The Instigator
CJKAllstar
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
bananasocks1
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Adolf Hitler, as evil than you think he was, does not deserve all of the hate he had received.

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 Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/9/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,184 times Debate No: 43656
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

CJKAllstar

Pro

Hello! Welcome to this debate. I am not very strict with rules, but please stay on topic. This debate could wander into almost anything political, so please Con, you are arguing why he does deserve all the hatred he receives. And also no ad hominem. This is quite a sensitive subject, so I would appreciate that there is consideration of Pro's points, and I will appreciate your points. Also please, if possible, please cite sources and I wish for a stimulating debate! The first Con round is acceptance of the rules.

Yes, I know how controversial this is, but I do not think Hitler's actions were right and justifies. I am not a Nazi or anywhere near, and I despise what he did, but for too long we've been looking at things with blind fury and ignorance, and this debate is one that needs to be discussed. Because as I will expand on, Hitler's actions weren't as bad as events before and since, yet we turn a blind eye to them. Before we can tackle the big issues with genocide and war, we need to open our eyes to the truth.
bananasocks1

Con

I will debate you on this. Personally i see nothing right in any action that Hitler did at all. First of killing over 6 million Jews is just one of the thing that he deserved to be hated for. He knew what he was doing, and he knew it was wrong. I might have taken a different standpoint if Adolf Hitler was oblivious to the things he was doing. It was totally irrational. He was a mass murderer.

Second of all!, After legally gaining power in Germany, Hitler quickly began solidifying his position by putting those that disagreed with him into concentration camps. He created massive amounts of propaganda that strengthened German pride by blaming all their problems on Communists and Jews. The concept of pan-Germanism inspired Hitler to combine German peoples in various countries in Europe as well as look east for lebensraum. Nobody needs to be the scape goat. the Nazis created an elaborate and intensive system to work Jews as slaves and kill them. Hitler is considered one of the most evil people in history because of the Holocaust.

Any thing that he could ave done that would have even seemed "GOOD" had evil intentions behind.
Debate Round No. 1
CJKAllstar

Pro

Before I advance on points, I would like to set a baseline, starting with the issues of right and wrong. There are two types of morality, subjective and objective. You stated that Hitler knew what he was doing was wrong, which I understand, but let us break it down.

Subjective morality is the idea that morality is based around a person's own opinions.

Objective morality is the idea that morality is not based around a person's own opinions, ideas and experiences, but factually true. There is a factual set of right and wrong. This can only lie in two places, religion or law. Law in it self was created and shaped by man and shaped through subjective beliefs about right and wrong throughout history, except in the cases of theocracies such as Iran. So we can rule out law and that leaves religion. So the question is, did Hitler adhere to a religious morality? Well, most likely not. Hitler was an avid believer of Social Darwinism.

Social Darwinism - "Theory that persons, groups, and races are subject to the same laws of natural selection as Charles Darwin had proposed for plants and animals in nature." -Merriam Webster.
Hitler's belief lied in the belief that the survival of the fittest aspect in plant life adheres as well to life in a social term. Hitler thought that groups and races were subject to survival of the fittest. He believed this, the key is believed. Social Darwinism, does go against various Christian beliefs, as it requires a belief in evolution in the first place. If we know he believed in Social Darwinism, we can deduce that Hitler adheres to a subjective morality as it isn't a religious one.

Unless you disagree, from this point on it is wrong to say "Hitler was evil", "Hitler knew what he was doing was wrong", if he adheres to a subjective morality, then this cannot be argued, as it his belief. The only thing to counter a social morality is what I refer to as a "mob mentality morality". Morality formed from the general subjective view of right and wrong, but this varies from culture to culture, and experience to experience. By this stage, Hitler had seen Germany fail miserably after World War One, seen the Great Depression hit Germany very hard and his "mob mentality" would have been one formed of the struggles during the Great Depression, and the seeming stability of Jews. Hitler couldn't have gained the mob mentality that you know, because they were muffled by the Great Depression and events going on around him, including the stability of Jews. So now I think we have established that Hitler's views were subjective.

