Hitler was insane.

Disclaimer:
I am not a racist, a Nazi, or any of the sort. However, I do not believe that Hitler was insane. I do believe that he had every one of his beliefs rationalized.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hitler- Adolf Hitler, Leader of the Third Reich, also known as Nazi Germany, an Axis Power during the Second World War.
Insane- mentally deranged http://dictionary.reference.com...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I await my opponent's arguments and assert that he/she has burden of proof.

I thank my opponent for starting this interesting debate and the readers for this opportunity.

I stand in affirmation to the resolution, "Hitler was insane." Thus, I must prove Hitler was in some way mentally deranged, according to my opponent's definition.

I would like to further define several terms:

mentally- in or with the mind
http://dictionary.reference.com...

deranged- disordered; disarranged
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Hitler suffered from borderline personality disorder, which manifested its symptoms in numerous ways and would imply Hitler was in full control of himself and his actions. Others have proposed Hitler may have been schizophrenic, based on claims that he was hallucinating and delusional during his last year of life. Many people believe that Hitler had a MENTAL DISORDER and was not schizophrenic nor bipolar, but rather met the criteria for both disorders, and was therefore most likely a schizoaffective. If true, this might be explained by a series of brief reactive psychoses in a narcissistic personality which could not withstand being confronted with reality (in this case, that he was not the "superman" or "savior of Germany" he envisioned himself to be, as his plans and apparent early achievements collapsed about him). Being insane is to be mentally deranged, and since being mentally deranged is to be disordered in the mind, I have shown that Hitler certainly had a disorder in the mind, thus the resolution is affirmed.

In addition, his regular methamphetamine use and possible sleep deprivation in the last period of his life must be factored into any speculation as to the cause of his possible psychotic symptoms, as these two activities are known to trigger psychotic reactions in some individuals.

Michael Fitzgerald, an expert in autism spectrum disorders, concludes that Hitler suffered from, and met all the criteria of Asperger syndrome as documented by Hans Asperger. As evidence of possible Asperger's, Fitzgerald cites Hitler's poor sleep patterns, food fads, dislike of physical contact, inability to forge genuine friendships, and an emptiness in his human relations. His conversations in the Men's Home in Vienna were really harangues and invited no reciprocity, for which he seemingly lacked capacity. In Munich, Hitler was distant, self-contained, withdrawn and without friends. His comrades noted that he had no humanitarian feelings, that he was single-minded and inflexible. He was obsessive and rarely made good or interesting company, except in the eyes of those who shared his obsessions or those in awe of, or dependent on him.

I believe I have affirmed the resolution. I proved that Hitler had mental disorders, which shows that he was both mentally deranged and insane, by definition. I heavily urge a Pro vote.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I thank the readers and my opponent for this debate.

(My opponent's arguments are directly copied from Wikipedia.)

I would like to propose to change the definition of insanity to "mental illness of such degree that the individual is not responsible for his or her acts". http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

I find that this definition is more proper, as it is from a mental dictionary, rather than from a semantic dictionary.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Despite that definition, my opponent's logic is flawed.
-Being insane is to be mentally deranged
-Being mentally deranged is to be disordered in the mind
-Hitler certainly had a disorder in the mind
THEREFORE
-Hitler was insane

Let's go through this again. If Hitler had a mental disorder, then he isn't necessarily mentally deranged. This is like squares and rectangles: All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
So, we can now see the flaws in my opponent's arguments.
-Being a square is to be a rectangle
-Being a rectangle is to be a polygon
-Figure A is a polygon
THEREFORE
-Figure A is a square

One can easily see the logical fallacy here.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
METH
Addiction to and the symptoms of methamphetamine are not mental illnesses. Methamphetamine affects motor function and impared verbal learning http://www.nida.nih.gov..., not judgement capability.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Schitzophrenia
My opponent's Wikipedia Source does not source anything regarding Schitzophrenia.
It only has a bunch of [citations needed].
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
AUTISM/ASPERGER
While this is a mental disorder, it does not cause one to be incapable of thinking clearly and making logical decisions.
Asperger's Syndrom is also a social disorder, not a behavioural disorder. http://www.scielo.br...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Therefore, Hitler was still responsible for his actions.

I await a rebuttal.

My arguments are not all directly copied from Wikipedia. I used Wikipedia to set a background and then made an argument at the end based upon my own knowledge.

My opponent wants to change the definition of "insanity." However, the resolution refers to the word "insane" and my opponent defined the word "insane" in the first round. It is greatly unfair to changed a definition in the middle of a debate, especially when insanity is not the same word tense as insane. Henceforth, it is necessary to keep the definition of insane and refer to your definition of insanity only when it is needed.

Although it is a more proper definition, it is still a different definition and word form than the word "insane", which is what we are arguing, that Hitler was insane. (Look at the resolution)

My opponent states that my logic is flawed. My logic is not flawed. It is correct, and if I am able to prove it is correct, then the resolution is affirmed.

Hitler had a mental disorder. My opponent agrees that Hitler had a mental disorder in his argument. My opponent's definition of insane was "mentally deranged." I broke down the words "mentally" and "deranged" and defined mentally as being incorporated with the mind (mental) and deranged as disordered. Thus, Hitler having a mental disorder means that he was mentally deranged, because having a mental disorder is having disorder in the mind, which is what mentally deranged means. Since being insane is to be mentally deranged, and Hitler was mentally deranged due to a mental disorder, that means Hitler was insane. I have affirmed the resolution.

I have supported my logic and find my opponent's logic innacurate to mine.

My opponent follows by pointing out several issues that were related to Hitler: Meth, Schizophrenia, and Autism/Asperger Syndrome. My opponent states that Autism/Asperger is a mental disorder, which falls into my logical argument above, and since I have affirmed the resolution, I feel no need to further argue.

"Therefore, Hitler was still responsible for his actions."
So? Everyone is responsible for their actions. Being responsible for one's actions does not prove if one is insane or not insane, so this statement points nowhere.

I just have a few questions. Would a sane person want to kill people just because they have different religions and beliefs? Would a sane person create propaganda and create one of the most destructive wars of all time? Would a sane person be in charge of the mass murder of millions of people? I think otherwise.

Some say the onset of loosing his marbles began to surface before July 1944, although it was a very gradual process. It was around the time of Operation Zitadelle (Kursk) that his judgement and his reasoning began to unravel, although some will say that his judgement was always slightly circumspect. The July 1944 bomb plot really did push him over the edge into paranoia and fantasyland.

I await my opponent's rebuttal.

All but the last sentence of my opponent's first (major) paragraph in round 1 is directly copied from Wikipedia.
My opponent's second paragraph is as well.
The same goes with his third.

"My arguments are not all directly copied from Wikipedia."
You are a liar. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

When the definition of "insane" in a medical dictionary is "of, exhibiting, or afflicted with insanity" (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...), the definition of insanity requires application. I admit that I should not have defined insanity with a syntax dictionary in the first round, but this definition is clearly more valid, as insanity should be judged from a medical standpoint rather than the standpoint of an English teacher.

The flaw in my opponent's logic is that having a mental "disorder" does not mean that one is insane, or mentally deranged. The phrase "mental disorder" means "any clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome characterized by the presence of distressing symptoms, impairment of functioning, or significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, or other disability" http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com....

Therefore, the use of "disorder" in the phrase "mental disorder" does not deduce that one's mind is in disorder. Having a mental disorder cannot lead one to conclude that one is insane, as they are still responsible for their actions, or "sane".

My opponent argues that because I conceded that Hitler had Asperger's, Hitler is insane. First, please note that my opponent dropped all other arguments relating to Hitler's possible insanity. As for this argument, all I must do is repeat that social disorders do not make one insane.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA)'s reference committee released a study that argued that courts should not consider personality disorders to be insanity. http://psych.org...

My opponent asks why it matters that Hitler is responsible for his actions. His being responsible for his actions makes him sane according to the medical field. My opponent conceded that Hitler is responsible for his actions by saying "So?"
So, my opponent has conceded the debate.

"I just have a few questions."
Read Mein Kampf. It may answer your questions. http://www.hitler.org...
Fascism and racism have logical rational, and are not signs of insanity.

My opponent's last argument is not sourced, so I will not refute it.

Let's review:
-Hitler may have a personality disorder, but this does not make him insane
-My opponent has conceded that Hitler is responsible for his actions

I urge a CON vote and thank my opponent for this debate.

I thank my opponent for his response.

"You are a liar."
I am not a liar. I came up with the logical argument on my own; I merely utilized my source to familiarize the readers with some background on Hitler.

"When the definition of "insane" in a medical dictionary is "of, exhibiting, or afflicted with insanity" (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com......), the definition of insanity requires application. I admit that I should not have defined insanity with a syntax dictionary in the first round, but this definition is clearly more valid, as insanity should be judged from a medical standpoint rather than the standpoint of an English teacher."
My opponent proposes another definition in the final round. He first defined insane as mentally deranged with dictionary.com, then defined insanity in the second round with a medical definition, and in the previous round correlated insane with the definition of insanity from the medical standpoint. I find it highly unfair that my opponent is constantly changing definitions, and there is really nothing to rebut here.

My opponent now defines mental disorder, but I already defined "mental disorder" several rounds ago, and since my opponent did not disagree with that definition, my original meaning stands and his new definition should not be taken into consideration.

My logical argument deduced the definitions and properly aimed at the resolution. Once again, bringing up new and unfair definitions does not prove a point.

"My opponent asks why it matters that Hitler is responsible for his actions. His being responsible for his actions makes him sane according to the medical field. My opponent conceded that Hitler is responsible for his actions by saying "So?"
So, my opponent has conceded the debate."
Everyone is responsible for their actions, it is obvious. But that simply does not mean one is sane or insane. Insane people still must be held responsible, for every event has someone responsible. I believe we have differing opinions and definitions of responsibility, and since it was not defined, this responsibility argument is irrelevant. I have not conceded the debate.

Let's review:
-I gave a logical argument to show Hitler's insanity. My opponent really did not present a new argument to support his side.
-Responsibility is not relevant. Without clarification, it is in the eyes of the beholder of the definition.

I urge a Pro vote. I thank my opponent and the audience for this debate.