The Instigator
Adam2
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
wrichcirw
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

Hitler was one of, if not, the most evil being in history

Do you like this debate?NoYes-5
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 3 votes the winner is...
wrichcirw
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/5/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,036 times Debate No: 38533
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (3)

 

Adam2

Con

The actions of the English and Danish empires have resulted in more suffering, oppression, massacres, rapes, etc, than any death Hitler took. England and Denmark had slavery, and have always been way more snobby too. lol Jim Crow came from the English. And oppression of blacks in the America is not over, just that now instead of blacks being lynched and openly harassed, many unfortunately live in the tragedy known as housing projects, as pioneered by racists such as Lyndon Johnson. Abraham Lincoln also led vicious wars against the Sioux people. Then you have Danish atrocities against the Inuits in Greenland.
To call Hitler the most evil is a massive mistake.
wrichcirw

Pro

Introduction

I have been mulling taking a CON position on this resolution as well, but for now will first take the opposite, conventional end of the argument, that Hitler was indeed quite evil. As CON did not stipulate otherwise, and since CON instigated this debate, I will assume that CON has burden of proof. Regardless, my rebuttal will more than likely provide enough substantiation to satisfy proof for a PRO position.

CON's arguments are short, relatively unsubstantiated, and overall not very compelling. I will do a line-by-line refutation to demonstrate why.


Rebuttal


R1) "The actions of the English and Danish empires have resulted in more suffering, oppression, massacres, rapes, etc, than any death Hitler took. "

This is simply not true. One hundreds years of global conflict resulted in a lower death toll than what Hitler caused in less than 6 years by initiating WWII. In the 19th century, the death toll worldwide from 100 years of conflict was around 45 million (http://necrometrics.com...); the death toll from WWII was 56 million (http://www.hitler.org...).


R2) "England and Denmark had slavery, and have always been way more snobby too."

Concentration camps also used slave labor. Unlike the English and Danish experiences, the Nazis did not afford slaves the dignity of rising out of slave status; instead they were going to be gassed one way or another.

Jews that were forced to clean the gas chamber that killed millions of their brethren were only prolonging the inevitable. The only reason Henryk Mandelbaum survived this experience is because he deserted during a forced death march to flee from the Red Army. (http://articles.latimes.com...)


R3) "lol Jim Crow came from the English."

The story is American.


R4) "And oppression of blacks in the America is not over, just that now instead of blacks being lynched and openly harassed, many unfortunately live in the tragedy known as housing projects, as pioneered by racists such as Lyndon Johnson."

While the treatment of blacks in America was indeed atrocious, what Hitler accomplished during the 6 years of WWII was far worse in intensity and lack of human dignity, especially in the treatment of Jews. Furthermore, no one man is responsible for American slavery, whereas we can point to Hitler's Mein Kampf to deduce where Nazi Germany got its genocidal tendencies towards Jews.


R5) "Abraham Lincoln also led vicious wars against the Sioux people. Then you have Danish atrocities against the Inuits in Greenland.

To call Hitler the most evil is a massive mistake."

Again, those wars pale in comparison to the death caused by WWII.


Conclusion

Hitler was one of, if not, the most evil being in history because we can attribute much of Nazi ideology and the atrocities that sprang from it to one man - Adolf Hitler. Lincoln's wars against Indians were far less brutal and in comparison far more humanistic. Almost any form of institutionalize slavery ever conceived by man was far less brutal and far more humanistic than what the Nazis perpetrated in camps like Auschwitz, and such camps were the brainchild of Hitler himself. The death that the Nazis under Hitler caused in 6 years of war outweighed all of the death caused by 100 years of global conflict in the 19th century.