"I will debate you on this. Personally i see nothing right in any action that Hitler did at all. First of killing over 6 million Jews is just one of the thing that he deserved to be hated for. He knew what he was doing, and he knew it was wrong. I might have taken a different standpoint if Adolf Hitler was oblivious to the things he was doing. It was totally irrational. He was a mass murderer.

Second of all!, After legally gaining power in Germany, Hitler quickly began solidifying his position by putting those that disagreed with him into concentration camps. He created massive amounts of propaganda that strengthened German pride by blaming all their problems on Communists and Jews. The concept of pan-Germanism inspired Hitler to combine German peoples in various countries in Europe as well as look east for lebensraum. Nobody needs to be the scape goat. the Nazis created an elaborate and intensive system to work Jews as slaves and kill them. Hitler is considered one of the most evil people in history because of the Holocaust.

Any thing that he could ave done that would have even seemed "GOOD" had evil intentions behind."

If Hitler's views were subjective, then he couldn't have possibly known what he was doing was wrong. Especially with the support he had. When you have support, when your mentality spreads at that point for you it becomes fact, which is what happens in everyday life. He wouldn't have had a way of thinking what he was doing was wrong, as there wasn't enough of an uproar against him for the scale of what he was doing to manifest in him. The way a general view, the mob mentality of right and wrong works is that a majority of people believe in a subjective view, it becomes right, but it is still subjective. He wasn't oblivious, he thought what he was doing was in favour of his beliefs, and in the favour of Germany, as he thought he was right. He had followers to also help secure his beliefs. This is purely subjective, so you writing that Hitler was evil and anything good had evil intentions behind isn't valid.

Most of what you wrote isn't valid, because simply he thought what he was doing was right, and it may not have fitted with the mob mentality of the world today, but his failing society was one of the reasons he had those subjective thoughts. Mentality is based on experiences, and to generalize things largely, the citizens of the western world have similar experiences so a similar mentality, but Hitler during times of huge trouble didn't have average experiences. He thought what he was doing was right, and as it was subjective, you opposing it is trying to enforce your subjective views, based by the mob mentality of what is viewed as evil today, or by an objective morality. Any of these cases, both you and Hitler are human, you don't have any more rights to an opinion than he did, thus by giving him lots of hate because you think his beliefs were evil, you are imposing your self and opinions over his. So the reason he doesn't deserve all of the hate is because most of it is just a disagreement in opinions, which isn't fair, he is entitled to them.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.nobeliefs.com...
http://www.answersingenesis.org...
My Own Knowledge
bananasocks1

Con

bananasocks1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
CJKAllstar

Pro

Forfeit, until Con gives a point.
bananasocks1

Con

bananasocks1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
CJKAllstar

Pro

Vote Pro.
bananasocks1

Con

bananasocks1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TrueScotsman 3 years ago
TrueScotsman
There are of course advantages to any totalitarian dictatorship. For instance, crime generally is very low in a state like Nazi Germany or South Africa during the Apartheid. Or how Hitler's Third Reich brought Germany out of the depression it was in.

He was actually a very poor military commander, who often ignored the advice of his extremely brilliant generals, so I would not name his conquests as being attributed to him. Though the conquest and subjugation via wide spread slavery would be yet another thing to add to his list of "Cons."

Of course the Nazi experimentation and Extermination policies were perhaps what made Hitler's regime the worst in history. Other dictators were responsible for more deaths, but none were ever more devious in the process of that extermination.

Here is a quote from the former commander of Auschwitz in comparing his camp to the one in Treblinka.

"Still another improvement we made over Treblinka was that at Treblinka the victims almost always knew that they were to be exterminated, while at Auschwitz we endeavored to fool the victims into thinking that they were to go through a delousing process. Of course, frequently they realized our true intentions and we sometimes had riots and difficulties. Very frequently women would hide their children under the clothes but of course when we found them we would send the children in to be exterminated.

We were required to carry out these exterminations in secrecy, but of course the fowl and nauseating stench from the continuous burning of bodies permeated the entire area and all of the people living in the surrounding communites knew that exterminations were going on at Auschwitz."

