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

Hitler was a genius.

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,169 times Debate No: 20941
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




I find that the leader of the German Nazi army before an during world wars to was perhaps one of the smartest men alive at his time perhaps even ever. in re guards to his leadership skills. Adolf Hitler was and should still be reverie as a great man.


I would like to thank my opponent for providing this opportunity to argue against the proposition that Hitler was a genius.

Before moving on to address my opponent's arguments it is important to determine what is meant by "genius". The term "genius" is a psychological term describing someone of very high IQ. There are two IQ tests in common use today: Wechsler and Stanford-Binet[1]. Wechsler does not define an IQ range as "genius" but Stanford-Binet (SB) does[2]. SB defines genius to be an IQ of 152 or above. My opponent has supplied no evidence that Hitler ever was given an IQ test, much less that he scored 152 or above.

My opponent makes three points in his argument that I will address in turn:

1. Hitler "was perhaps one of the smartest men alive at his time"

This claim is conclusory, and my opponent offers no evidence to support it. There is really nothing on this point that I need to refute, but I will point out that Hitler was probably not very smart. Indeed, the major accomplishment of his life's work resulted in his own death and the occupation and division of his country[3].

2. "in re guards to his leadership skills."

I will concede for the sake of the this debate that Hitler had good leadership skills -- in so far as he was able to get people to follow him. This point, however, is irrelevant to the topic of the debate as leadership skills do not demonstrate an IQ above 152.

3. "Adolf Hitler was and should still be reverie as a great man."

This statement is also conclusory and irrelevant. Although I do not believe Hitler was a great man, the issue of whether Hitler was "great" is irrelevant to whether he had an IQ above 152.



Debate Round No. 1


IQ HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS DEBATE. The term genius refers only to his leadership skills. is genius is refection to his ability to accomplish thing no other leader had done.
such as after world war 1 Germany was demilitarized and striped of it standing army. Yet Hitler was able to not only rebuild and train a new standing army he conquered one country completely and invade another while the whole world was still under the impression he had no military force.
Through his charisma and speeches to the people he not only gain control of his country but he obtained untold loyalty from his people. a loyalty so strong he convinced them to not a only march off to commit murder but to die as well.

there for i use the phrase genius as it took an incredible amount of planning and thought and devotion to accomplish any one of these two tasks i listed thus far. but he did both at the same time.


My opponent would like us to believe that IQ has nothing to do with this debate. It is an astounding proposition in a debate on whether a particular person was a genius -- a term that describes a particular IQ level. He then attempts to redefine "genius" as referring to one's charisma or accomplishments. For this redefinition he offers no source. Apparently abandoning his previous arguments, he then attempts to claim that Hitler was charismatic and had great accomplishments. Even if my opponent had demonstrated these two claims (he has not) his argument would still fail because neither charisma nor accomplishments are relevant to the topic of this debate: whether Hitler was a genius.

My opponent has not shown that Hitler was charismatic

It is undoubted that to be the leader of a country a leader must be able to get people to follow. However, there are many ways that one can gain obedience. One way is through charisma, as my opponent suggests. Another is through fear. Hitler operated death squads that murdered people who spoke out against the regime or did not follow the regime's rules[1]. My opponent has not shown that people followed Hitler because he was charismatic, much less that followers indicates charisma.

My opponent has not shown that Hitler had great accomplishments.

I will confine my response to the domestic state of Germany, and ignore for present the atrocities Hitler committed, since this is the basis on which my opponent stakes his claim that Hitler had great accomplishments. Unfortunately for my opponent, his history appears to end in 1939. To evaluate accomplishments, one should look to the final result not some arbitrary point in the middle. At the end of Hitler's life the German army, which my opponent lauds Hitler for having rebuilt, was again destroyed[2]. Following the war Hitler started, his country was split in two[3]. Finally, as a result of his "accomplishments" Hitler was forced to commit suicide to avoid the humiliation of being captured and tried for the world wide suffering he had caused[4].

In summary, even after attempting to change topics mid-debate, my opponent has failed to demonstrate that Hitler was a genius, charismatic, or accomplished.


