082's avatar
turk082
Pro
#7
I thank the response of Con. Now, I will present a rebuttal of his arguments. Below are the rebuttals, numbered like so.

1. In the link posted below, an archaeologist shows that the method with which mainstream archaeologists claim the Egyptians built the pyramids is inaccurate. For sixty years tourists have been hitting a rock with stone hammers and they've bearly scratched the surface. Even with top engineers on the cutting-edge of technology, CNC Mills and 3D-Printing, can't match what this ancient civilization did (perhaps dating as far back as 32,000 years ago). In short, our modern explanation of Egyptian quarries does not make sense. You look at the unfished obelisk and you can tell it was made with very advanced tools. It wasn't crafted by rocks. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXfZa3x0j2I&ab_channel=BrightInsight

2. The argument that Egyptian reliefs of wooden sleds were used to drag stones up a ramp is absurd on its face. First off, building a ramp would require more slabs than the pyramid itself. True, three sleds have been found with holes where archaeologists think they placed the papyrus ropes (they were all large in circumference). But these sleds, as depicted, would not carry huge slabs of stone. They could not drag a giant obelisk weighing up to 1,000 tons. Therefore, the Egyptians would not have used them. The truth is we simply do not know how they moved huge stones without the wheel. There are a lot of theories and suggestions, but these are only speculation. As the video (above) proves, old methods derived as explanations do not hold water. At least 200 Egyptian scholars have concluded as much. (More on that later/next round).

3. Despite the above, I prefer the hydroplaning method, though this does not in itself prove that the Egyptians performed this method. This is the method used namely by the Mesopotamians. They would wet sand to the right level, and in doing so, you could move heavy objects across the sand. All these methods explain how the Mesopotamians could have built their ziggurats. They used stones. That's how they built things for thousands of years. But the pyramids are much larger than ziggurats. Besides, the Egyptians never claimed they built the pyramids. Nowhere in the pyramids does it say that the Egyptians constructed them.

Dropped arguments.

I do not know what math you are talking about. Please show me the math and I will concede if convincing.
Modern art doesn't prove anything. The Egyptians didn't use computers to build perfectly symmetrical statues. They did it by hand. Something the Greeks couldn't even replicate. 

With that, I turn it over to Con.


Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
Con
#8
Thanks for the response Turk,

There are two things I'd like to point out before I begin the round; 1 - that somehow Pro still refused to address two of my arguments, despite the fact that I listed them neatly, and the ones he did finally address, he did so in less than one sentence. Perhaps, you could argue, since they are simply rebuttals Pro could get away with that, but the rebuttals revealed a lack of even reading the rebuttals properly. 


Dropped Arguments:

Contentions Dropped:
  • Collection of primary sources informing the creation of the pyramids by eyptians: Extend
  • Sheer Manpower built the pyramids: Extend
Despite these being the primary contentions I have seen no refutation on either point, Pro seems to only want to talk about my refutations, and those are subpar at best. The fact that Pro has consistently ignored these points would show either an unwillingness to discuss them, a lack of comprehension, or a lack of fully reading my arguments. 


Rebuttals:

1. In the link posted below, an archaeologist shows that the method with which mainstream archaeologists claim the Egyptians built the pyramids is inaccurate. For sixty years tourists have been hitting a rock with stone hammers and they've bearly scratched the surface. Even with top engineers on the cutting-edge of technology, CNC Mills and 3D-Printing, can't match what this ancient civilization did (perhaps dating as far back as 32,000 years ago). In short, our modern explanation of Egyptian quarries does not make sense. You look at the unfished obelisk and you can tell it was made with very advanced tools. It wasn't crafted by rocks. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXfZa3x0j2I&ab_channel=BrightInsight
This is a new argument, or,  at the very most, a new subtopic of an argument. It essentially argues that modern technology cannot replicate what was made by the eyptians, and if that was the case; how could we say that these were constructed by only the eyptians? 

First of all, that is a non-sequitur, it does not logically follow that because we cannot replicate what came before us that the Eyptians must have not made them. It follows that we do not how they were constructed nothing else. This is Pro attempting to abdicate his burden of proof; however, that is not how claims work. Let's assume that we couldn't replicate the structures the eyptians made, I would like Pro to exactly explain why that points to something else constructing them? Why can it not be the case that the Eyptians were simply more advanced than we know of? We should be going off of the preponderance of the evidence, and even if Pro does not accept the fact that we can create them now, there is still evidence that they were constructed by Eyptians in general (see contention 1 in round 1).

