The Instigator
Adam2
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Fanath
Con (against)
Winning
70 Points

Germans should not be offended when they get called "Nazi" (I think it's a compliment)

Do you like this debate?NoYes-8
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 13 votes the winner is...
Fanath
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/10/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,349 times Debate No: 56404
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (336)
Votes (13)

 

Adam2

Pro

First round is for acceptance but here's a little intro by me: if I was a German I would take the Nazi remark as a compliment. For one, at least that country didn't go around conquering the world the way the Brits and Scandinavian countries did. (And don't even get me started on the way Denmark mistreats Greenland.)

As I always say Hitler was much better than these two guys I put who are equal to each other in terms of being a total douche
=

Yes I do like the views of the Nazis. As types like ClairetheDane (from Denmark) prove, it's that Northern Europe unfortunately has a racism problem.
Debate Round No. 1
Adam2

Pro

The stereotypes of Germans, Italians and Japanese, our enemies in World War II, is paramount to the stereotypes that black folks and Native Americans had for most of the time. There were more good things about the Nazis than there were any supposed bads. For instance, the Nazis were not orthodox in religion. Neither were the Fascists. The Allies in World War II (except for one) were Protestants. The Fascists in Southern and Central Europe were Catholics.
Germany's history is a lot cleaner than say Denmark or Britain's. For one, Germany was not some imperialist power bent on looting and making other's lives miserable. Neither was Italy. Compare that to the long-term and vicious damage Britain and Denmark have done to Africa, India, China, and Greenland, respectively.

The KKK came from the Anglo-Saxons (not Germans), and several other Northern Euro groups too, and they're still seen with some relative positivity in America.
The Nazis banned the KKK. There was no real Jim Crow-like laws against black folks in Germany. Neither was there in Italy. Contrast that to Britain and Denmark, where black folks were being lynched and rioted against for most of the time.

I'd rather be thought of as a Nazi than a Klansman or imperialist for that reason. If I was German, I'd wear the Nazi remark as a badge of honor.

Fanath

Con

Thanks Pro

Rebuttals:

"Germany's history is a lot cleaner than say Denmark or Britain's. For one, Germany was not some imperialist power bent on looting and making other's lives miserable. Neither was Italy. Compare that to the long-term and vicious damage Britain and Denmark have done to Africa, India, China, and Greenland, respectively"

Just because other countries have done bad things or worse things doesn't mean than one country doesn't mean that the things that the country did were good or acceptable...

"The KKK came from the Anglo-Saxons (not Germans), and several other Northern Euro groups too, and they're still seen with some relative positivity in America.
The Nazis banned the KKK. There was no real Jim Crow-like laws against black folks in Germany. Neither was there in Italy. Contrast that to Britain and Denmark, where black folks were being lynched and rioted against for most of the time"

Again, just because they have done good things doesn't mean that they're good people. Nor does other countries doing bad things automatically lead to Nazi Germany being good.

Arguments:

P1: It is offensive to be depicted as someone who has done terrible and/or immoral things.
P2: Nazi's have done terrible and/or immoral things
C: Therefore, it is offensive for a German to be called a Nazi.

P1 is a pretty simple premise. Many people get offended when they are depicted as someone who has done terrible and/or immoral things. It's because you're essentially telling the person that they're a bad guy/girl. In this case, they're being told that they are as bad as someone who would mercilessly kill millions. Few people would want to be depicted as someone who is hated, immoral, and bigoted.

The definition of offensive is: "causing someone to feel hurt, angry, or upset : rude or insulting" [1]

It can obviously anger people if they're told that they are the equivalent of a murderer.

P2 is basically proven. I'll just list some of the terrible things that Nazi's have done:

Things they did with prisoners:

A: Forced prisoners to dispose of the bodies of the other prisoners. This had a couple tasks within it, such as sweeping up ashes of the dead jews and also picking out the gold teeth of the dead. They were often replaced (Killed) within a couple of months with no notice or sign whatsoever. [2]

B: Locked prisoners in rooms without food or water until they died. This was for the people who did not receive the mercy of a quick death. [2]

C: Provided prisoners little food or water to survive on. This lead to some terrible things, such as prisoners eating rotted food from garbage or *stealing food from dead bodies*. The Nazis' also experimented on about 90 Jews and gave them nothing to drink but salt water just to see what would happen. [2] [3]

D: Experimented on prisoners so that they could advance in making the "Perfect race", or a blond haired blue eyed German. These experiments included many terrible things, such as putting Jews in freezing experiments in order to find a treatment for hypothermia. They also gave prisoners phosgene and mustard gas in order to test possible antidotes. They also did terrible things with twins, such as literally sewing them together in an attempt to make conjoined twins or injecting chemicals into their eyes to see if the color would change. [3] [4]

E: Trains. Passengers were given no food/water and were crammed in trains. These trains were meant to fit around 50 per car, but Nazi's would put as much as 200 per each car. An example of this is when and 18 day ride on the train to Corfu lead to the death of all of the prisoners. [2]

The conclusion follows logically from the premises.

