The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

4000 Elo debate: Hitler deserved a nobel peace prize

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 11/17/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,675 times Debate No: 82614
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (62)
Votes (0)




Whiteflame will most likely be accepting the challenge and starting the debate on the weekend so be sure to check it out then.

Resolved: Adolf Hitler deserved a Nobel Peace Prize after World War 2 - assuming that he survived and did not commit suicide.


1. No forfeits
2. Sources may be provided in the comments
3. No new arguments in the final round
4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No semantics; debaters will adhere to the common/average understanding of the topic
7. The burden of proof is shared
8. First round is for acceptance only
9. You cannot contest with definitions, burdens or rules
10. Violation of any rules is an automatic loss


Adolf Hitler:
A German political leader of the twentieth century, born in Austria. Hitler led
Nazi party, and began to rule Germany in 1933 as a fascist.

Deserved: Justly or rightly should have received

Nobel Peace Prize: One of six annual prizes that are awarded to people for important work in the field of keeping peace.


R1: Acceptance

R2: Arguments (no rebuttals)

R3: Rebuttals to R2

R4: Rebuttal to R3 (defense)


Accepted. Looking forward to a good debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting this debate whiteflame. I am sure that we will have an interesting discussion.

I understand that voters will most likely be bias in my opponent's favour but I request that if you feel like you cannot vote without bias then you avoid voting on this debate. I would like votes to only judge the content within this debate and nothing else.


So, most people have been taught about this subject in the wrong war. The bias way. Of course you are going to be taught that Hitler was enemy and we were all the great soldiers who fought against him. This natural since we are both living in countries that fought against Hitler in the war. What I’m going to do now is provide some history before I get into my contentions.

War was forced upon Germany. Poland had an immense amount of power! This power was sourced by British Ambassador Sir Howard William Kennard and French Ambassador Leon Noel (1). They promised that England and France would come to defend and help Poland. The only condition necessary would be that Poland was in danger. Then they would come to the aid of them. This meant that no matter what Poland did to Germany in order to provoke them, Poland had the guaranteed help of both England and France. After Poland delivered the first blow Hitler announced (in self defense) the following words:

“Since dawn today, we are shooting back.” (2)

It should be noted that the words: ‘shooting back’ are not the words of the aggressor. The words shooting back imply self defense which is a justified act given the circumstances (ie. war).

A young German political leader named Leon Degrelle (who was originally a non-German European) said:

“Of all the crimes of World War II, one never hears about the wholesale massacres that occurred in Poland just before the war. Thousands of German men, women and children were massacred in the most horrendous fashion by press-enraged mobs. Hitler decided to halt the slaughter and he rushed to the rescue.”4 Young German boys, when captured by the Poles, were castrated.” (3)
This shows (already) that the portrayal of Germany and Hitler is exaggerated however I will still continue.

Young German boys! It is sickening to think that 4 young German boys were captured and castrated. This clearly comes to subjective morality. How can any human being allow this to happen without retaliation? I cannot source this subjectivity but I assume that my opponent will accept that this is a sickening act. If he does not accept that this is a sickening act then we can discuss this further in later rounds.

A German witness to this, William Joyce, described the horrific acts of Poland in further detail:

"German men and women were hunted like wild beasts through the streets of Bromberg. When they were caught, they were mutilated and torn to pieces by the Polish mob. . . . Every day the butchery increased. . . . [T]housands of Germans fled from their homes in Poland with nothing more than the clothes that they wore. Moreover, there was no doubt that the Polish army was making plans for the massacre of Danzig. . . . On the nights of August 25 to August 31 inclusive, there occurred, besides innumerable attacks on civilians of German blood, 44 perfectly authenticated acts of armed violence against German official persons and property. These incidents took place either on the border or inside German territory. On the night of [August 31], a band of Polish desperadoes actually occupied the German Broad casting Station at Gleiwitz. Now it was clear that unless German troops marched at once, not a man, woman or child of German blood within the Polish territory could reasonably expect to avoid persecution and slaughter.” (4)

So what we can conclude so far is that Poland delivered the first blow and not Germany. This first blow was extremely significant. A first blow gave the US the ‘right and justification to do whatever was necessary to defeat the Japanese.’ But Germany did not have this right with Poland even after Poland had delivered the first blow (1). How is this fair on Germany and Hitler? You cannot pick and choose countries that are allowed to do this. It is either all countries or no countries.