Now let's get into the real fact of the matter. The video being showcased saw an unprofessional tourist banging on a rock with another rock. The actual fact of that matter is the Eyptians had tools; "saws, axes, chisels, adzes, wooden mallets, stone polishers, and bow drills" [1], and they were specifically used to cut stone. This also ignores the fact that a lot of the pyramids were built using concrete casting-like techniques, meaning that no carving would be needed (see round 1 rebuttal). Furthermore, the Greeks did have buildings that were symmetrical [2], as does modern architecture [3]. Any architecture student would be astounded at the sheer ignorance being spewed by Pro, in fact, here's an entire course about symmetry [4]. In fact, this isn't even the first time I showed Pro this, and again, Egyptian buildings weren't perfect.


I do not know what math you are talking about. Please show me the math and I will concede if convincing.
The math you claimed to do in the first round that was, and I quote, "not add up", please show the math and explain what methods you used to use the correct equations and such. Considering several of my sources include mathematicians claiming this to be perfectly possible. I am talking about the math you said you did, do you not remember claiming that in the first paragraph? Here, to jog your memory, ". I did the math. The amount of workers it would take to create all of them doesn't add up." Please demonstrate that you had the correct number of workers and the math that made it "not add up". 


Continued Defense

2. The argument that Egyptian reliefs of wooden sleds were used to drag stones up a ramp is absurd on its face. First off, building a ramp would require more slabs than the pyramid itself. True, three sleds have been found with holes where archaeologists think they placed the papyrus ropes (they were all large in circumference). But these sleds, as depicted, would not carry huge slabs of stone. They could not drag a giant obelisk weighing up to 1,000 tons. Therefore, the Egyptians would not have used them. The truth is we simply do not know how they moved huge stones without the wheel. ....
This is more ignorance by Pro, not to mention blatant leaps in logic. Pro essentially claims that ramps were made using blocks and that would be too difficult for Eyptians to move and that you couldn't drag obelisk on sleds. That scholars (citation not provided) have all agreed that there was no way that previous methods could have worked.

First of all, ramps aren't built using blocks... I don't know where Pro got that absurd fixture, but I find it likely that Pro doesn't understand how ramps are built. Ramps are typically one long, or several long strips connected, a sheet of some material. Whether that be wood, metal, reinforced wood, or even stone. That sheet is hiked up using levers and other pulleys, with supports being added in at the same time. Then, as the Egyptians built each level of the pyramid, they simply raised the ramp [5]. Another suggestion has been scaffolding which simply levers up the blocks, again, this isn't much of a problem for the Eyptians. It must also be mentioned that Pro admits to not knowing how they were moved. If that is the case, then Pro has no basis for claiming anyone built the Pyramids, much less some alien species.

Next, we must move on to Pro's claims regarding Obelisks and Sleds. As anyone paying attention would know, I do not actually have to respond to mentions of Obelisks, this is a debate about the Pyramids, not the Obelisks. However, the answer is actually very simple. The Eyptians did not use sleds for the Obelisks, they used water power and logs.  They used logs as rollers with ropes attached to pull, and made sure that the Obelisk was by the Nile,  digging a canal and using blocks to hold the Obelisk until the canal was completed. Afterward, the workers would pivot it onto something to ferry it downstream [6]. Furthermore, why does Pro think that there were only three sleds? It is possible that they have bigger or smaller sleds for different occurrences, this simply lazy research on Pro's part. 


 Despite the above, I prefer the hydroplaning method, though this does not in itself prove that the Egyptians performed this method. This is the method used namely by the Mesopotamians. They would wet sand to the right level, and in doing so, you could move heavy objects across the sand. All these methods explain how the Mesopotamians could have built their ziggurats. They used stones. That's how they built things for thousands of years. But the pyramids are much larger than ziggurats. Besides, the Egyptians never claimed they built the pyramids. Nowhere in the pyramids does it say that the Egyptians constructed them.
Pro claims that the hydroplaning method is good, but would not work for the Egyptians because of the size of the Pyramids. He then goes on to claim that the Egyptians never said that they created the Pyramids. 