The sad part is that this is a speck of the terrible things the Nazi's have done.

My argument stands until Pro erects a rebuttal. I want to point out that Pro never used any sources to prove anything he was saying. Not a single shred of evidence was given by him. Even if we assume his arguments had evidence behind them, I have refuted them and provided evidence of my claims. Vote Con.

Sources:

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[2] http://listverse.com...

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

[4] http://listverse.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Adam2

Pro

Thanks Con


Rebuttals:

Just because other countries have done bad things or worse things doesn't mean than one country doesn't mean that the things that the country did were good or acceptable...
Never said that, but the things the Brits and Danes did were worse in my opinion. Enslaving people, like they did in the enslavement of the African continent, conquering them, robbing them of their resources makes the Germans and Italians look like santa marias in comparison.

"The KKK came from the Anglo-Saxons (not Germans), and several other Northern Euro groups too, and they're still seen with some relative positivity in America.
The Nazis banned the KKK. There was no real Jim Crow-like laws against black folks in Germany. Neither was there in Italy. Contrast that to Britain and Denmark, where black folks were being lynched and rioted against for most of the time"

Again, just because they have done good things doesn't mean that they're good people. Nor does other countries doing bad things automatically lead to Nazi Germany being good.

Arguments:

P1: It is offensive to be depicted as someone who has done terrible and/or immoral things.
P2: Nazi's have done terrible and/or immoral things
C: Therefore, it is offensive for a German to be called a Nazi.

P1 is a pretty simple premise. Many people get offended when they are depicted as someone who has done terrible and/or immoral things. It's because you're essentially telling the person that they're a bad guy/girl. In this case, they're being told that they are as bad as someone who would mercilessly kill millions. Few people would want to be depicted as someone who is hated, immoral, and bigoted.
How come Germany and Italy are the only countries with this stigma. I think being a Klansman or a warmongering imperialist (like the Brits and Danes were) is worse. I think the Brits and Danes should be ashamed of their own history. I think they should carry a worst stigma in my opinion. Unfortunately they are the winners in history and they write the books. Hitler and Mussolini did great things for their country. They built some of the best highways in the world.

The definition of offensive is: "causing someone to feel hurt, angry, or upset : rude or insulting" [1]
It can obviously anger people if they're told that they are the equivalent of a murderer.
It should be more insulting to be associated with an imperialist, slaveowner or a Klansman. When Britain and Denmark get maligned it's for good reason.

P2 is basically proven. I'll just list some of the terrible things that Nazi's have done:

Things they did with prisoners:

D: Experimented on prisoners so that they could advance in making the "Perfect race", or a blond haired blue eyed German. These experiments included many terrible things, such as putting Jews in freezing experiments in order to find a treatment for hypothermia. They also gave prisoners phosgene and mustard gas in order to test possible antidotes. They also did terrible things with twins, such as literally sewing them together in an attempt to make conjoined twins or injecting chemicals into their eyes to see if the color would change. [3] [4]
First of all that's wrong. The blonde haired blue eyed thing was a Klansman belief. A lot of things associated with mad scientists and stuff of that nature was more true in Protestant countries than in a mostly Catholic Germany. Catholics tend to disapprove of the mad scientist thing more, knowing that mad scientists use their brains for maloevant and controlling reasons. The atomic bomb is an example of this. The stereotype of the mad scientist is not made for no reason...

Fanath

Con

Thanks for your contentions Pro. Similar to the last round, I'll refute his then move on to defending mine.

Rebuttals:

"The things the Brits and Danes did were worse in my opinion. Enslaving people, like they did in the enslavement of the African continent, conquering them, robbing them of their resources makes the Germans and Italians look like santa marias in comparison"

Again, it doesn't matter if someone has done something worse than them. The insult of being a bad person is still valid, and the argument I brought up still stands.

"How come Germany and Italy are the only countries with this stigma. I think being a Klansman or a warmongering imperialist (like the Brits and Danes were) is worse. I think the Brits and Danes should be ashamed of their own history. I think they should carry a worst stigma in my opinion. Unfortunately they are the winners in history and they write the books"

The fact of the matter is, I can agree that other groups are worse and still find the insult of being called a Nazi offensive. What he's saying doesn't have anything to do with the debate at hand. Saying that there are worse groups doesn't take away the insult.

"Hitler and Mussolini did great things for their country. They built some of the best highways in the world"

The terrible things he did outweigh him building highways.