In January 1941, Hitler was making great efforts to come to peace terms with England. He offered England extremely beneficial terms. He offered, if Britain would assume an attitude of neutrality, to withdraw from all of France, to leave Holland and Belgium . . . to evacuate Norway and Denmark, and to support British and French industries by buying their products. This proposal had many other beneficial points for England and Western Europe. But the English officials did not want peace. They wanted war. Do you not recall that England celebrated the end of the war with beer and jokes (5)?

So I’ll quickly recap and what has happened so far. Poland deliver the first strike. Somehow, the US get more privileges than Germany does. Hitler has gone through extreme efforts to get peace offering deals that give England many benefits. England refused for no apparent reason, so we can only assume that they wanted war.

Hitler even allowed Britain to escape on Dunkirk, which was possibly one of the deciding wars on whether or not the allies would win the war. Blumentritt states why Hitler allowed the British to escape:

“He [Hitler] then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and the civilization that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked with a shrug of the shoulders, that the creation of the Empire had been achieved by means that were often harsh, but “where there is planning there are shavings flying.” He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church—saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the continent. The return of Germany’s lost colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in any difficulties anywhere.” (6)

Hitler deserves a nobel peace prize based on this. He was the ONLY major political figure to speak out against the war and even if you still oppose him you shouldn’t do so because he actually helped himself lose the war by allowing Britain to escape Dunkirk.



(2) Onward Christian Soldiers, 55.

(3) Fish, Hamilton, FDR: The Other Side of the Coin, 86

(4) Twilight Over England, 125-6

(5) McLaughlin, op cit., 10

(6) Barnes, Harry Elmer, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, 162

Contention 1: Beliefs

Whilst, I do not agree with all of Hitler’s beliefs and view this should NOT be a factor that contributes towards the nobel peace prize. Let’s apply this concept to Christianity. You cannot say that a Christian should not be allowed a nobel peace prize because of his beliefs. Just like you cannot say that Hitler shouldn’t be given a nobel peace prize based on his. This is discriminatory to Hitler and his beliefs.

Contention 2: Too good?

There even people who believe that Hitler was too good! They believe that he brought himself and Germany to ruin by being too soft, generous and honorable rather than too tough and ruthless. They point to the following considerations:

“he made a genuine and liberal peace offer to Britain on August 25, 1939; he permitted the British to escape at Dunkirk to encourage Britain to make peace, which later on cost him the war in North Africa; he failed to occupy all of France, take North Africa at once, and split the British Empire, he lost the Battle of Britain by failing to approve the savagery of military barbarism which played so large a role in the Allied victory; he delayed his attack on Russia and offered Molotov lavish concessions in November 1940 to keep peace between Germany and Russia; he lost the war with Russia by delaying the invasion in order to bail Mussolini out of his idiotic attack on Greece; and he declared war on the United States to keep his pledged word with Japan which had long before made it clear that it deserved no such consideration and loyalty from Hitler.” (a)

Contention 3: False Hopes

For 20 years Hitler had always wanted a peaceful relationship and possibly alliance with Britain. But once the war began, he clung to the dream with vain, “[like a] slightly ridiculous tenacity of a lover unwilling to admit that his feelings are unrequited.” (b) As Hitler told Maj. Quisling on August 18, 1940:

“After making one proposal after another to the British on the reorganization of Europe, I now find myself forced against my will to fight this war against Britain. . . .” (c)

Hitler’s dreams were shattered by the British and the allies and now we dishonour him with our own stereotypes of Germany during ww2.


I have shown through reliable sourcing and evidence that Hitler does indeed deserve a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in minimizing the allied damage as well as protecting his own country. Hitler’s dreams were shattered and he was given unbearable tough decisions to make. The fact that we mock him now is appalling and I affirm the resolution that Hitler does deserve a Nobel Peace Prize.


