Claim: “Historical accounts are always incomplete”
Argument in Support: History is unable to account for the whole past (as in everything that has occurred before this second). History is also built from the perspectives of multiple historians rather than one narrative, as a result, some details may not be included in the descriptions.
Opposing Argument: If there is only one stakeholder in the event, it is difficult to know whether or not the historical account is complete or incomplete and in that case, it is complete until proven incomplete.
Implications of Accepting this Claim: This implies the mindset that there is always an element of unknown or that something is missing. The diction of incomplete also holds a negative connotation as if there is a need to know the complete historical event. Some may also say this decreases the value of studying history as we are unable to study the whole event.