"It should be more insulting to be associated with an imperialist, slaveowner or a Klansman. When Britain and Denmark get maligned it's for good reason"

Again, it doesn't matter if something is MORE insulting. Furthermore, my opponent slips up and pretty much raps up the debate with the phrase: "It should be more insulting". This directly tells us that he admits that being called a Nazi is insulting, which fits right in with our definition of offensive that I showed in the previous round: "causing someone to feel hurt, angry, or upset : rude or *insulting* [1]

My burden of proof was to show that it is insulting, not to prove that it is the worst insult possible.

"First of all that's wrong. The blonde haired blue eyed thing was a Klansman belief. A lot of things associated with mad scientists and stuff of that nature was more true in Protestant countries than in a mostly Catholic Germany. Catholics tend to disapprove of the mad scientist thing more, knowing that mad scientists use their brains for maloevant and controlling reasons. The atomic bomb is an example of this. The stereotype of the mad scientist is not made for no reason..."

It was a popular German belief as well:

"Hitler wanted a pure Aryan race, people with blue eyes, blonde hair, muscular (in the case of men) and beautiful (the case of women)" [2]

Even if we to assume that he didn't want a blond haired blue eyed race, it doesn't matter. We're focussing on the terrible things Nazi's did in this section, why Hitler wanted it to happen to them doesn't matter at all. I don't need to address the other things that Pro trails off into as they're irrelevant to the debate. In fact, I could have conceded this point and still my argument would stand.

Pro didn't attack any of the premises of my argument. He only addressed a few minor details and essentially made the same previously refuted argument in an attempt to counter my rebuttals. I've shown why it is insulting for a German to be called a Nazi and have met my burden of proof. I also want to note that Con has still not used a single shred of evidence to support his arguments.

Vote Con.

Sources:

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[2] http://www.studymode.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Adam2

Pro

Again, it doesn't matter if someone has done something worse than them. The insult of being a bad person is still valid, and the argument I brought up still stands.
I'm establishing a pattern here. There are many good things about Nazi Germany that should make one not ashamed of the history. Raised Germany up from the ashes of World War I. Turned it in a great superpower, much like Mussolini did with Italy.

The fact of the matter is, I can agree that other groups are worse and still find the insult of being called a Nazi offensive. What he's saying doesn't have anything to do with the debate at hand. Saying that there are worse groups doesn't take away the insult.
See what I put above.

Again, it doesn't matter if something is MORE insulting. Furthermore, my opponent slips up and pretty much raps up the debate with the phrase: "It should be more insulting". This directly tells us that he admits that being called a Nazi is insulting, which fits right in with our definition of offensive that I showed in the previous round: "causing someone to feel hurt, angry, or upset : rude or *insulting* [1]
Not so much more insulting as there shouldn't really be a stigma with Nazism. The Nazis did plenty of good things.


"Hitler wanted a pure Aryan race, people with blue eyes, blonde hair, muscular (in the case of men) and beautiful (the case of women)" [2]
Wrong on so many levels. Only the KKK believed in that stuff. The term Aryan to describe the Nordic race originated with the KKK and segregationists. Hitler's best friends were his southern allies.

Even if we to assume that he didn't want a blond haired blue eyed race,
That is correct
Fanath

Con

Not much left to put in here... Pro has not used a single source to support his arguments in any place in the debate and has ignored all of my premises to my argument. Pro has even conceded the debate by admitting multiple times that it's insulting to be called a Nazi.

"I'm establishing a pattern here. There are many good things about Nazi Germany that should make one not ashamed of the history. Raised Germany up from the ashes of World War I. Turned it in a great superpower, much like Mussolini did with Italy"

It doesn't matter how many good things Germany did. The terrible things outweigh the good parts. The insult of "nazi" is poking at the holocaust, not Germany's history as a whole. The Nazi's were still bad people. It'd be like saying a guy who had murdered and raped several people was good because he gave his father a birthday present. I'll remind everyone, the Nazi's killed 6 million Jews. [1] That doesn't even account for the millions of others who died from the war the Nazi's started.

"Wrong on so many levels. Only the KKK believed in that stuff. The term Aryan to describe the Nordic race originated with the KKK and segregationists. Hitler's best friends were his southern allies"

Pro gives no source for this. And like I said before, I can concede this but still have the point that they tourchered jews.

His points have been refuted, and my arguments still stand. None of the premises have been attacked by him, and I've proven that it's insulting for a German to be called a Nazi. He also does not give a sinlge source for any of his arguments. This is an obvious win for Con, thank you.

