The Instigator
Adam2
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Hitler or Mussolini would have returned Reggie Hammond's money before Cates did

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...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/10/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,054 times Debate No: 56405
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

Adam2

Pro

My opponent has to prove otherwise. First round is for intro. I think Mussolini and Hitler were better people than Jack Cates. I think if Hammond had been in prison in Hitler or Mussolini's regimes, he would have gotten the money he was promised on time, instead of being cheated like he was in Jack Cate's racist little world (he was openly racist in the first movie, btw).
16kadams

Con

1. Reggie Was Black

The simple fact is, Hitler would not have paid Reggie because he was black. African children were discriminated against and not allowed to go to universities, in 1937 the Gestapo captured many African Germans and forcible sterilized them. The Nazi Regime was totally against Africans, and therefore, would not have honored Reggie's request to the monetary funds [1].

2. The Axis needed the money


Mussolini and Hitler would have loved the extra half a million! In the early war, Hitler would have used it as an economic stimulus, Mussolini would have used it to fund his troops in Africa. Hitler in the war would have used it for munitions, and other supplies. Mussolini the same. They would use it for wages for their troops, etc. In the late war Hitler could have used it to give items to his men (by 1944 even the Russians were better equiped), or research technology for a nuclear weapon.

Conclusion

It is not logical that Hitler would have awarded Reggie's money to someone who he saw as non-human and inferior, and it is simply not in either of the dictators' interest to give the money away. They would have needed it for other things.

Honestly, its a bit like taxes. You pay in, the government can pay back with services, or in this case, to serve the regimes goals. All you get back is a tax return... Well, and Hitler probably wouldn't have done that, helping a minority... And mussolini? Mussolini liked womanizing and gambling... Kinda like his troops in battle (haha). Anyway, it is not in the character of either of these dictators to, well, give the money back. One would have taken him to a concentration camp, the other would have used the money to fufill self-passions.




1. http://www.ushmm.org...;
Debate Round No. 1
Adam2

Pro

1. Reggie Was Black

The simple fact is, Hitler would not have paid Reggie because he was black. African children were discriminated against and not allowed to go to universities, in 1937 the Gestapo captured many African Germans and forcible sterilized them. The Nazi Regime was totally against Africans, and therefore, would not have honored Reggie's request to the monetary funds [1].
Actually yes. The Nazis, you see, weren't the same as the Klan. Sure they hated Jews, but they didn't really hate black people. So much so that Jesse Owens played alongside a Nazi.


Here's an SS division from another country -- composed of East Asians I believe

2. The Axis needed the money

Mussolini and Hitler would have loved the extra half a million! In the early war, Hitler would have used it as an economic stimulus, Mussolini would have used it to fund his troops in Africa. Hitler in the war would have used it for munitions, and other supplies. Mussolini the same. They would use it for wages for their troops, etc. In the late war Hitler could have used it to give items to his men (by 1944 even the Russians were better equiped), or research technology for a nuclear weapon.
It was the Jews' and Nordics' money they mostly wanted to confiscate. Hitler despised the two (that's why he invaded two Northern European countries -- Britain and Denmark -- the later having a government in exile in London). Everyone else could keep their money.
http://www.dicconbewes.com...

Conclusion

It is not logical that Hitler would have awarded Reggie's money to someone who he saw as non-human and inferior, and it is simply not in either of the dictators' interest to give the money away. They would have needed it for other things.
That's not really true.
\
This poster was made by Nazi Germany against the KKK.

Honestly, its a bit like taxes. You pay in, the government can pay back with services, or in this case, to serve the regimes goals. All you get back is a tax return... Well, and Hitler probably wouldn't have done that, helping a minority... And mussolini? Mussolini liked womanizing and gambling... Kinda like his troops in battle (haha). Anyway, it is not in the character of either of these dictators to, well, give the money back. One would have taken him to a concentration camp, the other would have used the money to fufill self-passions.
Mussolini actually emphasized a criticism of "racial purity" espoused by types like the Klan.

Now here are my arguments
Jack Cates was a real racist. He was like something out of a Klan instructional video. This guy was a racist. In the first 48 Hours movie he is nothing but abusive. In effect, he only lets Reggie Hammond out as part of favor Reggie was doing, only because "he was desperate," which shows you how lowly he thinks of blacks.
He also says "spearchucker" and "nigger" in the movie at least a few times

https://www.youtube.com...

(in this video we see who Jack Cates really is)
Later on in the movie he actually makes a messed up racist remark about how he didn't know "darker" people got foreign car jobs. And Cates is like that with all black people. The only people he treats with respect in the movie are white people.

Why do I bring this up? To establish a pattern of his arrogance. He doesn't repent of his arrogance in the beginning of the second movie. He actually has the audacity to cheat Reggie of his money, and cheat him into doing one his jobs.
16kadams

Con

1. Race

My opponnent claims the blacks weren't really hated--this is untrue. Athough never subjected to mass executions such as the jews, they were considered an inferior race. A good example, as wikipedia states, is the slavs; they were not killed like the Jews, but were discriminated against. Blacks were forbidden to have intercourse with whites, many were sterilized. Although there was no official policy towards African decendents, they faced discrimination in many forms due to the Nazi 'master race' concept [1].

A good example would be similar to the United States. In the 60s, Blacks were considered by many to not even be human, and it is beyond dispute that people thought they were inferior. If an average Black man gave an average white man half a million in cash, it is almost certain that the white man would keep the cash and run. There is no logical reason to think that Hitler would have respected Reggie's demands, as a black man, and would have kept the money for other purposes.

As for Asian SS officers, this actually makes sense. The Axis had accepted Japan into its sphere, and needed a 'logical' reason to support them. Therefore, the fact Hitler had some asians in his military makes sense--it would have been a poor decision to alienate against his allies. Further, Hitler granted 'honorary aryan' status to 10,000 Japanese people living in Germany [2]. The fact that Hitler had no issues with Asians is not surprising.

2. Economc Concerns

in 1982 dollars, $500,000 = ~3.3 million in 1940. The US dollar was worth 4.2 Reichsmarks [3]. Therefore, Hammond's money was warth 13.8 million dollars. This means that Hammonds money would be worth near 4%* of the Nazi German Economy in 1940. You really think Hitler would give that back? 4% economic boost?

How about Italy? About 9.8%.*

CONCLUSION

It would not be in their interest to help Reggie, as the boost to their economy would be tremendous; and in Hitler's case, helping a non aryan is not a valid question.



*numbers 1940 GDP



I mean seriously, the fact you think two dictators would help a nobody who they see as inferior who has the ability to boost their economy significantly is, well, preposterous.



1. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Debate Round No. 2
Adam2

Pro

Rebutal
My opponnent claims the blacks weren't really hated--this is untrue. Athough never subjected to mass executions such as the jews, they were considered an inferior race. A good example, as wikipedia states, is the slavs; they were not killed like the Jews, but were discriminated against. Blacks were forbidden to have intercourse with whites, many were sterilized. Although there was no official policy towards African decendents, they faced discrimination in many forms due to the Nazi 'master race' concept [1].

According to one of your sources, the idea of a Nordic, Germanic race is abscent in Nazism. Because many people seem to get the Klan and Nazis confused. Here's what it said in one of your sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
"The Nazis considered a small percentage of people who the Nazis deemed in Eastern Europe to be descendants of ethnic German settlers and who underwent Germanised to be accepted as part of the Aryan Herrenvolk (Aryan master race). Outside of Europe in North Africa, according to Alfred Rosenberg's racial theories (The Myth of the Twentieth Century), some of the Berbers, particularly the Kabyles, were to be classified as Aryans.[25] The Nazis portrayed Swedes, the Afrikaaners who are white European descendants of Dutch-speaking Boers in South Africa and higher-degree Northern/Western Europeans of South America (mainly from Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina) as ideal "Aryans" along with the German-speaking peoples of Greater Germany and Switzerland (the country was neutral during the war). In Asia, only the Indo-Aryan and Indo-Iranian populations ofBritish India, Iran, and Afghanistan were considered Aryan, although this did not affect the decision to target the Roma, who are of Indian origin because they were said to pose a threat to the Aryan race because of their racial mingling.[26]"

According to this, Western Europeans were included in his praise, which includes France, Ireland, England, northern Italy, Switzerland in his mix. Also you had Indians and Iranians. This would mean that only the Ku Klux Klan was a Nordic organization. Mind you there was prejudice agaisnt blacks, but my opinion still stands that neither the Nazis or Italian Fascists persecuted blacks.

In most of the debates I've gone into, people seem to have the Klan and Nazis mixed up for some bizarre reason.

A good example would be similar to the United States. In the 60s, Blacks were considered by many to not even be human, and it is beyond dispute that people thought they were inferior. If an average Black man gave an average white man half a million in cash, it is almost certain that the white man would keep the cash and run. There is no logical reason to think that Hitler would have respected Reggie's demands, as a black man, and would have kept the money for other purposes.
Everything was right except for the sentence I crossed out, for reasons I posted above.


As for Asian SS officers, this actually makes sense. The Axis had accepted Japan into its sphere, and needed a 'logical' reason to support them. Therefore, the fact Hitler had some asians in his military makes sense--it would have been a poor decision to alienate against his allies. Further, Hitler granted 'honorary aryan' status to 10,000 Japanese people living in Germany [2]. The fact that Hitler had no issues with Asians is not surprising.
Asians were actually liked by Hitler. It seems that if the Nazis did not like black people. The Nazis were probably an everybody-except-blacks-Jews-and [perhaps]-Nordics party (since Hitler invaded Denmark out of revenge).

Now my next point
Cates was a KKK Nordic supremacists. The only people he treated right were people that looked like him. And on his hate list was Reggie Hammond.
16kadams

Con

Red herrings

Cool, I didnt mention being Nordic, I mentioned being Black. So, this is a complete red herring and irrelevant.

Anything about the KKK, its origins, and where it is from has no bearing on this debate, and it seems mostly like conjecture

Asians is also a straw man

Blacks not persecuted?

The Nazi regime was fully against blacks, claiming they were there due to a Jewish plot to undo the aryan race [1]. To deny the extreme predjudice and the hate crimes which the state sanctioned against african americans is denialism at its finest. It is a fact. My opponent is rewriting history to fit his needs. Although not mass exterminated, they were considered as low as gypsies [1]. I mean, the fact you think Hitler would have upheld his promise to someone he saw as inferior makes no sense. You have failed to refute this saying they were not massacred like the Jews, but that is a red herring; whether or not they were victims of genocide is irrelevant. It is whether or not Hitler would have kept his promise.

Concession?

"he Nazis were probably an everybody-except-blacks-Jews-and [perhaps]-Nordics party"

Yep, even my opponent admitted that the Nazis were anti black, and even puts them next to Jews... That is basically a concession, as it proved my argument correct: Hitler hates blacks more than Cates would have, therefore, Cates > Hitler.

Cates was KKK


So? KKK was terrible. However, the Nazi regime ended up killing 11 million minorities, if not more. However, my opponent makes a huge mistake: no citation. To make such an accusation--that a character, so central to this debate--is a white supremect with no reference is not credible. As this is not common knowlege, unless my opponent can prove his accusation, this point is null and void.

Dropped arguments

Opponent dropped the argument that it wasnt in either Mussolini's or Hitler's self interest to return the money. It would be much more in their interest to keep the money for (1) governmental needs, or (2) self-indulgence.

Dropped arguments concede those arguments as true.

Conclusion:

My opponent's case makes no sense, is built upon red herrings, he drops key arguments and fails to back up major points which he brings up. CON > PRO


1. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Debate Round No. 3
Adam2

Pro

Red herrings

Cool, I didnt mention being Nordic, I mentioned being Black. So, this is a complete red herring and irrelevant.
It was actually because most of the people that debate me have claimed so.

Anything about the KKK, its origins, and where it is from has no bearing on this debate, and it seems mostly like conjecture

It was relevant as Cates had characteristics of the Klan (which I'll put later).

Blacks not persecuted?

The Nazi regime was fully against blacks, claiming they were there due to a Jewish plot to undo the aryan race [1]. To deny the extreme predjudice and the hate crimes which the state sanctioned against african americans is denialism at its finest. It is a fact. My opponent is rewriting history to fit his needs. Although not mass exterminated, they were considered as low as gypsies [1]. I mean, the fact you think Hitler would have upheld his promise to someone he saw as inferior makes no sense. You have failed to refute this saying they were not massacred like the Jews, but that is a red herring; whether or not they were victims of genocide is irrelevant. It is whether or not Hitler would have kept his promise.
http://img405.imageshack.us...
http://upload.wikimedia.org...
Pictures of black soldiers fighting proudly along with the white Nazi soldiers

Concession?
"he Nazis were probably an everybody-except-blacks-Jews-and [perhaps]-Nordics party"
Yep, even my opponent admitted that the Nazis were anti black, and even puts them next to Jews... That is basically a concession, as it proved my argument correct: Hitler hates blacks more than Cates would have, therefore, Cates > Hitler.
No I didn't concede. I said that Nazis had prejudices against blacks like most of Europe. What I did say was persecution didn't happen against blacks in the Fascist regimes like they did in Nazi Germany. Many blacks served in the Nazi army. As I proved with pics.

Cates was KKK
So? KKK was terrible. However, the Nazi regime ended up killing 11 million minorities, if not more. However, my opponent makes a huge mistake: no citation. To make such an accusation--that a character, so central to this debate--is a white supremect with no reference is not credible. As this is not common knowlege, unless my opponent can prove his accusation, this point is null and void.

(as I showed before; see video posted to see who Cates really was and then come and tell me if you think he's not a Klan type of man after seeing this)
This is the same character in the sequel as I posted above, only the video is from the first movie, not the second. After seeing the way he treats Hammond repeatedly, it's safe to assume he's like that in the second movie, and worse, he's a sneaky cheat.
As I've shown before.

Opponent dropped the argument that it wasnt in either Mussolini's or Hitler's self interest to return the money. It would be much more in their interest to keep the money for (1) governmental needs, or (2) self-indulgence.
You never really refuted what I said which was that it was only Jews' and Northern Euros' money taken, not other races. If you saw my links.

Conclusion:

I already gave proof. Vote pro.

16kadams

Con

Red herrings

k so opponent agrees the nordic thing was irrelevant

Drops asian point

Supports KKK later ok.

Persecution

His pictures come from the Free Arabian Legion. Although some Northern Africans were used, the Germans were displeased with the Legion, and the legion had extremely poor morale--possible due to the fact some of the members of the unit were not, I don't know, considered anything more than a 'Jewish plot' (using Hitler's words... But I see you using them too). Further, it is likely the legion was used because the vast majority of the troops were Arab, not African [1].

The concession point I made is supported here^


KKK


Cates, as a police man, was bound to be racist around 1982. There still existed racial policies in the police force in 1982, this does not mean he was a KKK member [2]. But the question still remains: Who hated minorities more, evil dictators who thought the Jews were using them to dilute the Aryan race and sterilized them, or a cop who uses the N word...

Self Interest

Um, what? I noted that Blacks didnt recieve social programs which other Aryans obtained and were often barred from employment... Jews' money was taken because they were all killed... and Hitler considered Nordics to be part of the 'master race'... so my opponent really makes no argument here.

Oh, he forgot to refute the economic argument, which is a huge factor: they would have kept the money in order to win the war. But nope, my opponent thinks this is irrelevant to the debate, which is obviously illogical. That point alone refutes my opponents central idea: that it was in Hitler's or Mussolini's best interest to return the money. I mean this could have been a blond haired blue eyed Hitler Youth, and Hitler would have probably kept the money due to monetary issues.

Vote CON, this debate didn't really make any sense anyway... but my opponent made no coherent case as to why Hitler would have returned the money, and he essentially dropped my case on mussolini...



1. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
2. http://militarymigrants.org...;
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by macaztec 2 years ago
macaztec
That is not a poster against the KKK. It is anti American propaganda. It was also not German. It came from the Netherlands. Aside from that ...It still depicts the Blacks with a negative caricature.
Posted by Adam2 2 years ago
Adam2
1940s sorry
Posted by Adam2 2 years ago
Adam2
nayme
I'm not saying that Reggie was alive in the 1950s, however I do think that if Reggie had lived in those times, the Nazis and Italian Fascists would have treated him better than the Klansman society that is AmeriKKKa.
Posted by Adam2 2 years ago
Adam2
nayme
I would throw a basketball at his face if he did something like that to me too
Posted by Adam2 2 years ago
Adam2
nayme
I don't know what you believe, but you gotta admit that Jack Cates was an arrogant jerk...
Posted by nayme 2 years ago
nayme
Lmfao, they lived before the time period in which the movie was set.

Easy win, cheap-shot.
Posted by Adam2 2 years ago
Adam2
dsjpk5
You being sarcastic, or do you really mean that compliment?
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Awesome
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by macaztec 2 years ago
macaztec
Adam216kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 made grossly false statements. This was a rather absurd debate where the Pro did not meet any kind of burden.