Both of these objections are absurd on the face of it. Firstly, why does the relative size matter? The Eyptians had a workforce of over 10,000 men, and over 20 years for each Pyramid [7], it is sheer incredulity that fuels Pros claims, not any actual proof that size would somehow prohibit the Eyptians from moving blocks via wetting the sand. Please, Pro, explain exactly why the Pyramids being bigger stopped the Eyptians from wetting sands to make moving the stones via sleds easier. Secondly, my entire first contention, one that was notably dropped by Pro, was an entire source fest of Eyptians "signing" the Pyramids. From information collection to some literal signatures. Not to mention current Eyptians also claim that Ancient Eyptians made the Pyramid because according to all evidence I have presented, they have.


Conclusions

The trend from the last round continues, Pro has continued to not use any valid sourcing and still didn't answer several points. The ones of my "dropped arguments" that he did respond to were sad, to say the least. Unfortunately, my criticism for Pro doesn't stop there, he also fails to validly object to my arguments, regularly switching topics or switching the goal post. In contrast, my claims are sourced, and my consistent rebuttal to each of Pro's points has been worked. 
Round 5
turk082's avatar
turk082
Pro
#9
I thank Con for his response but I still stick with what I wrote. My position from the start of the debate has been made clear since the beginning: The Egyptians did not build the pyramids. There is actually a lot of evidence that the Egyptians did not build the pyramids.

According to modern archaeologists, Egypt constructed all the pyramids and major statues during the first dynasty. There were about eight dynasties in total. Thus, ancient Egyptians looked at themselves as we look at them today. They considered the earlier generations far more advanced than their own time. Later pyramids look hilariously bad in comparison. You could tell. Compare a modern Egyptian statue to a first dynasty. You can see the original one is very symmetrical, so much so, that the Egyptians said the "gods" made them. We have over 3,000 years of Egyptian art and culture after the first dynasty. What happened significantly during those three thousand years of history in Egypt? Nothing. Later dynastic pyramids were hilariously bad. And to think they did all this before they discovered the wheel! The Egyptians themselves record how they were astonished to see Arabian bandits riding in their chariots and wanted it to revolutionize their own infrastructure.

==================================================

1. It does not logically follow that because we cannot replicate what came before us that the Egyptians must have not made them. 2. The math you claimed to do in the first round that was, and I quote, "not add up", please show the math.
1. The ancients manufactured stone far better than we could and it makes sense. Everyone was using stone. They've been working with stones for thousands of years. Meanwhile, our top engineers on the cutting edge of technology, even with modern CNC Mills and 3D-Printing, and compute-controlled machines can't replicate it. You'd think we are now smart enough to do it, but you'd be surprised. That's because the ancients were far more advanced than we are. I believe that ancient people were smarter. Exhibit A: newspapers from the late 1800s'. The way people spoke, fashion, polite manners, for example, proves my point. If you look at old newspapers, you learn very quickly that they were made for the commoners. Read a newspaper from the 1800s' and you can tell these people were far smarter than the average American. The Indians, Arbs, and Greeks invented all the math we use today. This proves my point that an ancient civilization built the pyramids, without stone tools. Corundum is the second hardest material on earth, second to diamond. The only thing harder than corundum is diamond, and we didn't start using diamond until the late 1980s'. So, how did the Egyptians cut their materials? 

2. Yes, as you correctly pointed out, I've done the math. The math doesn't add up. They ran studies, you know. Archaeologists tried cutting through two inches of basalt. Recall that the Egyptians worked with 15-ton boulders. Carving would take months. The amount of marble slabs that make up the great pyramid is two million make stones — the math: the amount of workers it would take to make it would be insane. It's just impossible. The math doesn't add up. It took two solid days for the archaeologists to cut the basalt. The work was tedious, it was embarrassing. In the end, they gave up. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXfZa3x0j2I&ab_channel=BrightInsight

3 and 4. Furthermore, the Greeks did have buildings that were symmetrical... Egyptian buildings weren't perfect.
3 and 4. This is laughable on its face. Have you ever been to Greece? Well, I have. And I can tell you from personal experience that I saw many beautiful ornate Italian statues. They were very impressive, don’t get me wrong. But your eyes can tell they were made by hand. Marble is significantly less hard than basalt and corundum, and Greeks had steel tools. True, later Egyptian statutes were hilariously bad, but not those from the first dynasty. I've been to Egypt. They're perfectly rounded, weighing up to 15 tons. They never did that in Greece. And the Greeks never mass-produced them either.  In Egypt, archaeologists found tons of pottery, made of corundum, but never found any lids. Why? We don't know. We do know that modern Egyptian museums added lids. They manufactured them in a factory. In other words, the lids are not original. These lids were made up of mud and they look awful. Look at this link, the lid in the picture has a large crack in it: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/20336635793569951/ Furthermore, these pots were so well crafted that they would sit perfectly straight. Modern machines can't replicate that. Verdict: There is a world of difference in technology. Egyptian statues are perfectly rounded, symmetrical. Take a mirror to a Greek statue and it doesn't line up but Egyptian ones will. https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/328692472774658268/ And there are dozens of them, all made exactly the same.

5. You couldn't drag obelisk on sleds.
5. Exactly! They did not use sleds to move 15-ton boulders up a 70-degree slope.

6. The Egyptians did not use sleds for the Obelisks, they used water power and logs. 
6. Yeah, your right they used logs and water because that makes perfect sense. Next, you're be saying they used mammoths, too. Listen, we don't give them enough credit. they have been working with stones and building things for thousands of years, and we don't know how technologically advanced they were. 

7. Pro claims that the hydroplaning method is good, but would not work for the Egyptians because of the size of the Pyramids... Explain exactly why the Pyramids being bigger stopped the Eyptians from wetting sands... size matter? The Egyptians had a workforce of over 10,000 men, and over 20 years for each Pyramid... He then goes on to claim that the Egyptians never said that they created the Pyramids.
7. True, the Mesopotamians used the hydroplaning method, but the Mesopotamian and Mayan pyramids were not nearly as large, the bricks were smaller and their pyramids were built right where they sourced their stones. The Mayans built their own pyramids. On the other hand, nowhere in the pyramids do the Egyptians say they made them. Amazing... Instead, they told the Greeks that the pyramids were built by the "gods." With one exception. During the lifetime of Pharaoh Ramses, the same Ramses in the Bible, all of the Egyptian statues and pyramids were claimed to have been built by Ramses. Whether or not this includes the Jews is another subject. In this case, Ramses chiseled his name on all of them. From the pyramids to every statue. It was ridiculous. Since I was there, I can tell you from personal experience that these hieroglyphs looked awful. Someone took a chisel and a hammer and smashed symbols into the pyramids. Why would anyone do that to beautiful ornate statues? Why would you make a beautiful statue and hastily smash your name on the side of it? It's graffiti. It's embarrassing. It's like spray-painting your name on Mona lisa. If I go to Paris today and spray my name on the Eiffel Tower, they will say in a thousand years that I built it.

True, if you wet sand to the right level, you could move heavy objects across the sand, but where is the closest marble quarry? They're over hundreds of miles away. You mean to tell me they took all 2.5 million stones and dragged them across the desert, in one person's lifetime!? That's just impossible. 

Also, some archaeologists think the Sphinx's head was made after the body, though not the same size as the body, it's smaller and far less detailed. The sphinx is at least 9,000 years old, or more. There is a lot of evidence that the Egyptians did not build the Sphinx either. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vklw8XSwQHY&ab_channel=BrightInsight 

==================================================

Pro admits to not knowing how they were moved. If that is the case, then Pro has no basis for claiming anyone built the Pyramids, much less some alien species.
Not shape-shifting lizards or aliens. The Egyptians traced their ancestry to Sumeria, when that civilization ended, they left and started Egypt.

"dropped arguments"

Technological advancements built the pyramids. The link below debunks all your acclaimed sources. I know that you will first scoff at the idea, but watch his videos and give him a fair chance to prove his case. UnchartedX is a Youtube channel made in Egypt. This guy actually went to Egypt and spoke with all the great archaeologists there. No, he doesn't say aliens or shape-shifting lizards built them. He's not crazy. What he does say is that there is still a lot we still don't know about Egypt. He proves my case. Before you critique his video, please watch them, and only after much reflection, you may decide whether he is correct fully, in part, or none at all.

Verdict: Either our understanding of Egyptian history is flawed or I think there’s a lot of evidence to support my theory, which makes sense. I hope that after reading and reviewing my arguments and Con's, voters can make a fair decision not based on confirmation bias but through research and investigation. Therefore, I recommend you vote Pro.
With that, I now turn it over to Con.

Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
Con
#10
Thank you Turk for the debate and voters for getting this far,

This is the final round, as such, I will present the final defenses/rebuttals, summarize my position, and explain why my opponent's position is incorrect, and mine correct. It must be pointed out that Pro only uses youtube videos and Pinterest to source his arguments. These "sources" are not inherently bad, but the lack of credited sources should be taken into account by the voters, I will discuss this more inside of my actual rebuttals.

Note: Though the entire paragraph will not be quoted, assume that I am referring to the central idea of the point, this is simply to save space and to be more concise.

Rebuttals (cont.)

 They considered the earlier generations far more advanced than their own time. Later pyramids look hilariously bad in comparison. You could tell. Compare a modern Egyptian statue to a first dynasty. You can see the original one is very symmetrical, so much so, that the Egyptians said the "gods" made them.
The pyramids (or at least the most famous of them) were built between 2550 to 2490 B.C, which is between the 4th and 5th dynasties [1] [2]. The last of the most famous pyramids built in Egypt was built between 2278-2184 B.C., by  Pepy II - the second king of the sixth Dynasty [3].  Though it would not be fair to mention that the pyramids of the fourth dynasty were the greatest in terms of scale. After the 6th dynasty, Pyramids were stopped being constructed for two reasons.

  1. The large economic and manpower cost. It has already been explained and demonstrated that the eyptians used between 1,000 and 10,000 workers per Pyramid, and use quite a large amount of limestone (several million tonnes). This is a huge cost to the kingdom, therefore it would not be unreasonable to posit that this large cost was the reason that the Eyptians stopped building Pyramids of such a scale. [4]
  2. More importantly, one must keep in mind that the reason for the pyramids being built was to be tombs for the Pharaohs, who were seen as gods. As the Dynasties continued, however, different structures would be emphasized, such as the sun temples. Priorities and resources had changed, and the Pyramids were no longer what the higher courts wanted to focus on - explained in this archive of archaeology regarding the 12th Dynasty: [5]
Finally, the truth of the matter must be addressed; we have a great many examples of the Pyramids in today's structures. In fact, we have exact reconstructions on slightly smaller scales [9]. Pro is asking the voter to accept unsubstantiated contention, in fact, such a contention has been actively debunked by myself several times.


They've been working with stones for thousands of years. Meanwhile, our top engineers on the cutting edge of technology, even with modern CNC Mills and 3D-Printing, and compute-controlled machines can't replicate it. You'd think we are now smart enough to do it That's because the ancients were far more advanced than we are.... Corundum is the second hardest material on earth, second to diamond. The only thing harder than corundum i.s diamond, and we didn't start using diamond until the late 1980s'. So, how did the Egyptians cut their materials? 
These are two separate claims which are connected as one attempts to support the other. One is a continuation of the claim that we cannot replicate such efficient stone cutting measure today, which is... well, repetitive and absurd to be brief.

  • Today we have no trouble replicating this technology, in fact, we have exact replicas built with material more durable than used in Ancient Egypt.[9].
  • Furthermore, I already debunked the claim that Eyptians used corundum, they used limestone. I have supported this assertion several times throughout the debate, conversely Pro has presented no evidence for such an assertion. I could go on and on, but for brevity, we will move on. 

2. Yes, as you correctly pointed out, I've done the math. The math doesn't add up. They ran studies, you know. Archaeologists tried cutting through two inches of basalt. Recall that the Egyptians worked with 15-ton boulders. Carving would take months. The amount of marble slabs that make up the great pyramid is two million make stones
This is an essentially identical claim to something made earlier in the debate, using the same video of two tourists banging on a rock with another rock. I shouldn't have to point out what's wrong with this Voters.

  • The so-called studies demonstrating Pro's claims are absent, this is a false comparison, thousands of workers with tools and water versus two tourists banging on a rock with another rock?
  • This is a collection of assertions without a spec of evidence and blatantly contradicted with the evidence I have presented throughout the debate.