Debate Round No. 2


he was a military genius how else do you describe his ability to battle Europe, china, and Russia all at the same time. you would like to argue he lost and was forced to commits suicide due his failure. i would dispute this as prier to the united states joining the war effort against Germany Hitlers armies was devastating the allied forces. the Russians were so scared of the Nazi army that they had to lock their soldiers in to train cars to keep them from fleeing before they reached the battle field. The British and there leader Winston church hill were begging for America to get in involved due to the loses and inability to mount a proper defense. the french had already lost. The Germans were unstoppable they had a leader who had planned out every detail and acquired the proper tools and equipment to own Europe.
Hitlers failure was not do it his incompetence or lack of planning. it was due the japan going against his suggestion and involving America in the Europe and Asian war. Hitler had sen many communications to japans leader to persuade them from attacking America. it was japans ego that caused Hitlers fall nothing more.

you concept of a genius is only acquired by an IQ of above 150 is absurd have you not ever heard of a musical genius. or a mathematical, or a medical, or genius due to a separate skill. a child how plays the Cello as well as Yo-Yo Ma when their 5 is also referred to as a genius. i have already stated your theory of a high IQ has no place in this debate.
i believe you refereed to his death squads who went out murdering people who didn't agree you are correct that happened but i believe in my second round i spoke of his ability to get such loyalty from people that they would go murder thanks for contributing to my argument.
you also what to claim his suicide was from shame i would like to point out that had be been captured he would have been tortured and then him self murders after likely a long period of horrible pain. so i again will say he was a wise enough man to know he wouldn't enjoy that kind of suffering and choose the best and least pain full option.

as for references for this information i would say start with the 7th grade world history book want another go to history channel .com and go the the section under world war 2 a wonderful third source is and use there world war 2 section
seriously nothing I'm saying is honestly that unknown I'm just putting a slight different spin out it.


My opponent has again tried to change the topic of this debate. In three rounds we have gone from "Hitler was a genius" to he gained loyalty through his charisma, to he was a military genius. It is hard to debate three topics in three rounds.

My opponent also takes issue with my definition of "genius" but offers no alternative of his own. He further attempts to distract from his failure to demonstrate that Hitler was a genius by discussing ideas like "musical genius." Again, he offers no definition for his term. Additionally my opponent fails to note that many accomplished musicians have very high IQs. There is evidence from the psychological academic literature that suggests there is an association between IQ and musical aptitude[1].

While not directly refuting any of my points from rounds 1 or 2, my opponent now claims that Hitler was a military genius because his failures were the fault of others. However, a true military genius would anticipate the actions of others and develop his strategy accordingly. Having failed to show that Hitler was a genius per se, my opponent attempts to argue that Hitler was a "military genius". As support for that assertion my opponent simply offers that Hitler's loss of the largest war in history was not really Hitler's fault. This argument, like those before it, is wholly without merit for the reasons I outlined above.

On the announced topic of this debate, or any of the alternative topics offered by my opponent since, my opponent has failed to demonstrate that Hitler was a genius.

Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Ajzbak1 2 years ago
Genius has nothing to do with iq you dumb f*** trying to sound sophisticated, just because you think what he achieved was brutal and inhumane doesn't mean you should enter a debate for the wrong reasons.
Now read the following definition and if you can honestly tell me that after reading this he isn't a genius then you are insane and should seek medical help and frankly worries me that you are still in the worlds general population...

exceptional intellectual or creative power or other natural ability.
"she was a teacher of genius"
synonyms:brilliance, great intelligence, great intellect, great ability, cleverness, brains, erudition, wisdom, sagacity, fine mind, wit, artistry, flair, creative power, precocity, precociousness More
talent, gift, flair, aptitude, facility, knack, technique, touch, bent, ability, expertise, capacity, power, faculty;
endowment, strength, strong point, forte, brilliance;
dexterity, adroitness, skill, cleverness, virtuosity, artistry
an exceptionally intelligent person or one with exceptional skill in a particular area of activity.
"a mathematical genius"
synonyms:brilliant person, mental giant, mastermind, Einstein, intellectual, intellect, brain, highbrow, expert, master, artist, polymath; More
(in some mythologies) a spirit associated with a particular person, place, or institution.
a person regarded as exerting a powerful influence over another for good or evil.
"he sees Adams as the man's evil genius"
the prevailing character or spirit of something.
"Boucher's paintings did not suit the austere genius of neoclassicism"
very clever or ingenious.
"a genius idea"
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 4 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: So why exactly was hitler a genius?
Vote Placed by Ricky_Zahnd 4 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 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 deviates constanly from the implied terms of the debate and fails to re-establish them