I have refuted the entirely of CON's argument, and will await his response.
Debate Round No. 1
Adam2

Con

I respect your constructive criticisms of my arguments, but what I'm trying to argue about here is a few things: (1) oppression is more dehumanizing that death. Here's the thing, you bring up the death toll. True, the death toll of the Nazis was bigger, and it was because it was deliberate death, but here's the thing England and Denmark, plus Sweden (with Finland and parts of Asia, assuming they did conquer Asia), enjoyed torturing their subjects and inflicting pain. In the case of slavery, Danish slavery was said to be the most brutal. True the Nazis murdered, but the English and Danish tortured, oppressed anyone they conquered. I believe that oppression is worse than death. Being chained up, separated from your family and friends, being forced to work for free, and watch your own girl be raped by the master is worse than being sent to the camps to die. Plus the reasons England, Denmark and Sweden did what they did is way more abhorrent than Nazi Germany. There I said it. England and Denmark and Sweden were completely arrogant and snooty in their invasion. They used Christianity to justify taking over another country and subjugating the people against their own will. They also had a lot of hatred towards tomboys and autistic people. Now don't confuse this with Catholicism, as the countries I'm mentioned were Protestant. Nazi Germany was officially Catholic, btw. The Protestants didn't believe in sending missionaries to the countries. They just believed in total elitism. You can say the empires of those countries just oppressed others for the hell of it. Some because of sadism. At least with Nazi Germany, being that England, and you can say Denmark, since they fought against Germany in WWI, screwed them at Versailles in 1919, had a reason to be angry. They just took it out on the wrong group.
England, Denmark and Sweden just thought it was fun to oppress and steal from others.
wrichcirw

Pro

I will proffer another line-by-line rebuttal.


Rebuttal:


R6) "I respect your constructive criticisms of my arguments, but what I'm trying to argue about here is a few things: (1) oppression is more dehumanizing that death. Here's the thing, you bring up the death toll. True, the death toll of the Nazis was bigger, and it was because it was deliberate death, but here's the thing England and Denmark, plus Sweden (with Finland and parts of Asia, assuming they did conquer Asia), enjoyed torturing their subjects and inflicting pain. In the case of slavery, Danish slavery was said to be the most brutal. True the Nazis murdered, but the English and Danish tortured, oppressed anyone they conquered. I believe that oppression is worse than death. Being chained up, separated from your family and friends, being forced to work for free, and watch your own girl be raped by the master is worse than being sent to the camps to die."

CON seems to be under the impression that the Nazis did not oppress or torture their slaves and prisoners. This is again, simply false.

The Nazi human experimentation incidents are something worse than torture or oppression, the latter which at least recognizes some basic level of humanity that the victims had. These Nazi experiments reduced the human being to nothing other than a jumble of nerves, flesh, and blood...no feelings, no thoughts, nothing.

Twins were sewn together to see whether or not the Nazis could create conjoined twins. Live experiments were conducted where victims were inflicted with hypothermia to see whether or not certain temperatures were survivable. All manners of chemical and biological poisons, what we now consider to be weapons of mass destruction, were inflicted upon Nazi slaves and prisoners to determine lethality. This is not only a fate far worse than mere torture or oppression, that these victims were experimented upon without any consideration for their basic humanity makes it a fate far worse than death.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

CON's arguments lack any sort of substantiation and seem to be arguments derived from nothing other than a fertile and biased imagination.


R7) "Plus the reasons England, Denmark and Sweden did what they did is way more abhorrent than Nazi Germany. There I said it. England and Denmark and Sweden were completely arrogant and snooty in their invasion. "

I'm not sure what CON is saying, to which historical period he is referring, or what made the English and Danish "snooty" in whatever invasion he may be discussing. I consider CON to have proffered a non-argument here.


R8) " They used Christianity to justify taking over another country and subjugating the people against their own will. "

Again, what the Nazis did was far worse. They culled, tortured, and enslaved entire peoples whenever and wherever they invaded.


R9) "They also had a lot of hatred towards tomboys and autistic people. "

What makes this worse than what the Nazis did to tens of millions of Jews, Russians, and Gypsies? And who was responsible? We know that Hitler was responsible for this deplorable treatment.


R10) "Now don't confuse this with Catholicism, as the countries I'm mentioned were Protestant. Nazi Germany was officially Catholic, btw. The Protestants didn't believe in sending missionaries to the countries. They just believed in total elitism. You can say the empires of those countries just oppressed others for the hell of it. Some because of sadism. At least with Nazi Germany, being that England, and you can say Denmark, since they fought against Germany in WWI, screwed them at Versailles in 1919, had a reason to be angry. They just took it out on the wrong group."

None of this is relevant to "evil".


R11) "England, Denmark and Sweden just thought it was fun to oppress and steal from others."

I think the only person trying to have fun here is CON, with history. The tone of CON's argument here does not merit a serious response.



Conclusion


CON has dropped the vast majority of my rebuttals from the prior round. CON's arguments in this round do not add much substance; much of it is historically inaccurate, unclear, and irrelevant to the resolution.

Hitler was one of, if not, the most evil being in history because he was directly responsible for most of the human misery that occurred under the Nazi regime.
Debate Round No. 2
Adam2

Con

Forgive me for not responding to your posts the way I should have.
When I said England, Denmark and Sweden were snooty and arrogant, in comparison to Nazi Germany, I meant that the invasions they initiated were completely unprovoked. The Native Americans, the Indians, the Irish, the Scottish, the Inuits did not deserve to go through what they went through. There was no reason for them to England, Denmark or Sweden, other than an arrogant and inflated sense of imperial and moral superiority. Neither did the Germans deserve to go through what they went through in Versailles, which is why I say that the vindictive nature of Germany was pretty justified. And yes, hating on tomboys and autistic people is not okay, which is what many English, Danes and Swedes still do -- hating them. Anyways, English, Danish and Swedish atrocities were unprovoked and uncalled for. The English version of slavery was extremely messed up. So was the Danish. Now in a way, it depends on the country. In the case of England and Denmark, it seems that there was no slave trade. They just ruthlessly went to Africa, and kidnapped as many black people as they could. In the case of Spain, it was a trade, so blacks only have themselves to blame for selling their own people to slavery. Now, having said that. Elitism is evil. As far as Nazi experiments are concerned, you think the English and Danish weren't worse even in that. English and Danish slaveowners thought it was fun to torture their slaves. Here's the thing, when I said Jim Crow came from the English, btw, I said the founders of the Klan were predominantly English in ancestry. They had no reason to treat black people like that. None whatsoever. None. They just killed and tortured people for fun. For fun. That makes it more evil than the Nazis. Hitler, from what it seems, had a bad experience with a Jew. That doesn't excuse the Holocaust. But I can see how it got his heart cold. His Jew doctor apparently neglected his mother, causing her to die. Losing a mother is a horrible thing. In the case of the KKK, it wasn't bad experiences. Again, it was arrogance, a feeling that it was OK to oppress black people and belittle them. Same with the imperialistic countries. No reason. That's why I said it. They were purely evil.
In 1951, Danish authorities in an attempt to steal more from Greenland, engaged in divide and conquer. They seperated Inuit families by force. It was the subject of a film called "Experiment." http://en.wikipedia.org...
wrichcirw

Pro

Another line-by-line:


Rebuttal


R12) "When I said England, Denmark and Sweden were snooty and arrogant, in comparison to Nazi Germany, I meant that the invasions they initiated were completely unprovoked. "

Which invasions? The repeated lack of specificity in CON's arguments make even the most trivial response effective in refuting them.

The English were provoked to invade the 13 colonies by insubordinate action by the colonists. Every country in Europe was in the situation of "fight or die" due to intense competition between rival states. Some, like Poland, did not survive. Others, like England, were able to escape what otherwise would have been imminent destruction at the hands of the Spanish by out-doing their rivals in the New World.

Bottom line, provocation was rampant.


R13) The Native Americans, the Indians, the Irish, the Scottish, the Inuits did not deserve to go through what they went through.


Neither did the colonists. Neither did the English when the Spanish Armada was about to destroy them. Neither did...[etc]


R14) There was no reason for them to [sic] England, Denmark or Sweden, other than an arrogant and inflated sense of imperial and moral superiority.

Every culture without exception has an inflated sense of imperial and moral superiority vis a vis other nations. Without it, they would cease to be a culture or a nation and would be assimilated by the more dominant power. CON's point here is a non-starter.


R15) "Neither did the Germans deserve to go through what they went through in Versailles, which is why I say that the vindictive nature of Germany was pretty justified."

Right, because WWI was not enough justification for the Treaty of Versailles.


R16) "And yes, hating on tomboys and autistic people is not okay, which is what many English, Danes and Swedes still do -- hating them."

To compare this to the Holocaust is absolutely insulting. I ask that conduct be taken against CON for proffering such an irresponsible, insensitive, and borderline trolling remark.


R17) "Anyways, English, Danish and Swedish atrocities were unprovoked and uncalled for."

CON has yet to mention exactly what these atrocities were.


R18) "The English version of slavery was extremely messed up. So was the Danish. Now in a way, it depends on the country. In the case of England and Denmark, it seems that there was no slave trade. They just ruthlessly went to Africa, and kidnapped as many black people as they could. In the case of Spain, it was a trade, so blacks only have themselves to blame for selling their own people to slavery."

Already refuted all of this. What the Nazis did was far worse.


R19) "Now, having said that. Elitism is evil. As far as Nazi experiments are concerned, you think the English and Danish weren't worse even in that. English and Danish slaveowners thought it was fun to torture their slaves. "

CON does not rebut the point. What the Nazis did through live experimentation was far worse in comparison to what the English and Danish did.


R20) "Here's the thing, when I said Jim Crow came from the English, btw, I said the founders of the Klan were predominantly English in ancestry. They had no reason to treat black people like that. None whatsoever. None. They just killed and tortured people for fun. For fun. That makes it more evil than the Nazis."

Right. Because slavery was not integral to the Southern economy. Because it's fun to have to rely upon a large population you fear may revolt and kill you at any time. Because it's fun to keep a gun at arm's length in case a slave tries to kill you.


R21) "Hitler, from what it seems, had a bad experience with a Jew. That doesn't excuse the Holocaust. But I can see how it got his heart cold. His Jew doctor apparently neglected his mother, causing her to die. Losing a mother is a horrible thing."

What is this? Pop psychology of a dead man from CON? This line of argumentation is absolutely and totally irresponsible with zero factual basis.


R22) " In the case of the KKK, it wasn't bad experiences. Again, it was arrogance, a feeling that it was OK to oppress black people and belittle them. Same with the imperialistic countries. No reason. That's why I said it. They were purely evil."

Again, what the Nazis did was far worse. CON does not refute this.


R23) "In 1951, Danish authorities in an attempt to steal more from Greenland, engaged in divide and conquer. They seperated Inuit families by force. It was the subject of a film called "Experiment."

CON is attempting to compare the separation of 22 Inuit children from their families to the well over 6 million Jews that were killed in concentration camps. This line of argumentation, as is most of CON's argument in general, is insulting.



Conclusion


The arguments that CON is proffering are prima facie insignificant compared to the atrocities committed by the Nazis. CON has not refuted any of my points, and instead brings up exceptionally weak and relatively insignificant events to attempt to counter.

Debate Round No. 3
Adam2

Con

First of all you can't have action taken against me because I have an opinion you don't like. Second, about the colonialists who didn't deserve what was to come to them, I wasn't talking about colonialist. I was talking about places which were invaded specifically for empire: basically for looting, stealing, oppressing, like Greenland by the Danish, and India, Scotland and Ireland by the English. As for the Treaty of Versailles, it was the English and Danish who wanted to impose harsh and unfair reparations against Germany. Italy, while an Allied Power in WWI, was not vindictive against the Germans, and even didn't agree with the terms, so they became an enemy of the Allies, as a result. The whole tomboys and autistic people thing, yes, Germany was more accepting of them than England or Denmark, at that time, and even today. English atrocities? Here. The French-Indian War, atrocities against German and Italian civilians in WWII, the Raj in India, Denmark's oppression of Greenland, Denmark's slave colony in the West Indies, the brutal slave revolt that got Denmark to give up its bulls--t and finally free the slaves, not because Denmark did it out of compassion, dividing Germany into West and East was an English idea.
"Right. Because slavery was not integral to the Southern economy. Because it's fun to have to rely upon a large population you fear may revolt and kill you at any time. Because it's fun to keep a gun at arm's length in case a slave tries to kill you." Oh you gotta be kidding me, you mean to tell me if you were a slave, and a f--king slavemaster was oppressing you, you wouldn't want to rebel and fight for your freedom? No offense, but that sounded pro-slavery. I think slavemasters deserved any violence they got. Good for the slaves who wanted to revolt. The only thing I do agree with you is that slaves were chosen not because of their race, but because they, and other darker skinned people, were more resistant against the sun, and there was no sunscreen yet, so obviously white people couldn't do that work. That doesn't make it right.
wrichcirw

Pro

Line by line:



Rebuttal


R24) "First of all you can't have action taken against me because I have an opinion you don't like."

I'm not going to be acting against you, but voters probably will, given the absolutely atrocious level of argumentation you have proffered.


R25) "Second, about the colonialists who didn't deserve what was to come to them, I wasn't talking about colonialist. I was talking about places which were invaded specifically for empire: basically for looting, stealing, oppressing, like Greenland by the Danish, and India, Scotland and Ireland by the English."

CON ignores the argumentation I brought up in #R12. Most European countries attempted to attain empire because without it, they would have been at the mercy of other powers. Eventually, they would have lost their standing, their sovereignty, and their society - they themselves would have been ripe for "looting, stealing, oppressing".

Many of the nations that the European nations conquered were themselves empires built on conquering neighbors. India, the Aztecs, even the Hawaiians in the Sandwich Islands were all results of empire attained through victorious armed conflict.

How CON's line of thinking is relevant to the resolution escapes me. How were any of these attempts at empire more evil than what Hitler did? Did any of these empires commit atrocities that rivaled the Holocaust?


R26) "As for the Treaty of Versailles, it was the English and Danish who wanted to impose harsh and unfair reparations against Germany. Italy, while an Allied Power in WWI, was not vindictive against the Germans, and even didn't agree with the terms, so they became an enemy of the Allies, as a result. "

Right. Because France didn't. Because France was not scared out of its mind that the Germans would invade again. Because France did not invade sections of Germany between WWI and WWII in order to exact retribution against Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org...). CON's selectivity in singling out the English and the Danish is comical.

Regardless, how does any of this justify the Holocaust?


R27) "The whole tomboys and autistic people thing, yes, Germany was more accepting of them than England or Denmark, at that time, and even today."

Again, to compare this to the Holocaust is absolutely insulting.


R28) "English atrocities? Here. The French-Indian War, atrocities against German and Italian civilians in WWII, the Raj in India, Denmark's oppression of Greenland, Denmark's slave colony in the West Indies, the brutal slave revolt that got Denmark to give up its bulls--t and finally free the slaves, not because Denmark did it out of compassion, dividing Germany into West and East was an English idea."

CON is just listing major conflicts in which the English and Danish engaged. CON does not make the case that these conflicts were more evil than the Holocaust, nor does CON pin responsibility of these conflicts on one man. In order for CON to have a case, he needs to point out how these conflicts (which he did not bring up until after 4 rounds of argumentation) compare to the Holocaust in level of evil, and that one man was responsible for these conflicts to the same degree that Hitler was directly responsible for Nazi atrocities.

As it is, CON currently does not have a case.


R29) ""Right. Because slavery was not integral to the Southern economy. Because it's fun to have to rely upon a large population you fear may revolt and kill you at any time. Because it's fun to keep a gun at arm's length in case a slave tries to kill you." Oh you gotta be kidding me, you mean to tell me if you were a slave, and a f--king slavemaster was oppressing you, you wouldn't want to rebel and fight for your freedom? No offense, but that sounded pro-slavery. I think slavemasters deserved any violence they got. Good for the slaves who wanted to revolt."

CON is not following his own argument. CON thought that having slaves was "fun". I am pointing out that slavery was an economic necessity for the plantation economies of the South, and that plantation owners feared for their lives if the slaves ever revolted. By saying that CON also thinks that slaves would revolt in this situation, CON is contradicting himself, that slavery is NOT "fun" and that there are real risks involved in maintaining the institution of slavery.

How is this discussion relevant to the resolution? How do any of CON's arguments up to this point actually compare historical events to the horror that was the Holocaust?


R30) "The only thing I do agree with you is that slaves were chosen not because of their race, but because they, and other darker skinned people, were more resistant against the sun, and there was no sunscreen yet, so obviously white people couldn't do that work. That doesn't make it right."

I never made this point, so to say that CON agrees with PRO on it is a lie. This is clear proof that CON is trolling. How does the lack of sunscreen in pre-modern times compare to the Holocaust?



Conclusion


I am waiting for this debate to end. CON has not made any clear connections between his arguments and the evils that occurred during the Nazi regime. He has a laundry list of insignificant detail (tomboys?? sunscreen??) that insult and denigrate the significance of the Holocaust in regards to how we perceive evil in society today. His arguments are irresponsible, irrelevant to the resolution, and are IMHO a waste of time and space.

CON has dropped nearly all of my points, and seems to think that by bringing up new points without defending his prior assertions, this somehow makes his case stronger. It does not...it makes rebutting his newer points even easier, as the debate has already established a precedence in that CON's points will invariably be rebutted, thereby destroying CON's credibility.
Debate Round No. 4
Adam2

Con

In all fairness let's talk about evil being in history.
And when I said about slavery being fun, I said that slaveowners thought it was fun to oppress others, but that's besides the point, thus making it more evil than Hitler.

William Pitt the Elder -- evil man who boasted about England's greatness and caused misery for those who tried to conquer. Wartime general during the French-Indian conflict, he raped Native women. Rape is worse than death.
William Pitt the Younger -- his son, conquered Ireland, changed a relatively peaceful trading relationship with outright conquest
Abraham Lincoln -- led war against the Sioux
Al Gore Sr -- caused misery for many blacks with Jim Crow laws
Nathan Bedford Forrest -- founder of the Ku Klux Klan
Lyndon Johnson -- created welfare to destroy blacks
wrichcirw

Pro

First a quick line-by-line rebuttal before I roundly condemn CON's arguments:


Rebuttal


R31) "In all fairness let's talk about evil being in history.
And when I said about slavery being fun, I said that slaveowners thought it was fun to oppress others, but that's besides the point, thus making it more evil than Hitler."

CON does not contest that Hitler condoned slavery during the Nazi regime. CON does not contest that Hitler's version of slavery was far more cruel, far more demeaning, and far more oppressive than any instance of slavery seen in all of human history.


R32) For the rest, only one statement need be made to refute each and every example that CON has proffered:

"William Pitt the Elder -- evil man who boasted about England's greatness and caused misery for those who tried to conquer. Wartime general during the French-Indian conflict, he raped Native women. Rape is worse than death."
Compare to the Holocaust. The crimes committed pale in comparison to Hitler's.

"William Pitt the Younger -- his son, conquered Ireland, changed a relatively peaceful trading relationship with outright conquest"
Compare to the Holocaust. The crimes committed pale in comparison to Hitler's.

"Abraham Lincoln -- led war against the Sioux"
Compare to the Holocaust. The crimes committed pale in comparison to Hitler's.

"Al Gore Sr -- caused misery for many blacks with Jim Crow laws"
Compare to the Holocaust. The crimes committed pale in comparison to Hitler's.

"Nathan Bedford Forrest -- founder of the Ku Klux Klan"
Compare to the Holocaust. The crimes committed pale in comparison to Hitler's.

"Lyndon Johnson -- created welfare to destroy blacks "
Compare to the Holocaust. The crimes committed pale in comparison to Hitler's.


Closing

CON's case has been irresponsible, insulting, and ill-informed. CON believes that slavery evolved from the lack of sunscreen. CON believes that 22 Inuit children separated from their families somehow compares to the over 6 million Jews that were gassed in Nazi concentration camps. CON believes that discriminating against tomboys somehow makes a society more evil than committing genocidal murder. I ask that conduct be taken into consideration against CON, as his arguments when compared to the atrocity that is the Holocaust denigrate the significance of this evil in the affairs of humanity. The only reasonable explanation for CON's line of argumentation is that he is trolling, and hard. This debate was not set up as a troll debate.


CON has dropped nearly every concrete assertion I have made in this debate:

1) CON does not contest that Nazi human experiments were far more grotesque, cruel, dehumanizing, and oppressive than anything seen in human history.