(A) The Barnes Trilogy, section “Revisionism and Brainwashing


(C) Irving, op. cit., 236



Thanks to Balacafa for inviting me to debate this intriguing topic. I'll echo his sentiment that bias should not play a role in deciding this debate. I ask voters to assess this debate based on the substance we present, and not their preconceived notions.

Let's be clear from the outset that we're talking about the real world with one caveat: that Hitler survived to the end of the war. His survival doesn't require anything beyond capture or surrender, though it necessarily requires that he not be immediately executed. Thus, the events of World War II proceeded exactly as we know them today. The events after World War II may be slightly altered due to his survival, but Pro will have to do quite a bit to justify any substantial butterfly effects. I may also expand on how this change affects history, if he chooses to pursue that route.


Pro carries a rather large burden in this debate. What we're discussing is an alternate history where the Norwegian Nobel Committee would award Adolf Hitler the Nobel Peace Prize. In other words, he's saying that Hitler committed acts aimed towards peace that rivaled other recipients of the time. Since he's arguing that a change to the basic facts of our history would have been warranted, it's entirely his burden to explain why history should have changed so dramatically. Only 96 Nobel Peace Prizes have been awarded over the years " that limited number clarifies that it's a rare honor that shouldn't be awarded flippantly. Nobel himself described the prizes as dedicated to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses". Determining who, if anyone, will receive the prize sets a very high threshold, one that should be considered in the awarding of any prize. That's why it's not awarded every year, particularly in relation to war time.[1]

Hitler was actually nominated to receive the Prize in 1939 (one of those years where none was awarded). Not only was the nomination quickly withdrawn, but it was intended as a satiric criticism of Swedish parliament. No one supported it. Pro will have to explain how 6-11 years substantially altered that view in a positive direction.

With that in mind, let's get into my case.

1) Hitler was a mass murdering f*ckhead

I don't view this as debatable, but as this debate regards whether or not Hitler should have received an award that emphasizes peace, I feel it's worth supporting this point to explain just how ridiculous that view is.

We can look to two separate and clear means by which Hitler is held responsible for mass death.

The first of these is the Holocaust. It's estimated that anywhere between 15 and 20 million people were killed in the Holocaust, including more than 5 million Jews,[2, 3]. To be clear, the reason why the number of Jews matters (and, for that matter, why the killings of Romani peoples, the disabeled, and homosexuals matters) is that these were attempts to eliminate these populations completely, to blot them out of existence. Thus, while the total numbers of lives lost tells a grim tale, the genocidal efforts of Nazi Germany tell an even grimmer one, as they were clearly attempting to eliminate whole peoples, religions and sexualities.

However, while the numbers themselves do matter, we should be clear that simply quantifying the loss of human life doesn't tell the story well enough.

A. Confiscation

Those targetted during the Holocaust were deprived of any sense of ownership. This amounts to at least $8 billion worth of private property. People were deprived of businesses, and thus their livelihoods, essentially surrendering their entire independent economic existence. Even if they escaped from Germany, they paid a "Reich Flight Tax" that required them to pay substantially just to leave the country (this started at 25% of their entire wealth), making it that much more difficult to get started in any other nation. Much of these funds went to fund the very costly war effort (more on that later).[4]

B. Imprisonment and Forced Labor

Some 20,000 camps were built to imprison millions of people from 1933-1945. Ignoring the death camps (as that death toll has already been mentioned), these camps were built to relocate individuals who had been deprived of their belongings, including their housing. They were moved on incredibly crowded trains with little food or water to distant locations, placed in cramped confines, and forced to live under constant threat of murder at the hands of their oppressors. And that was just the beginning. Many of these people were forced to labor for the very military machine that was oppressing them, doing what they could to stave off death from exhaustion, starvation and exposure while engaging in backbreaking and dangerous labor.[5] In fact, during World War II, Germany was reliant on the weapons made in these camps, and thus used them to prolong the war effort. Prisoners were starved, beaten, deprived of water, and if the efforts of the Nazis didn't kill them, they were victims of terrible diseases that ravaged the camps.[6]