I recommend reading the first hand accounts of the holocaust, before you ever attempt to weigh Hitler's "good deeds" against his bad.
Posted by CJKAllstar 3 years ago
CJKAllstar
I know. As I hoped to imply in my last post, I am very temped to forfeit, I really didn't want to offend anyone, but right now it seems you cannot debate Hitler without offending anyone. I just don't want to have to forfeit what is really my first debate. This is a conundrum.
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
CJKAllstar, you are in very dangerous waters. Saying that there is good in Hitler's life that counter-acted parts of the Holocaust and/or WWII could be seriously offensive, especially to persons of Jewish decent.
Posted by CJKAllstar 3 years ago
CJKAllstar
As someone who clearly has more knowledge about this than me, I'm not going to defy my vow to never be ignorant and admit defeat for my first round, TrueScotsman. I still will stick by my original arguments, but with all sincerity, I will admit that to justify Hitler's actual by playing the get-out-of-jail subjective card wasn't the most intelligence choice. I phrased my original argument incorrectly. It's not that I think he doesn't deserve all the hate, but there were some positives in his career which could be picked out and counter some of the negatives. But let's wait until Con posts, before I decide my next action.
Posted by TrueScotsman 3 years ago
TrueScotsman
As someone who has studied the Third Reich on a pretty in depth level, and I have to say this is a pretty appalling contention to have. You've basically concluded that all morality is subjective, which you in no way demonstrated, and that because it is subjective.. to attempt to undermine Hitler's opinions, would be to undermine your own.

"Any of these cases, both you and Hitler are human, you don't have any more rights to an opinion than he did, thus by giving him lots of hate because you think his beliefs were evil, you are imposing your self and opinions over his. "

This logic is BEYOND absurd. If we applied this back to the time where Hitler was actually carrying out his final solution, it would result in a response like this... "Oh, sorry Hitler, we forgot you are human and have a right to an opinion just like everyone else..... Go ahead and carry on with your mass genocide."

Not all opinions are valid when it comes to morality. If you were in the hands of a serial killer, would you simply sigh in resignation, because you respect his right to an opinion that it is right to kill you?

This is not some hypothetical conversation about ethics, you are discussing a man who is responsible for the death of tens of millions of human beings. Please excuse me if I find it my moral duty to point out the nonsense involved with regards to the people that defend or attempt to justify his actions.

Regards,
TrueScotsman
Posted by CJKAllstar 3 years ago
CJKAllstar
TrueScotsman, it's not as if that is my only points, I have others in store to you. I'm sorry if it is a touchy subject, but you seem to be pretty annoyed. This isn't the only argument I have, it's the first round there's more to come.
Posted by TrueScotsman 3 years ago
TrueScotsman
This is just a rather round about way to debate the issue of moral realism, you've basically baited people into an emotional response (Hitler is someone every dislikes). And then turned it into a discussion about meta-ethics.

You also did not qualify in your first round that an objective view of evil was necessary, this just looks like moving the goal posts.
Posted by AwesomeStanely 3 years ago
AwesomeStanely
I suppose when someone ostracizes you and your community, blames you for national hardship, subjects you to police brutality, arrests and detains you and than ultimately commits mass genocide and other acts of pure hatred against you, you will still say that he/she/them don't deserve your hatred?

What I will say is, that he was a very intelligent man capable of uniting and strengthening a shattered economy/government/country however tyranny and crimes against humanity don't exactly put little Adolf in the most likable light and the atrocities he committed means he deserves to be the target of disgust and hatred...
Posted by CJKAllstar 3 years ago
CJKAllstar
TrueScotsman, they are as justified in hating him as much as they, yes that's true, but they aren't as justfied to say he is evil as if it is objective. They aren't justified to say he is evil as if it is an objective fact, and that is the point I am trying to counter.
Posted by TrueScotsman 3 years ago
TrueScotsman
This is a ridiculous argument, if someone's (in your words) subjective morality causes them to hate Hitler, are they not as justified in hating him as Hitler would be for committing his atrocities? Your argument is a two-edged sword of nonsense.
No votes have been placed for this debate.