The Instigator
Jifpop09
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
djkim
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Fact: Nazism is a terrible philosophy

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 2 votes the winner is...
Jifpop09
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/4/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,077 times Debate No: 51214
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (24)
Votes (2)

 

Jifpop09

Pro

I will be chalenging con to this debate. He will prove to me and the audience that national socialism is a good philosophy. Pretty self explanatory.





      1. Nazism





        Nazism (or National Socialism; German: Nationalsozialismus) is a set of political beliefs associated with the Nazi Party of Germany. It started in the 1920s. The Party gained power in 1933, starting the Third Reich. They lasted in Germany until 1945, at the end of World War II.



        Nazism - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
djkim

Con

I'd like to say that this argument is impossible.

It's simply rude for me to argue for this...I am defending the holocaust, the death of more than 6 million Jewish people, and many others unaccounted for. This act goes against my moral and ethical philosophy, and I am not justifying this case at all. I will instead create a thought experiment to try and make Nazism...more attractive?

I will simply try my best to refute my opponent's points and defend this case as much as possible. Let us begin.

_______________________________

We must first assume that we live in an ultra developed Western country, which was basically what Germany was back then. I will use my example as the U.S.

We live in a time period that is filled with illogical and logical people. The whole point of the Nazism party was to discriminate against people mainly due to the fact that they're unacceptable. It is getting rid of a "stupid" race, even taking out the smartest people from it and killing them all or forcing them to work. I will not be doing that in this case, instead I will discriminate against a group.

Therefore, suppose we get rid of all of those that are dead weight? Those who are useless of making wage because they do not have the will power or drive to work, do not pay taxes such as illegal immigrants who take up taxes and food stamps, simply too old, or terminal patients. We pour billions of dollars per year to protect, feed, and serve these people. We can easily kill them and there will be no effect to our economy.

Next, we focus on those that do not get good grades. The trouble makers: kids that are incapable of being educated and learn. We will follow force them to work in factories, they will probably all become drug dealers anyways.

Nazism under Hitler's reign was idiotic. They focused on the "undesirables", a racist form. Yes, I am being racist here because many blacks take up the poverty line, most illegal immigrants are Mexican. I am also taking out other people in other races that simply and below the poverty line as well. Then we will focus on the people who are too old, terminal, or have no will power to live and kill them. Very simple. We will save billions of dollars per year, relocate them to people who need it and develop strength within our country.
Debate Round No. 1
Jifpop09

Pro

Jifpop09 forfeited this round.
djkim

Con

djkim forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Jifpop09

Pro

Contention 1: National Socialism relies on Rascism.

The ideology of nazism is to believe in a superior race. By this one contention, any other arguments advocating the philosophy as good are moot. Rascism is simply silly, wrong, and counterproductive. I see no need to argue this contention further. It's right in Mein Kampf. [1]

Contention 2: Nazism is an authoritarian philosophy

This is a very simple point. Nazism requires an authoritarian government. Hitler and national socialists believed that freedoms are attained through total control. All parties were banned, against the right of free assembly. All citizens were forced to abide in extreme nationalism, violating the right of abidance. Citizens are forced to follow the fascist doctrine and media was censored, violating the right of free speech. [2]

Contention 3: Fascism views the human life as irrelevant to the natio's total welfare.

In Mussolini's doctrine, he advocated that the citizens life is irrelevant to the total state of the nation. Which means that the right to life, the right to freedom, and the right of knowledge could and were often forfeited to make the nation stronger. This will always lead to an untimely end. [3]

[1] http://www.ushmm.org...

[2] http://teacherweb.ftl.pinecrest.edu...

[3] http://www.worldfuturefund.org...
djkim

Con

djkim forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by djkim 3 years ago
djkim
What's taking so long? I'm still waiting for you to "destroy" me.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
I have two days to post it. I'm in no rush to destroy you.
Posted by djkim 3 years ago
djkim
Where is your argument? I'm waiting...
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
Good loss sir. Truly your objective statements about my intelectuality will be meagre after I crush you.
Posted by djkim 3 years ago
djkim
I guess after this debate I'll find a different website to argue people...hopefully some intellectuals. I wish you luck.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
Well, I would like to point out that round 1 was acceptance only. Second, this website is stupid. Third, nobody said anti-semitism is off the table. I sure as hell didn't say that. Right off the text of Mein Kaupf. In short, be prepared to lose like the pathetic Nazi you are :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Posted by djkim 3 years ago
djkim
I hope you know I'm arguing for nazism just to test how my debate skills are, and if this website is completely stupid or not. I haven't done any prelim research yet (besides wiki) so I look forward to your responses.

Since you do not talk about atrocities of WWII, we're assuming that we're just utilizing the nazi philosophy in general. Since I do not refer anti-semitism, this debate will be kinda interesting.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
Ok Nazi. The very fact that they did believe in social inequality even makes me laugh harder at your pathetic attempt.
Posted by djkim 3 years ago
djkim
I accepted this.

Please be mindful that I do not utilize the nazism ideology of making it an anti-semitism group. I re-apply their philosophy and utilize it in a different way. I will focus on how nazis took gypsies, homosexuals, non-europeans and executed them.

And I'm not a nazi...must clarify that.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
Woah, some poor soul accepted this :D
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 3 years ago
ESocialBookworm
Jifpop09djkimTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Con has no sources
Vote Placed by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
Jifpop09djkimTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Both debaters forfeited rounds. Therefore conduct goes to both. Pro provided sources to back up his arguments; Con failed to provide resources. Pro's arguments against Nazism were more convincing than Con's attempt to make Nazism appealing (though he states he doesn't support the philosophy at all). Pro took home the trophy in this debate.