C. Eugenics

Remember when I mentioned genocide? Well, it went much deeper than just trying to kill whole swaths of people. The Nazis engaged in extremely painful and often deadly experiments on thousands, ignoring basic medical ethics for several purposes. One was to facilitate the survival of Axis military pursonnel, which were continued efforts to prolong the war effort and put the prisoners through hell, forcing them to undergo hypothermia and injected with sea water, as well as be subjected to liver or spinal cord punctures.[7, 8] Another was to produce new pharmaceuticals and treatment methods, which sounds noble, but it involved giving patients a broad assortment of infectious diseases and testing all manner of new treatments on them. Some prisoners would also be exposed ot phosgene and mustard gas.[9]

The third is more broadly known: the Nazis believed that there was an Aryan master race, and that anyone who had traits that didn't match to that race needed to be cleansed. In an effort to accomplish this, they exposed many to a wide variety of diseases to see how they responded, engaged in mass sterilization,[9] The Nazis were responsible for brutal efforts to try and change eye color, which blinded many.[10]

What this all amounts to is dehumanization: people being treated as though they are plagues upon society. The Nazi regime saw the Jews as nothing but vermin. They were deprived of personal property because vermin don't own property, You can imprison them because they are only causing harm by scurrying around. If you put them to good use, then you're doing a public service. And, in the end, isn't it best just to eliminate them and ensure that no more vermin infest your cities?

2) World War II

The war itself goes against the basic tenets on which the Prize was founded. It destroyed fraternity between nations, massively increased standing armies, and was quite literally the antithesis of a peace conference. On every level, a world war functions against the basic idea of peace.

And Hitler was responsible for starting and perpetuating it.

War broke out as a result of Germany's invasion of Poland, a clear violation of the latter's sovereignty. While the causes of the war are indeed complex, it cannot be reasonably argued that the war would not have begun without this invasion, or the prior efforts on Germany's part to acquire the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia and, for that matter, the rest of Czechoslovakia. Even that invasion didn't bring action from any neighboring countries, which means that Hitler had opportunities to stop and simply live with his gains. He chose not to, and defied a promise from Britain and France that invading Poland would bring military action.[11]

Further efforts to expand the war effort through treaties with Japan to expand their war effort and to ally themselves with a nation that had already carried out a brutal attack on Manchuria made it clear that Hitler was more interested in expanding the war effort than contracting it.[12] Allying with toher nations like Austria and Italy expanded on the problem. I've already pointed to multiple efforts to prolong the war effort through forced labor and medical testing, which further that point.

While Hitler may not be held responsible for every life lost, these actions show a distinct predilection for starting, continuing and expanding the war, and thus many of the 80 million deaths can be attributed ot him. At the very least, the costs to his own people and those nations that he directly invaded and battled with (which include at least England, France, Czechosolvakia, Poland, the USSR, and Belgium), he's at least partially responsible for roughly 40,000,000 deaths.[13] The death toll, as well as the general increase in instability and turn towards militarization, make Hitler's efforts a clear negative for peace.


There's a reason that Godwin's Law exists: Hitler comparisons are extreme. While often frivolous, comparing someone to Hitler is meant to highlight support for genocide, eugenics, racial purity and totalitarian regimes. That's who Hitler was. That's what he stood for and supported, explicitly.[14, 15] That's who Pro thinks deserved the Prize. Don't bring shame to the Prize and its recipients by siding with the view that Hitler should have received it.

With that, I hand the debate back over to Pro.

Debate Round No. 2



I am not required to show why there should be such a large historic change since this accepted to in R1 by the acceptance of the debate. He and I must both assume the position that Hitler survived WW2 and it requires no proving because it is equally important that he must prove that Hitler is undeserving of the award than I must show that he is deserving of the award. There is no need to show why there was a change in history because that is off topic and unnecessary since this was accepted by me and him.

He then goes on to show that a Nobel Peace Prize is a significant award and is rarely received. I have demonstrated in my contentions that Hitler went to extraordinary efforts to prevent a second world war! If you think that attempting to stop a world war is not peaceful enough then what is peaceful?

