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

Does every country need a democratic Hitler??

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/5/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 576 times Debate No: 89204
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




According to me, every country needs a democratic Hitler. Rhere is no doubt that he was a, if evil, genius. Sad that he used it the wrong way. But, is that it??? He brought development that we cannot think we can get in a 100 years. He uplifted every Arebiter (worker) amd farmers and businessmen to zeniths in 4 years. He himself led a humble life, which most politicians dont do today. From 11 million German marks equal to a dollar, he brought it up to almost equal. He employed 6 million people with decent salaries in 4 years. He provided safety to animals, banned advertisements of cigarettes and alcohol, and himself never consumed the same. We need a democratic Hitler back...


I accept.

Firstly, I would like to give some definitions and some logic.

According to Oxford Dictionary, the word "Democracy" means:

"A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. It is also the control of an organization or group by the majority of its members:"

Hitler himself was a dictator. And the word "Dictator" means:

"A ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force."

A dictator definitely rules a state or nation is being run by dictatorship.

Democracy is all about yearning, attempting and learning to live in harmony. It is not just a political system, it is a way of life. Democracy thrives in the debates and discussions, varieties and differences, highs and lows. Democracy is the pinnacle of social gentleness and the ability to accept the other as they are.

Since dictatorship is the complete opposite of a democracy, the idea of a "Democratic Hitler" rule out i.e, it makes no sense that a person with absolute power governs a state that is ruled by the majority of its members. Thus, a "Democratic Hitler" can never exist. Democratic Hitler is nothing but an oxymoron. It is as similar as chalk and cheese. In my considered opinion, they are simply immiscible.

Secondly, Hitler was a person who had a grudge towards others. He had a personal grudge towards Jews and he slaughtered them with the help of grotesque methods like using poisonous gas, shooting, et cetera. He is accused of genocide of 5.5 million Jews. In my opinion, people cannot create life, thus they have no right for taking one. He is said to have started one the the most infamous Jewish prisoner camps in the world. When Hitler was young, he used to paint a lot. The psycology of any individual can be determined by analyzing the contents and the chararcters of the painting. His paintings used to be beautiful, but he had a lot of problems in painting people. Yes, people. Researchers have studied his paintings and have found out that he really hated people, and that too when he still a young man. So, if a "Democratic Hitler" does not like a particular group or society today, they will all be slaughtered by him.

Thirdly, Hitler was a person who was not open minded. He wasnt open minded with other ideas and beliefs, and worked only for the betterment of his state: Germany. He had started what was known as "Nazi Book Burnings." It was a terrible event which occured, people(some even being college students) burnt books because some books were against the "German Spirit." He didnt want any other ideas in his country, whuch shows his narrow mindedness. Not accepting other ideas and beliefs in today's modern society is absurd and will result in differences and ultimately, a war.

Fourthly, there are some countries where democracy has failed and dictatorship may be one of the ways where the country might improve(if the dictator is rational), but in today's world, we can never have "rational" dictator resulting in corruption and violence. The states which are being ruled by dictators today's world are fragile states which will eventually become failed states. Dictatorship may improve a state if rational but that can never happen because whenever someone has absolute power, they misuse it. So, Pro's assumption of having a "Democratic Hitler" in every country is illogical because some countries can never improve and others which are developing today will get even worse. As I had already mentioned before, acceptance of other ideas will not take place, and incidents like the book burnigs will take place. Yes, improvement in infrastructure may take place, yet good relations with other ideas are very important, and it might get to situstions where the safety of the world wil itself be threatened. Using a Democratic Hitler will not make the society any better, it will make it even worse.

Due to these reasons, the idea of a demcracy gets destroyed. The very idea of a Democratic Hitler is illogical. Hoping it will do more good is even more illogical. Hitler was an antithesis to any of the ideas of democracy. He could not reconcile his system of beliefs with those of others that were different. He or his coterie never gave chance for debate or accepted that people could be different. In fact, he dreamt of a Germany that was full of “homogenous, superior individuals”. The methods and madness that Hitler resorted to were so extreme that they are probably non-pareil in the history of human violence.

Debate Round No. 1


Parth_A_NationalSocialist forfeited this round.


I extend.
Debate Round No. 2


Parth_A_NationalSocialist forfeited this round.


I extend all my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: As a sidenote to judges, don't be deterred from voting due to this extensive RFD. I'm giving extensive feedback to the debaters on Con's request. This debate actually requires a two-sentence RFD or so, as a result of the forfeits.