The Instigator
RobieRX
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tejretics
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

Hitler IS not a criminal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 5 votes the winner is...
tejretics
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/12/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,017 times Debate No: 75163
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
Votes (5)

 

RobieRX

Pro

== Rules ==

1. No forfeits
2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final round; R1 is just for acceptance
4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No K's of the topic
7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolution definitions
8. The BOP is Shared; Con must argue that Progressive Consumption taxes should not be implemented, I must argue that it should be
9. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss
tejretics

Con

I accept. Rule 8 contradicts the resolution, thus I will argue why progressive consumption taxes should not be implemented. The resolution "Hitler is not a criminal" is irrelevant to the true resolution.

Since it seems to be about progressive consumption taxation, let the resolution be: "The United States Should Implement a Progressive Consumption Tax."

=== Definitions ===

United States - The United States of America, 3rd largest sovereign state and largest economy
Should - Ought to; must
Progressive Consumption Tax - a tax that modifies the VAT, so that it no longer imposes a flat-rate tax on all consumption. It splits the value-added tax base, which equals aggregate consumption, into two components, wages and business cash flow. The X tax achieves progressivity by applying graduated tax rates to wages and a high flat tax rate to business cash flow, which reflects consumption financed from wealth accumulated prior to the reform and from above-normal business investment returns, which largely accrue to well-off households.
Debate Round No. 1
RobieRX

Pro

Now the definition of a criminal is

criminal
adjective crim"i"nal \G2;kri-mə-nəl, G2;krim-nəl
: involving illegal activity : relating to crime

Everything Adolf Hitler did was purely legal, so technically he is not a criminal. Even though he killed 6 million people.
(If you consider jews as people) He was not involved in criminal activity. So he is not a criminal. done.
tejretics

Con

Pro seems to be arguing for a different resolution. As I said, Rule 8 ["Con must argue that Progressive Consumption taxes should not be implemented, I must argue that it should be"] overrides the title.

Thus, the resolution is: "The United States Should Implement a Progressive Consumption Tax." Pro has not, in ANY manner whatsoever, defended this.

Therefore, I shall only build a small case on this.

-- RESOLVED: The United States Should Implement a Progressive Consumption Tax --

Contention One: Taxation Is Immoral

Sub-point A: Ethics

Any resolution involving "should" is a moral issue. Since taxation is an ethical issue, we must look at *what* "ethics" is. Ethics is the field that deals with values and actions taken to obtain those values. For such moral values and entitlements to exist objectively, one must *accept* all these values *without* enforcement, thus deeming *freedom* the most important value of all. If freedom is overriden, it is considered immoral.

Since taxation overrides freedom by forcing one to pay taxes, it may be considered unethical, and, hence, immoral.

Sub-point B: Force Contradicts Morality

Taxation involves taking money by force, only legally. The very essence of morality is freedom, and overriding freedom via. force is never acceptable and, therefore, immoral. Thus, most taxation may be considered immoral.

Contention Two: An Economic Case Against the Progressive Consumption Tax

Sub-point A: General Disadvantages of a Consumption Tax

"Under [a consumption tax] system, a potential disadvantage is that some consumer goods or services could be taxed at a higher rate than others, based on arbitrary rules such as one item being seen as a luxury or by way of a “sin tax.” Alcohol, for example, could be taxed at an exorbitant rate to discourage purchasing it. Such use could be abused even further, and used politically to undermine a particular industry or company. Businesses cannot simply soak up higher costs or pass the burden to the consumer without overpricing their goods, and if their products are taxed at a rate far higher than that of other companies, they won’t be able to compete. The cost of materials will be also be taxed at a higher rate, causing manufacturing costs to go up." [http://www.wisegeek.org...]

As seen, in a non-idealist world, a consumption tax would be disadvantageous due to abusing taxation based on different products.

Sub-point B: A Low Flat Tax Would Be Ideal

While many economists hailed a progressive consumption tax, especially a Bradford X-tax, to be the "best tax system", such as Bill Gates, Acosta-Ormaechea and Yoo (2012) wrote in their paper, "Tax Composition & Growth", that a low flat income tax would be ideal. [https://www.imf.org...]

-- RESOLVED: Hitler Is Not Criminal --

Contention: Hitler Was Related to Crime

My opponent defines "criminal" as "involving illegal activity; related to crime." Therefore, even in that interpretation of the resolution, if I show Hitler having broken the laws and being sent to prison even ONCE, the resolution is negated.

"In Germany, Nazi Party leader Adolf Hitler is sentenced to five years in prison for leading the Nazis’ unsuccessful “Beer Hall Putsch” in the German state of Bavaria. ... Sent to Landsberg jail, he spent his time dictating his autobiography, Mein Kampf,and working on his oratorical skills. After nine months in prison, political pressure from supporters of the Nazi Party forced his release." [http://www.history.com...]

Since Hitler WAS convicted and sent to prison for a legitimate reason, he WAS and IS related to crime, thus is criminal.

The resolution is resoundingly negated.
Debate Round No. 2
RobieRX

Pro

He is a FORMER criminal he has changed so much in a few years. for example his beatuiful paintings which Puts Vincent Van Gough to shame and his program that supported animal rights.
tejretics

Con

Rebuttals & Defense

a) Progressive Consumption Tax

Pro has *DROPPED* all my arguments against a progressive consumption tax. I extend all my arguments from the previous round, thus if voters assume Rule 8, I win the debate.

b) Is Hitler Criminal?

This contradicts the definition of the adjective "criminal", which means "relating to crime", which was the definition provided by Pro. Therefore, if I can show that Hitler is even *related* to crime, I win the debate.

Pro concedes that Hitler was a criminal, and, therefore, Hitler is criminal for being related to crime. Since Hitler *did* commit "illegal activity", Hitler IS criminal.

== Conclusion ==

As seen, I have negated *both* possible resolutions, while Pro has dropped one entire possible resolution. The resolution is resoundingly negated. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Lol he argued that Hitlers paintings put Van Gogh to shame! I could snap a picture of my shirt and it would be more artistic than any of can gogh's stuff
Posted by RobieRX 2 years ago
RobieRX
No pdf no evidence no truth.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Wow, pro added a definition after explicitly staying in the rules not to
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
It's debatable whether Hitler was a good guy or not, but saying he is a criminal is a truism
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
I can't find it.
The below is a historical research paper that says the same:
https://www.elon.edu...
Posted by RobieRX 2 years ago
RobieRX
I need the pdf
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
""Der Hitler-Proze" vor dem Volksgericht in M"nchen". 1924." - it's an official document of the Munich Court where Hitler was tried. Fine yet?
Posted by RobieRX 2 years ago
RobieRX
Your evidence is as salty as the pacific ocean.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
So you're saying Hitler wasn't a criminal? It's a historical consensus. I'll use a different source:

Ian Kershaw. "Hitler: A Biography." p. 131.
Posted by RobieRX 2 years ago
RobieRX
Yours sources are a little salty. History.com isn't a reliable source.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 2 years ago
tajshar2k
RobieRXtejreticsTied
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 didn't fulfil his BOP, Con provided all reasons to why he thinks so, and he sucessfully refuted whatever Pro was trying to say. Also, he gave sources.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 2 years ago
Midnight1131
RobieRXtejreticsTied
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 to Con, since Con provided many arguments, and Pro ignored the majority of them. Also, Con only had to prove that Hitler was convicted of a crime, which Con did. Sources were only used by Con, so the point goes to them there.
Vote Placed by The-Voice-of-Truth 2 years ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
RobieRXtejreticsTied
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: Args - Con negated both resolutions, but showing that 1) Hitler was and is a criminal by showing that Hitler was sentenced to 5 years in prison for the failure of the Nazi Party's Beer Hall Putsch, and 2) how taxation overrides freedom, which is the the most important value of ethics. | Sources - Con used the only sources, leading me to deem them the most reliable. | S&G - Con, as Pro had 12 errors in round 2 alone, but Con had absolutely none. Conduct to Con only because in Round 2 Pro insults the Jews, and insults always result in a loss of conduct. If I need to clarify any points, let me know.
Vote Placed by ColeTrain 2 years ago
ColeTrain
RobieRXtejreticsTied
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: Con was the only side to argue both resolutions, as it was not clear which one was the the topic under dispute. He was also the only one who consistently provided sources to back up his claims. Moreover, the rules were obviously copied from another debate, and pasted to this one. Thus, Con wins Conduct (for not c&p), Arguments (for reputable and convincing arguments on both resolutions), and Sources (for consistent and reliable use).
Vote Placed by Diqiucun_Cunmin 2 years ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
RobieRXtejreticsTied
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: Conduct to Con because Pro failed to address the rules issue, and his shouting in the last round after Con negated the resolution, which showed a lack of sportsmanship. S&G tied - although Pro made more mistakes, the sample size was not significant enough. Arguments to Con, obviously, since Pro pretty much conceded in the last round, and provided no evidence or reasoning to support his assertions. Sources to Con as he used the only sources.