I know that Hitler was nominated in 1939 but after the war Hitler had gone through great efforts to prevent the war. After the war, if these efforts had been acknowledged and Hitler had survived I believe that Hitler should have received the Nobel Peace Prize.

Hitler was a mass murdering f**k head

Hitler wasn’t an anti-Jew. Yes, he killed people but death is inevitable during war [1]. I admit that he was against Jews but that was not why so many Jews were killed. There is a lot of evidence suggesting that Hitler liked Jews more than he let people know.

Jews fought for Germany and Hitler during the war [2]. These Jews weren't made to fight and they claimed that they believed in what Hitler was doing and they were fighting because they had a common enemy [2].

“Hitler may have [...] “married a Jew" shortly before he committed suicide, a television programme has claimed, after analysing DNA from Eva Braun's hairbrush” [3]

The sourcing is reliable and comes from the Telegraph - one of the biggest English Newspapers. This is also coincided with the documentary that is referred to in the quote.

You cannot just allow yourselves to be attacked during a war. You are going to have to fight back or you are just going to allow more people to be killed and allow powers to get involved. As the leader of Germany it was Hitler’s responsibility to fight back [1]. It was just emphasized on the different groups of people that died however this emphasis is baseless. If every single war documented the different ethnic minorities that were killed then in certain wars, certain minorities may outweigh others. That doesn’t mean that we should jump to the conclusion that the country was against that minority and wanted them dead. It means that this minority were killed more than others purely by chance - mostly. Hitler wasn't homophobic:

“... during a rare period of tolerance, homosexuals served the armed forces with distinction during the Second World War [4]”

The key word in this quote being distinction. This war had more homosexuals fighting, it is clear that more homosexuals are going to be killed. There is also a strongly supported theory that homosexuals in the army are beneficial - especially at the time since men primarily fought.

Homosexuals can form stronger relationships with each other in the army and this is effective when fighting since they work better together as a team than if they were just working alongside their ‘colleagues’. This evidence to show why evolution hasn’t got rid of homosexuality [5].

A - Confiscation

“After World War II, according to the Potsdam conference held between July 17 and August 2, 1945, Germany was to pay the Allies US $23 billion mainly in machinery and manufacturing plants. Reparations to the Soviet Union stopped in 1953.”

Germany ended up paying $23 billion [6]. My opponent has admitted that only $8 of private property was destroyed so that leaves us with an extra $15 billion. What was that for? You may say that this was for the deaths but Germany ended up suffering 5.3 million dead [7]. Nobody else had to pay for the German damage and deaths. Why is it fair that only the Germans have to pay reparations?

B - Imprisonment and Forced Labour

Poland used concentration camps before the war even began as mentioned in my contentions [8]. These concentration camps were far more severe. Young German boys were castrated [9]! The idea of concentration camps in the war were not introduced by the Germans. They were introduced by the allies, more specifically Poland. If anybody is to blame it is the allies.

C - Eugenics
The Nazi’s gave everyone in concentration camps clean and adequate quantities of drinking water [10].

In regards to Auschwitz, possibly the most notable Nazi concentration camp:

“Each year for decades, tens of thousands of visitors to Auschwitz have been shown an execution "gas chamber" in the main camp, supposedly in its "original state." In January 1995 the prestigious French weekly magazine L'Express acknowledged that "everything" about this "gas chamber" is "false," and that it is in fact a deceitful postwar reconstruction.” [11] [12]

It is also exaggerated how extreme Auschwitz was. It was no secret, extermination camp:

“More than 200,000 prisoners were transferred from Auschwitz to other camps, and about 8,000 were in the camp when it was liberated by Soviet forces. In addition, about 1,500 prisoners who had served their sentences were released, and returned to their home countries. If Auschwitz had actually been a top secret extermination center, it is difficult to believe that the German authorities would have released inmates who "knew" what was happening there.” [11] [13]

Now this is possibly the most important quote since it directly responds to what my opponent was referring to in regards to disease and death.