[1]http://www.ushmm.org...
Debate Round No. 4
336 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by macaztec 2 years ago
macaztec
@kc1999 basically you are saying that a government can kill people at will as long as they improve the economy?
Posted by Adam2 2 years ago
Adam2
Kc1999
Thank you
Posted by Kc1999 2 years ago
Kc1999
Adam2, I support your view point.
Posted by Kc1999 2 years ago
Kc1999
"Germans should not be offended when they get called "Nazi"

This is actually not that of a bold claim. BEFORE 1939, Germany was doing terrific in the global economic markets, and the society actually improved. Nowadays, when I mention the word nazis, the Germans look at me as if I were crazy. GAWD LOOK AT WHAT THE NAZIS DID TO YOUR COUNTRY BEFORE 39......Germans are getting offended for something that happened in the past. Gawd.......accept it nao....it happened....possibly....
Posted by Adam2 2 years ago
Adam2
themightyindividual
No I said they should wear it as a badge of honor
Posted by Sfaulkner 2 years ago
Sfaulkner
This debate was upsetting. Just because some groups may have done worse things than the Nazis, in your eyes at least, does not justify or make what the Nazis did good in any way.
Posted by themightyindividual 2 years ago
themightyindividual
Most Germans didn't support the war, only did so because of Nazi threat. Even so, you are a collectivist if you believe that people who have the same DNA patterns as those who may or may not have supported a war 80 years ago should be held responsible for the deaths beyond their control.
Posted by Conservative101 2 years ago
Conservative101
Has this debate changed your mind Adam2?
Posted by Conservative101 2 years ago
Conservative101
There is a difference between Germans and Nazis.
Posted by debate_power 2 years ago
debate_power
This is ridiculous... Who would want to be called something like that if they weren't that?
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 64bithuman 2 years ago
64bithuman
Adam2FanathTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a pitiful attempt at backing up his sideways logic by comparing the Nazi atrocities to British (and other) atrocities, which is by nature a fruitless comparison that does not move the argument in any real direction. Pro has no sources for his arguments and depends on insistence and bullheadedness for his legitimacy. Pro forgets that Germany as a country is only roughly 200 years old, while the British Empire began some 1000 years ago. Germany never really had a crack at the "age of discovery", thereby all comparisons should be void.
Vote Placed by Craighawley215 2 years ago
Craighawley215
Adam2FanathTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is essentially saying that labeling someone in association with a group that murdered millions, tore apart families, and essentially promoted a raceway. Germans today are still sickened by the sheer, remorseless evil of Hitler and his forces, and Pro intends to say that "Nazi" should have positive connotations because of the small amount of good that comes with it. If Pro is willing to make that statement, then I would argue that it is fair to call Adam2 a KKK member, because surely they've done a little good too... There is no possible way, shape, or form of an argument to support Pro's logic. Con gets the W, and this site does not have the capacity to describe the massive margin of this victory.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 2 years ago
funwiththoughts
Adam2FanathTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro dropped every argument except one and used no sources whatsoever. Pro also arguably resorted to ad hominem, and inarguably to non sequitur, by bringing up bad things countries besides the Nazis have done as an argument.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 2 years ago
jh1234l
Adam2FanathTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments: Pro's arguments were weak, as his main argument is that if other people have done worse than Nazi Germany, then Nazi Germany's actions were morally good and therefore people being labeled as Nazi's should not be offended. Con easily refuted the argument by showing that the fact that some countries have done worse than the Nazis did not negate the wrongs that the Nazis did, and also made a strong point on how calling someone a "Nazi" implies something to do with the holocaust and racism in most contexts. Sources go to Con as he correctly represented and used reliable sources.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Adam2FanathTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: pro defended his case rather poorly and without any sources to back up as evidence
Vote Placed by neutral 2 years ago
neutral
Adam2FanathTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting, but the reality is that this would always be a tough case. The Nazi's killed tens of millions of people, and as bad as the Danes were ... they were not that bad. It is a comparative failure. A bad one. Interesting from a conceptual stand point, it nevertheless failed badly in execution.
Vote Placed by AdamKG 2 years ago
AdamKG
Adam2FanathTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro absolutely fails at debate. Pro failed to prove anything he has said or use sources. Pro makes statements that go against common knowledge and unless viable sources are used it is assumed to be untrue. Pro also makes ridiculous comparisons saying what Denmark and Britain has done is far worse than Nazi Germany when everyone with common sense would agree with the opposite. Con easily made the more convincing argument.
Vote Placed by CentristX 2 years ago
CentristX
Adam2FanathTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comment section.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Adam2FanathTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Firstly some pointers for Pro, edit your debates correctly so they are easier to follow. I found the use of bold confusing as you bold both your and Con's arguments. Argument points for this debate clearly go to Con. Pro asserts the Nazis did good but provided no sources, he also did not rebut any of Cons arguments except say "in my opinion". Your opinion is great, but this is a debate and if the facts disprove your opinion you need to prove those facts wrong. Source points go to Con, as Pro made claims that cannot be verified without showing somehow that Con's sources are flawed.
Vote Placed by macaztec 2 years ago
macaztec
Adam2FanathTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments