The Instigator
Beginner
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Ra1n
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Any Topic

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Beginner
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 655 times Debate No: 69019
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

Beginner

Con

Rules:
1. If you accept this debate, you are to accept and follow the following rules:

2. Failure to comply will result in a automatic win for me. Voters please keep this in mind.

3. You may come up with any reasonable debate topic. You can be either PRO or CON, I don't care. My standards are somewhat lax; just don't throw me an extremely difficult or impossible position (i.e. Prove the color purple to not be the color purple). Don't make me prove God's existence, it may seem viable, but I feel unable to do so without stealing other people's arguments.

4. I am entitled to an automatic win if you troll this debate. (Example of troll debates can be found here:http://www.debate.org......

5. If I don't agree to take up your resolution in round 2 (not very likely if you are reasonable), then the debate will be tied and we'll leave it at that.

6. Round 1&2 are for the establishment of some resolution, definitions and clarifications.

7. I retain the right to call 'troll' throughout the entire debate, effectively securing my 7 point victory. My troll-calling judgment will, however, be gauged by voters. If the voters decide I am calling troll unfairly, then a 7 point victory will go toward my opponent. Voters please be as objective as possible.

Please make sure you have relatively decent debate credentials/potentials ('Confidence is key' -Willy Wonka). Again, my standards are pretty lax so don't be shy. You could have low ELO and still be a shining star. The only condition being that you don't end up forfeiting like I've seen others do (my last debater's choice was a disaster). Be prepared to spend a decent amount of time constructing arguments and rebuttals. This includes, but is not limited to, research, logical musings, etc.
I really do mean it when I'm asking for a debater of decent quality. Please be relatively certain of your debate prowess (this is a very important criterion.)

If there are any changes you feel are necessary before accepting the debate, please make some indication in the comments section


Without further ado......
Ra1n

Pro

My contention is that Hitler should be considered a good person. I will be taking the side of Pro.

Some definitions

Hitler: Adolf Hitler 1889-1945

Good person: Someone that is approved of for their actions
Debate Round No. 1
Beginner

Con

Hitler will be defined to be this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org...;

I accept all definitions.

You may either begin writing the affirmative case and leave your last round empty or you may have me start the negative case in round 3.

Our first argumentative rounds will be arguments only. Our second ones will be arguments and refutations. The last round is strictly limited to rebuttals and closing statements.

Many thanks for taking this debate.

I turn the floor over to PRO. :)
Ra1n

Pro

I shall let you begin :)
Debate Round No. 2
Beginner

Con

Let us critically examine the resolution. In order for PRO to affirm, PRO must show that Hitler should be considered someone who deserves approval for his actions.

While the Nazi regime's weapons development and human experiments have contributed to advancing our knowledge in science and technology, these advances do not negate the fact that the actions and agenda responsible for these advances are atrocities. I argue that Hitler is responsible for an inhumane agenda of genocide and a war which consumed the lives of over half a hundred million men, women and children[1], and that the benefits which may or may not have indirectly sprung from the evils of a titanic scale of war, hatred, murder and torture are ultimately irrelevant.

And so let us present the facts.
1. Hitler was responsible for sustaining the war on the Western Front. This war consumed an immense quantity of resources and lives. Cities were sacked and civilians murder in cold blood. Over 50million people, about 30 million of which were civilians, were slaughtered as a direct result of the Nazi party's war campaign.
2. Hitler's goal was a desire to have Germany rule the world under a 3rd, 'thousand-year Reich', and to purify the world of people he deemed unfit. Hitler and his regime killed the disabled[2]; kidnapped, tortured and murdered about 6million Jewish people[3][4]; and signed and broke treaties of peace: choosing to continue to murder, pillage and expand the German empire[5].
3. The war resulted in the desensitizing men, turning them into monsters:

"[The war wreaked] a deep metamorphosis [..] on 40 per cent of German men between the years of 1939 and 1945 - the nearly 20 million who donned a uniform for their Fuehrer [..] This banishment of morality, of ethical behaviour, is apparent in transcript after transcript."[6]

"They seized three-year-old children and shot them"[6]

"[O]rdinary soldiers brag[..]about shooting women and children for sport as well as raping and slaughtering innocent civilians."[6]

"[Soldier:]'In the Caucasus, when one us went down, we didn't need a lieutenant giving the orders, telling us what to do. Pistols out, women and children, everything you saw...cleansed.'"

"[Soldier:]'I used to shoot at everything,' he said laconically, 'certainly not just military targets. We liked to go for women pushing prams, often with children at their sides. It was a kind of sport really.....'"

Pushing an agenda of murder, rape, war and torture is not an action that deserves approval. No matter what may have resulted from these actions, these actions themselves are immoral and should not garner any approval whatsoever from the human community. Hitler is many things, a propagandist, a politician, a dictator, an organizer, a liar, a killer, etc., but he is not a good person.
[1] http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu...;
[2] http://fcit.usf.edu...;
[3] http://fcit.usf.edu...
[4] http://faculty.ucc.edu...;
[5] http://www.biography.com...;
[6] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Ra1n

Pro

Ra1n forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Beginner

Con

E.x.t.e.n.d.
Ra1n

Pro

Ra1n forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Beginner

Con

Hitler is not a good person. Vote CON.
Ra1n

Pro

Ra1n forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Beginner 1 year ago
Beginner
The affirmative case looks really fun. T^T So jelly.
Posted by Ra1n 1 year ago
Ra1n
Any thoughts on the topic itself?
Posted by philochristos 1 year ago
philochristos
I always make myself pro when initiating debates for just that reason.
Posted by Beginner 1 year ago
Beginner
Philos: That's comforting.

-I was forming arguments for the PRO side in my head for 5 minutes before I realized I was CON. Silly me.
Posted by philochristos 1 year ago
philochristos
". . .but I feel unable to do so without stealing other people's arguments."

Very few of us use nothing but original arguments.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
BeginnerRa1nTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture