I tend not to agree. Anything surviving TIME is History.
Yes. However, if I start a thread with the title "the roman Empire was an important civilization" or "the lord of the rings was an important document", the fact that both Tokien's work and the roman empire are elements of history (i.e., they belong to the past), this does not mean I have begun a historical debate. In all seriousness, I do actually believe that Tokien's work is important. But if I want to start a debate about it's importance, I would have to say something like
"Although many of his colleagues thought that Tokien's literary accomplishments were a waste of his energy and great intellect, Dr. Michael D. C. Drout rightly points out the influence his stories had on later generations of scholars. Many medievalists, anglo-saxon scholars, experts on germanic languages, and scholars from other related fields at least partially chose that academic track they did thanks to the love of antique language and culture they developed reading Tolkien. It may even be argued that his stories about middle earth are not only an excellent demonstration of the link between culture and language, but also unparalleled from a pedagogical perspective. Finally, quite apart from the secondary influence the LOTR and other middle earth writings had on academia, the impact they had on fantasy literature cannot be overestimated."
In other words, I don't just make a statement about something that happened in the past. I make a claim and support it (rightly or wrongly) such that others can agree/disagree with or add to the points raise. Simply bringing up some aspect of history with a single bone of a skeleton of a would-be argument doesn't a debate make.
It has survived, wounded though. Is it important? Why or why not?
It has directly and indirectly influenced billions of people. So it's important.