MAZAUA

Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed judges, and fellow debaters,

I stand before you today to argue that the first mass in the Philippines started in Mazaua. While the
debate over the location of the first mass has been ongoing for years, I firmly believe that the evidence
and arguments in favor of Mazaua are more compelling than those of Limasawa.

Let me first address the arguments of the opposing team. They claim that the first mass was held in
Limasawa based on the writings of Antonio Pigafetta. However, Pigafetta's account of the expedition's
journey has been subject to interpretation, and the evidence is not conclusive that he was referring to
Limasawa.

On the other hand, other historical accounts point to Mazaua as the location of the first mass. The Boxer
Codex, a Spanish manuscript from the late 16th century, clearly states that the first mass was held in
Mazaua. The manuscript is considered a reliable source of information on pre-colonial Philippines.

Furthermore, the location of Mazaua makes more sense in the context of the expedition's goals. The
primary objective of the expedition was to find a western route to the Spice Islands, and establish a
trading monopoly in the region. Mazaua, being closer to the Spice Islands than Limasawa, would have
been a more logical choice for the expedition to anchor and restock their supplies.

The archaeological evidence also supports the claim that the first mass was held in Mazaua. In the
1990s, excavations in Mazaua uncovered artifacts that suggest the presence of a 16th-century
settlement, including Chinese pottery and Spanish coins. These findings lend credibility to the claim that
the first mass was held in Mazaua.

But let us not get too caught up in the historical details. The real question we should be asking is, why
does it matter where the first mass was held? The answer is simple: the location of the first mass has
important implications for our understanding of Philippine history and culture.

If we accept that the first mass was held in Mazaua, we need to rethink our narrative of the country's
colonization. The Spanish colonization of the Philippines began with the arrival of the Magellan
expedition, and the location of the first mass has symbolic significance. By recognizing that the first mass
was held in Mazaua, we acknowledge the historical importance of this island and its people.

In conclusion, the evidence and arguments in favor of Mazaua as the location of the first mass in the
Philippines are more compelling than those of Limasawa. Let us embrace this new understanding of our
history and culture, and move forward with a deeper appreciation of our shared heritage. Thank you.
MAZAUA

Antonio Pigafetta, a chronicler of the Magellan expedition, wrote in his diary that the mass was held in
"the island of Massava," which is believed by some historians to be Mazaua. Pigafetta's account is the
most detailed and comprehensive description of the expedition and is considered a reliable historical
source.

Other historical accounts also mention Mazaua as the location of the first mass. The Boxer Codex, a
Spanish manuscript from the late 16th century, describes Mazaua as the "first land" that the expedition
reached and where the first mass was celebrated. The manuscript was discovered in the 1940s and is
considered one of the most important sources of information on pre-colonial Philippines.

The argument that the first mass was held in Limasawa is based on a misreading of Pigafetta's diary.
Supporters of the Mazaua theory argue that the name "Massava" is closer to "Mazaua" than
"Limasawa." They also point out that Pigafetta never explicitly named Limasawa as the location of the
first mass.

The location of Mazaua also makes more sense in the context of the expedition's objectives. The primary
goal of the expedition was to find a western route to the Spice Islands and establish a trading monopoly
with the region. Mazaua, which is closer to the Spice Islands than Limasawa, would have been a more
logical choice for the expedition to anchor and restock their supplies.

Finally, archaeological excavations conducted in Mazaua in the 1990s uncovered artifacts that suggest
the presence of a 16th-century settlement, including Chinese pottery and Spanish coins. The discovery
lends credence to the claim that the first mass in the Philippines was held in Mazaua.

QUESTIONS:

How can we deny the credibility of the historical accounts that suggest the first mass in the Philippines
was held in Mazaua, when the evidence supports this claim? Is it not possible that the Spanish
deliberately distorted the historical record to assert their dominance over the Philippines?

Given the lack of evidence supporting the Limasawa claim, shouldn't we be more open to alternative
interpretations of Philippine history? Is it not important to recognize the contributions of indigenous
peoples to Philippine culture and history, and to question the Eurocentric narratives that have
dominated Philippine history?