Adolf Hitler:Hitler being successful or not?
Debate Rounds (5)
Without emotional feelings on the matter, lets leave this debate to facts and opinions. was Hitler a successful man? i would like to think so because all that he accomplished and did for his in the time being of his rule. Again WITHOUT emotional feelings on the matter i challenge an open opinion....
I will be arguing that Hitler was a failure. First, we must define something key to this debate. What is "success " and what is "failure ."
These are subjective measures, each person's success and failures is only based on what they set out to do. We cannot measure other people's success to our own standards. Therefore, we must determine, was Hitler successful based on what he accomplished when compared to what he attempted to do. By this, I will confirm that he was a failure for not succeeding what he set out to do.
I understand everyone has their own standards of success but facts are facts and I've never mistaken the definitions between the two. (Failure and Success).
First off, Hitler set out to accomplish many goals (like everyone else), not just one but he did have a main goal. He did suffer defeat but the fact that he did have success still remains. having success make any human successful. Does a man at the top of the political chain of his a country get there without success? no, a man can't achieve the level of his rule without success. Hitler being chancellor of germany was the results of his success. How even now we converse and debate over a man that was once at his peak but failed because of his lack of wisdom shows how successful he was.That is not my own standard of success,any man who we can talk about over 70 years after his death has had some success.What particular human in our history has been remembered for being unsuccessful?No one in-particular. Hitler wanted to be remembered by the country he had control over and by his enemies, he also knew that when he was in power he had the chance to to make history, did he not? Every chancellor of germany has made history for their time being. Therefore, Adolf Hitler is a successful man.
thank you for responding.
Let me first point out that simply having some success does not make you successful. Just like having some failures does not make you a failure. Otherwise, Hitler would be both a success and a failure and we would both win the debate (thus making it a meaningless topic). What we must do is compare his successes against his failures. Do his successes out weigh his failures? The answer is no. His successes were merely stepping stones towards his goals, which were ultimately failures.
One of Hitler's ultimate goals (which he stated in 1931) was to create a powerful German empire that would last a thousand years . For all his successes towards that goal (becoming chancellor, etc), he ultimately failed the reason for pursuing all of those.
Another one of his primary goals was to "solve the Jewish problem" , and while he made great (horrible, but great) strides to achieve that. He did not solve the "problem" (if we wish to even use that word). This was another failure; another key failure. You cannot truly measure the success of his first 10 steps if he fails in his final objective. The failing of the true objective is what makes him a failure.
 http://books.google.com..., page 68
Technically having success does make you successful according to the definition of success which you stated, so please don't go back on your own words.
Now when you talk about about Hitler's failures, his failures would have never been so bad if his achievements and success weren't so great. his success compliments his failures. when i say bad, i mean Germany still suffering the consequences now with our bases in Germany and the debt they had to pay after the war. Now without the success he had, Germany wouldn't have fallen so hard nor would they have a debt to pay. which leads me to say this, If I were to talk about his success or failures holding more weight I would honestly say his success does. if you are successful, your success holds more weight obviously. If a the commander and chief was to lose his entire army he had to be successful in his past in even control an entire army. don't take his early success so lightly because his early success is what made his name so popular. Yes they were stepping stones but you can't reach the rooms upstairs without going upstairs. Nobody reaches the NBA without practice and practice are "stepping stones" which will get him to where he wants to be. No practice of the sport, you're not entering the NBA. you only mentioned the conclusion of the war. what about the other ten years of hitler dominating Europe? Hitler couldn't possibly be taking over Europe after failure after failure. In 1935 Hitler was the only major European power. Thats one year after he was in office.Some countries couldn't fight Hitler's amy because he was so powerful so they surrendered. If Hitler was such a failure why did American forces feel the need to intervene? It doesn't take America,Russia, and the United Kingdom to defeat a person who is a failure. Hitler beliefs are still alive today, there are still people with tattoos of the Nazista. Because his beliefs are being practice today he is immortal and his visions are still being praise by people today in modern time that makes him successful on another scale.
I would like to thank my opponent for their round.
Let me first address the accusation by my opponent that I went back against my own words. I clearly did not go against, but merely put them into perspective, since no scope was provided by the OP. Hitler was both successful AND not successful. If we take such an absolutist view, then the debate is completely pointless as we are both right. Since the resolution is "OR" then we must take a the meanings in a mutually exclusive nature. To do so, without going against the definition of the words, means that we have to compare the two sections (successful and unsuccessful) and weigh which he was leaning towards more.
Con makes the point that Hitler's failures are only so big because of the success that he had. While they did set him up for his greater failures, this in no way, justifies that he was ultimately more successful than he was at failing.
Con also makes an interesting NBA comparison. However, let us make this more apples to apples for Hitler. Hitler set a goal, killing all Jews. Lets say Bob sets a goal of becoming an NBA player. Bob completes several steps towards his goals, by successfully joining the high school team, getting a scholarship for a college team. However, he ultimately fails to get drafted and never makes it to the NBA. Despite having some successes, he is ultimately a failure at his goals (it should be noted that most people move on and change their goals to something that they can succeed at). This is what Hitler did. He had some success in the steps to get to his dream, but he failed to obtain his dream. That means that everything he had done counts for nothing.
