The Instigator
SillyNanny64
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
Max.Wallace
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points

American slaves suffered more than Jews who were killed during the Holocaust

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
SillyNanny64
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/25/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,411 times Debate No: 59532
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (3)

 

SillyNanny64

Con

It was estimated that 5-6 million Jews lost their lives during the Holocaust. Many Jewish victims were never aware of their impending death. They were malnourished, beaten daily, and tortured. During these monstrous acts, Nazis soldiers knew that would have to kill these prisoners eventually, but still continued to torture them. There was never a beacon of hope, and no point in wishful thinking for the Jewish victims. Many families were forced to depart from their loved ones, not knowing if they would ever have a chance to reconnect with their family. The only thing the Jewish victims were able to achieve was their ability to live, but without their loved ones.
Max.Wallace

Pro

I took this position against my better judgement, but I would rather subject myself to the judgement of myself then another.

Your argument is what exactly? What I read in your argument, and connected to your profile, is that you feel that the slaves descendants, which are the only remnant of slavery that exist, are better off then the gas chambered Jews? I think they are pretty much equal. Are you just furthering the division status quo?
Debate Round No. 1
SillyNanny64

Con

Why have you accepted this debate when you have already neglected the argument itself? We are not debating how each suffered equally. We are debating who suffered the greatest. I hate to waste a round on explaining the debate topic to you, but I sense that you do not understand this topic. Maybe it would be wise to move on to another topic that you can have a proper debate on.
Max.Wallace

Pro

Well put but completely unconvincing, Pro.

Who suffered more is a question no human can answer. Suffering is an individual trait to be judged by the sufferer, not a 19 year old power monger.
Debate Round No. 2
SillyNanny64

Con

Do you understand the point of a debate? It is to discuss various topics and persuade others to agree with you. This debate, so far, has been a debate over whether we should judge suffering or not. Please refer to the topic of this debate and ponder your argument a little bit more. The purpose of this debate was to gather different perspective of human suffering. I mistakingly thought I might find an opponent who would provide another insight on the suffering of American slaves. It is obvious both suffered greatly, but who received the most suffering?

Here is a couple of links to the definition of a debate in case you have forgotten:
http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Max.Wallace

Pro

In my stupid rat brain mind, a debate is a war of words, with the winner being the one that convinces the most readers or listeners. A debate is war, sir, not an attempt to get along with everyone, but to develop a consensus. You changed the subject, maybe because you think you are losing? It's just politics, which is a bunch of crap these days, unless you are a balloted politician that can make the slave or Jew decision, right? Who deserves the most taxpayer dollars? Fiat currency is what will be our demise, yet you stand beside the flag and espouse your knowledge as infallible? Happy retirement to you sir, taxpayer slayer!
Debate Round No. 3
SillyNanny64

Con

Let me explain to you what you are. You are a non-conformist who deems it necessary to rant about his ridiculous ideals about the American society. In reality you have nothing to solve or more importantly shed light on anything worth observing or fixing. I have tried to convince you to debate like the civil person I thought I may have found, but I no realize what kind of person you are. To have the audacity to claim that I have tried to change the subject is an embarrassment in itself. I have ended every argument trying to convince you to return to the debate topic, but you decided to use this allotted time to express your ridiculous, over-rationale, and out dated political views. I have never claimed to make the decisions of the Jewish and African-American community, but what I previously stated in my preceding argument is that I wanted to explore different perspectives of human suffering and moral values of humans. This is no longer a debate, so neither of us can win or lose, contrary to your idiotic consensus. I do not want to waste my time with your ignorant ideologies.
Max.Wallace

Pro

I apologize somewhat for the confrontational approach I have taken to this debate, and for the unfair insults I hurled your way. The simple fact of the matter is that we cannot determine who suffered more because they both suffered beyond the capability of any of us to understand. Suffering in my mind is something only measurable on an individual level, while suffering on a massive scale, by a religious group or race is brought on by tyranny of many, which always stems from or leads to war. Just try being a middle class, non government employee, or non union member, and try to maintain your quality of life, if you wish to understand suffering. You, as the position of Con in this debate have given yourself the position of defending what you believe, which is obviously that the Jews suffered more, while I contend that it is impossible to make any decision regarding the truth of such an idea. The fact is that a powerful, greedy, malevolent government created both situations with the help of the populace they were created by. I believe that you sir went off the path of this debate much further then I, so votes should clearly reflect that, and your grammar and spelling had issues also. As a non conformist, certainly I will never fall in line with tyranny, so hooray for me. Thank you for your debate, I hope you didn't get a belly ache.
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by evangambit 2 years ago
evangambit
They took out my "not" symbols, so part of that comment looks nonsensical. "... i.e. people often think that if (a implies b) then ([not a] implies [not b]); for example..."
Posted by evangambit 2 years ago
evangambit
Max.Wallace, by your own admission a debate seeks "to develop a consensus". A "me vs him/her" attitude is, in my experience, extremely detrimental to creating consensus.

While I agree that this site might promote a competitive environment, I like to think this is more to ensure that the quality of debate remains reasonably high, rather than that this site is dedicated to making debating a adversarial activity.

I in no way believe it is naive to use debates to arrive at a more accurate model of the universe. Indeed, the pursuit of truth seems far more noble (and practical) than any goal I can conceive of. What, if I may ask, do you believe the purpose of a debate is? "Proving myself right" dismisses debates in which you are not completely right " which, for practically any reasonably complicated topic, is nearly all the time.

I think an excellent example of why your mindset is flawed is the current political political debates in the United States. Many people view "winning" a debate as an indicator of being right, more informed, or more intelligent. And, to be fair, it often does indicate these things. But the focus on "winning" these debates (not just individual, 1-on-1 one debates like those during the presidential election, but the large-scale debates on policy) implies that the solutions/answers to these problems MUST be found in one of two ideologies. And this is often completely wrong! I think there are two important conceptions about debates that should be a priority to change. The first of which is the belief that "one side must be completely right, and the other must be completely wrong".

Incidentally (and not quite related to the topic at hand) the second is that "proving an argument incorrect necessitates its conclusion is false" (i.e. people often think that if (a implies b), "a implies "b; for example "the sky is blue because grass is black" is false, but the conclusion ("the sky is blue") is true)
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
2sense, you are just plain wrong, in this format it is a war of words, and to say otherwise is naive, unless you doubt your own convictions, or subscribe to none.
Posted by 2Sense 2 years ago
2Sense
Meh, Pro exhibits the kind of Sophistry that would make Socrates cringe. Debate is not a war. Debate is an effort to come to some sort of truth. If that requires the input of one, two, or several parties, then so be it. But the end result should always be to come to a certain kind of new understanding, not just to prove the other wrong and get the most votes.
Posted by evangambit 2 years ago
evangambit
"A debate is war, sir, not an attempt to get along with everyone, but to develop a consensus".... so, not war :p

A troll is almost by definition not a form of racism. It is completely independent of one's "race" (it's hard to get more independent than the anonymity afforded by the Internet). A "troll" (in this context) is someone who is deliberately provocative online.

This question is an interesting one, if only because of the sheer closeness in the size of the populations. It has been hard for me to find the exact numbers, but it seems that there were about 4 million slaves in the United States in 1860 and 1.5 million in 1820 (and a life expectancy in the 30s). From this it seems not unreasonable to say that, from 1776 to the emancipation, about 6 million slaves lived in the United States -- which is very close to 5.8-ish million Jews killed in the Holocaust. Accepting these as approximately equal, we are face with the difficult job of trying to compare the conditions of the slaves over their entire lives with those of the Jews over their relatively shorter period of suffering. Sounds more like a Ph.D. paper than a debate.org topic o.O
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
Pain is not a tool we can measure, as it is individual and as much as so many people died to such cruelty, there are much smaller events that can come into existence to create the same hole, as pain isn't as accumulative as people make it out to be. It's quite relative!
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
Tomorrow I will shine the light of truth on you, I hope you have the courage.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
Wasting the time of ignorant divisicists is my pleasure.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
Calling someone a troll is the internet form of racism. Period. What it means is that you are too scared to engage in the war of words, PERIOD.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
Define troll please, and trolling. What are you scared of? Green monsters, and boogeymen?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
SillyNanny64Max.WallaceTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was arrogant and insulting. Con attempted to argue about the relative suffering; Pro did not, and had the BOP.
Vote Placed by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
SillyNanny64Max.WallaceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not prove that Jews suffered more. Proraised the point " they suffered equally" which Con never refuted.
Vote Placed by 2Sense 2 years ago
2Sense
SillyNanny64Max.WallaceTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Biggest reason for decision is in comments. However, I will say that I did agree with Pro, but his conduct was inexcusable and implies that his reason for debate is rooted less in engaging in mutual conversation and more in slaying the other combatant to death liken to gladiators in the Roman coliseum. Nothing was learned from this.