And I can tell you from personal experience that I saw many beautiful ornate Italian statues. But your eyes can tell they were made by hand. Marble is significantly less hard than basalt and corundum, and Greeks had steel tools.  I've been to Egypt. They're perfectly rounded, weighing up to 15 tons. They never did that in Greece. And the Greeks never mass-produced them either.   They manufactured them in a factory. In other words, the lids are not original. These lids were made up of mud and they look awfu
Most of these are unsupported assertions -

  • Pro has failed to show a single example of this so-called "hand-made-ness" of the greek architecture, whereas I have already presented several sources detailing symmetrical buildings from Ancient Greece. Pro has failed to show that the materials were of Corundum.
  • Pro uses Pinterest photos to support his assertion that Egyptian pyramids were symmetrical, ignoring the fact that these things are not Pyramids, the pottery is very obviously not perfectly symmetrical, there is an obvious obtuse side length on the right side of the port.
  • The next image is simply unsupported to be anything but a statue with a measurement photoshopped over later. 


6. Yeah, your right they used logs and water because that makes perfect sense. Next, you're be saying they used mammoths, too. Listen, we don't give them enough credit. they have been working with stones and building things for thousands of years, and we don't know how technologically advanced they were. 
Pro does not provide any evidence to support his notions that the Eyptians did not use logs, Pro does not reveal any logical inconsistencies that would make this method impossible, the only thing Pro does is falsely compare the use of logs to "mammoths" though the Eyptians did use Animals as I have already pointed out before. 


Why would you make a beautiful statue and hastily smash your name on the side of it? It's graffiti. It's embarrassing. It's like spray-painting your name on Mona lisa. If I go to Paris today and spray my name on the Eiffel Tower, they will say in a thousand years that I built it.
This entire paragraph is a repeated assertion from past paragraphs, the language should be familiar to all voters, and should reveal something about Pro. They do not actually care to engage in debate, they only care to continue asserting unproven claims, they have barely engaged in this debate. This reveals again, that Pro loves to use anecdotal evidence without anything supporting it, not even a youtube video this time.


The link below debunks all your acclaimed sources. I know that you will first scoff at the idea, but watch his videos and give him a fair chance to prove his case. UnchartedX is a Youtube channel made in Egypt. 
This is not how debates work, it is your responsibility to present the arguments in the videos, you are essentially stealing somebody else's arguments, that does not fly. Furthermore, only a view at his sources will be enough to grant this source and the fact of the matter? They are all either old irrelevant studies or news articles. Furthermore, you have not presented any arguments using this source. 


Closing Statements

Let's take a step back, let's assume that everything that Pro has claimed is true (besides the Eyptians not building the Pyramids):
  1. let's assume that we can't replicate what the Egyptians did.
  2. Let's assume that the Egyptians lost quality in their building as the years went on
  3. Let's assume that ancient civilizations are more complex than we are
Assuming all of those things, Pro would still not be any closer to supporting their claim. Pro has not posited a single explanation for what did then build the Pyramids but has also failed to demonstrate that the Eyptians simply did not have more advanced tools than we give them credit for.  Giving Pro the benefit of the doubt, we would not be any closer to the Egyptians who did not build the Pyramids, that is unless you already accepted the proposition that the Pyramids weren't built by the Egyptians.

Furthermore, each of these claims is provably untrue. Most of the claims posited by Pro didn't have any sources to support them, and the sources he did were irrelevant youtube videos or youtube videos without any verification.

I've demonstrated that:
  • The Egyptians had plans for building Pyramids
  • That the Eyptians had a linear progression in how well they constructed Pyramids
  • That Eyptians had the necessary manpower and tools to make the Pyramids
  • That we can reconstruct what the Egyptians did today
  • That the workers were depicted in the Pyramids creating the Pyramids

All evidence points to the fact that Eyptians constructed all of the great Pyramids. As one last measure, I will remind the voters of Pro's beliefs of who did build them:
The Egyptians did not build the pyramids. Aliens did. There is a lot of evidence for it. Furthermore, I believe the pyramids were used as a sort of landing base for spacecraft. A white beam of light shoots out for the aircraft to land. Prove me wrong.

Vote Con