Con lastly tries to stretch that because Hitler is still idolized by individuals of questionable mental states, that he is a success. This might be arguable, if that was Hitler's goals all along. But it wasn't. Remember that the definition for success is "accomplishment of an aim," it is not simply "accomplishment." His aim was a German empire that would last an immeasurable amount of time, and the wiping out of the Jewish people. His aim wasn"t a powerful army, it wasn't to become chansolor, it wasn't to be remembered by people in Eastern Washington and Idaho, those were merely tools to achieve his aim or side effects of his word. He failed in his aim and as such is a failure.
Ok, I will say this again, without his early success his failures would not have been so great, therefore it does justify that he was ultimately more successful than he was at failing.
If Hitler wasn't successful, the whole country would not have suffered for what he did. The fact that thousands of lives were affected for what he did says how much he accomplished. Hitler having a powerful army and becoming the chancellor Germany was his aim. to make it to the top the steps, you must first land on the first step. You don't simply aim your foot to land on the top with out landing on the steps below the top. If Hitler wasn't so successful on making to the position to rule Germany, we wouldn't be debating on about whether he was successful or not because we wouldn't know of him as Adolf Hitler, leader of Germany from 1934 to 1945. The years that he has had Germany under his command says a lot. Since he even has the title of being leader shows he had success in the past.
The definition of successful is accomplishing an aim or purpose. Hitler has accomplished many goals.Hitler has brought Germany out of the great depression, he also increased Germany's army by two million soldiers. these great achievements do not happen by chance, which leads me to say that was his aim.
The definition of failure is the lack of success. Now with all that Hitler achieved, Hitler does not lack success. It doesn't matter if every thing he did counts for nothing. The fact remains that he is successful. Genocide counts for nothing but it still happened which it was a success. Genocide meaning the killing of a large group of people. So calling Hitler a failure would just be a lie according to the definition.No matter how great, Hitler had success.Hitler had more success than people trying to become leaders for their country for good intentions. Failed attempts does not make one a failure.
I would also like to say that i am honored to be debating with one of the top debaters on debate.org on my first debate.
I thank my opponent for their previous round. It may seem that 5 rounds was one too many for starting in R1. There is little for me to do outside of restating my points, which remain unrefuted.
I would like to remind the voters once again that our definitions define success as "the accomplishment of an aim or purpose."
Accomplishing the stepping stones for those aims, purposes, and goals are not what makes success (according to our definition). We are focused on what his goals were and if he succeeded in accomplishing those.
I've already provided links to state his goals, and here is another . We can see his aims and goals very clearly and he did not complete any of them. He completed many steps towards them but fell short of his aim.
Just as with my basket ball player example (which was ignored), if their aim is to become an NBA player and they only get the stepping stones to college play but fail to achieve their goal of playing in the NBA, then they failed to achieve their aim. Plain and simple.
My opponent can claim that all these stepping stones mean something, but they don't. They were not his goals, they were not his final objectives, they were not what he set his sight for under our definition of success and failure.
I agree that this may have been too many rounds, this my first debate but very interesting debate.
First off, for your basketball player example does't describe Hitler's position because in Hilter's position he made it to the NBA but didn't win a ring.
Disregarding his stepping stones? stepping stones are most important to someone about to attain lots of power because (like i said before) without them, Adolf Hitler never existed as Germany's leader. They were his goals because no one on this planet has built a huge army accidentally or without noticing, which means it was an aim and a purpose which fits our definition. The ultimate goal is not the only goal he has work towards, these ultimate goals are also called long-term goals which can not be accomplished without short-term goals.
Voters please read the links, these link breaks down how he was successful.
Also voters, ask your self this. Does an unsuccessful man bring power to the country less than a year?
I thank my opponent for this debate. It is always refreshing to do something not on religion, abortion, gay marriage, or one of the other standard topics.
I won't post any additional arguments, but I've shown, since R2 with multiple sources, that Hitler had specific goals and aims and he failed them. My opponent has argued that Hitler had accomplishments all around, but our definition difference is that the accomplishments need to be his goals and aims. Making accomplishments that are not his aim do not count under our definition.
Again, I've provided numerous sources to show those goals and my opponent has not refuted them. This can be summed up in my opponent's last question, "Does an unsuccessful man bring power to the country less than a year?" Bringing power to Germany in less than a year was not Hitler's goal or aim, merely a byproduct. This has been the fault with my opponent's argument the entire time, that he has not established any goals of Hitler that Hitler accomplished. He has not sourced a single real goal of Hitler's.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by STALIN 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: I'm going to have to give this to Pro. Pro showed how Hitler failed to accomplish his overall goals: establishing a 1,000 year Reich and getting rid of the Jews. Con replied to Pro's arguments by saying that Hitler became Chancellor and increased the German army be 2 million. Hitler made Germany strong. However none of this really matters if he fails to accomplish what he planned to do when he first became the leader. Increasing the German army to 2 million was part of the plan to establish an empire that would last 1,000 years. However he failed to do this. Becoming the Chancellor of Germany was simply the first step in accomplishing his goal. In the end, Hitler never really accomplished his main goals. He accomplished smaller ones. Instead of killing all the Jews, he only killed 6 million. Instead of creating an empire that would last 1,000 years, Hitler created an empire that lasted 13 years. Pro proved that overall, Hitler was not successful. Good debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.