‘As ordered, German physicians in Auschwitz carried out wide-ranging and intensive measures to reduce the [prisoner's]' death rate. For example, in a letter of Feb. 25, 1943, camp physician Dr. Wirths informed the central WVHA office, which was responsible for the SS concentration camp system:

"As already reported, after the typhus epidemic in the Auschwitz camp had practically been suppressed in November and December, there followed a new rise in typhus cases among the Auschwitz inmates as well as among troops, brought by the newly arriving transports from the East. In spite of the counter-measures that were immediately taken, a complete suppression of typhus cases has still not been achieved."’ [11]

That is how concerned they were for the prisoner’s health. They only set up the concentration camps in response to the horror that Germany had been put through before and during the war (as my contentions describe).

Now, my opponent turns to Nazi war crimes but he is forgetting all of the ally war crimes that occurred too. It is also worth noting that my not every Nazi decision was made directly by Hitler [10].

Here are some examples of ally war crimes:

“After the fall of Berlin, Germany was in ruins. Occupied by millions of foreign troops, none of whom had complete control over any given entity, Germany quickly descended into anarchic lawlessness. The Soviet Army alone was responsible for the rape of up to two million women and children, as well as the subsequent death of 240,000.

Claimed to be the largest mass rape in history, many unfortunate victims were assaulted up to a hundred times.

It is [also] believed that the US was responsible for over 11,000 rapes, while the French have been accused of over 1,500. This is clearly not on the same scale as the Soviets – but it doesn’t make it any less terrible.” [14]

This clearly is much worse than just trying to change the eye colour of people. Rape and murder on this scale is horrific and I will be very shocked if my opponent contests with this.

The allies committed many other war crimes including:

Civilian Air Raids, Murder of Noncombatants Operation Teardrop torture The London Cage Torture Chinese War Crimes, Murder of POWs and Noncombatants, Torture, Looting, Rape, Mutilation Sterilization of German boys [9] [14]

Now let’s compare this and the mass rape to what the Nazi’s did:

They tried to change people’s eye colour Mass Sterilization

Now I know that what the Nazi’s did isn’t right after but before you accuse Hitler for doing all of this, you should be considering what the allies did and comparing the two.

2) WW2

Germany had no choice other than to invade Poland. Poland were torturing and castrating German soldiers and even German children [9]! Germany were provoked and Hitler did his best not to invade Poland but since Poland knew that they were had back up they continued to attack [9] and therefore gave Germany no choice but to resort to self defense.

If the most peaceful man on Earth was in charge of a country, assuming that he is mentally stable, if he is being attacked by the British and all of the allies he wouldn’t just sit down and allow the German army to be killed. He would fight back - in self defense. I understand that not all of the German battles were done in self defense however this is understandable because once it got to the point that Hitler wasn’t going to make peace with the other countries he had no choice to fight [10].

Hitler’s efforts did not represent a negative for peace. He was advocating peace and trying to end the war. He had to fight in self defense but whilst he was doing it he trying to find ways to end the war.


[8]The Journal of Historical Review, winter 1982, 454-5

[9]Fish, Hamilton, FDR: The Other Side of the Coin, 86
[13]Arthur Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, pp. 157-159




whiteflame forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Finally the ff glitch is over.

We re-did the debate here:


Do not vote on this debate. Follow the link Pro posted in this round and vote on the completed version.
Debate Round No. 4
62 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
Seriously. None of us appreciate these posts, Akhenaten.
Posted by Balacafa 2 years ago
Stop trolling Akhenaten. Either learn to improve your communication skills or leave this debate (and the rest of my debates) alone.
Posted by Akhenaten 2 years ago
That's right Balcafa. Your not stupid enough to be eligible to vote on this stupid topic. lol
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
This debate should not be receiving any votes in any case.
Posted by wipefeetnmat 2 years ago
Not eligible to vote on this one. Sorry Balacafa.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
Thanks for the pointless and condescending comment.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
...Can we finally get this deleted, now that the other debate is out of the voting period?
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
Posted by Balacafa 2 years ago
I'll get it removed after the voting period of our current one.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
Alright, we'll just have this one be a tie then.
No votes have been placed for this debate.