2) CON does not contest that the Nazis condoned slavery, and because of the inevitable death and destruction that was the slave's future in Nazi society, their lives (and deaths) were far more tragic than anything ever seen in any instance of institutionalized slavery recorded in human history.

3) CON does not contest that every case he has brought forth falls far short of the evils perpetrated during the Nazi regime.

4) CON does not contest that Hitler was responsible for conceiving most, if not all of the evils perpetrated by the Nazis.

5) CON does not contest that the violent death Hitler caused by instigating WWII was more than all of the violent death seen in the entire world from 1800-1900.


Therefore:

Hitler was one of, if not, the most evil being in history.

Vote PRO. Thank you.


(post-script): I would thank the audience for reading this debate, but I do not think anyone would benefit from CON's line of argumentation. I would instead ask that the audience demand an apology from CON for wasting everyone's time.


Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Adam2 3 years ago
Adam2
They see me debating, they hatin'
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
Apparently CON likes a long, painful, and tortuous death.
Posted by JimmyRusltler 3 years ago
JimmyRusltler
Why such a long voting period????
Posted by bwilkins369 3 years ago
bwilkins369
This debate is ridiculous
Posted by Adam2 4 years ago
Adam2
Pardon me England and Denmark
because both fought against Germany. Denmark had a lesser known role since their role in the Allies were not as big, but when push came to shove both countries wanted to destroy Germany. Hell German civilians were screwed by KKK Danish hospitals who wouldn't even give them medication. They just let them rot.
Posted by Adam2 4 years ago
Adam2
@StizRyuzaki
Personally I blame the English and Danish for screwing Germany and causing all that misery.
Posted by StizRyuzaki 4 years ago
StizRyuzaki
I do think that what Hitler did was one of the biggest atrocities in human history, I put a lot of blame on his father leaving his family. Hitler was an aspiring artists and wanted to go to art school. Soon after his father lefts, Hitler's mother became ill and forced him to drop out of school. After she died, he left for Germany. He was poor and homeless. He saw all the others in Germany who were similar. The only ones with money were the Jewish bank owners. He saw the Nazis and decided to join and such. They found the Jews as an easy scape goat and used that on their basis accompanied by Hitler's persuasive articulate skills. If his father left, he wouldn't have to drop out of school, he wouldn't have gone to Germany, he wouldn't have joined the Nazis, and WWII most likely wouldn't happen. But that is just my opinion and speculation.
Posted by Beddytear 4 years ago
Beddytear
Although I agree that Hitler disgustingly evil. I do not think he was the most evil human being on this planet ever! However, A lot of people when asked who the worst person in the world is, will reply 'Hitler'. It gets rather boring after a while, and again I know Hitler was inhuman but there has been people like him in the past and will be people like him in the future. It's rather mental how we never hear or see in the media the fact that Barack Obama is killing innocent children and families with drones everyday.
Posted by michy25 4 years ago
michy25
I think hitler is not the most evil man on earth
There were those men even before hitlers time that have done worse and has made more history in our timeline . There were men in our long timeline that have destroyed not jus a certain race but everyone who was willing to challenge him or just because a certain person walking past you gave the wrong look they were getting killed off.
showing that there were evil men out there willing to kill just cause they felt like it .
While hitler gave order to kill a certain kind and still kept by him someone or a group of people.
evill always works best alone.
Posted by makhdoom5 4 years ago
makhdoom5
other wise how can i person can be leader of 2 hundred thousands men within so short period of time.
and they all supported him and in a way they can give life for him.
he was born leader.
he could be leader of good.
but things dont go in good direction all the time.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
Adam2wrichcirwTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Too biased in pro's favor to cast a real vote...
Vote Placed by bsh1 4 years ago
bsh1
Adam2wrichcirwTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I think this is one of those debates that just shouldn't have happened--can't we just take it as read that Hitler was evil and move on? I'm with Pro--this debate was a waste of time and space. Nonetheless, I did not factor my personal bias into the decision, largely because Pro gave Con a shellacking anyway. Pro just had a better line of argumentation than did Con, as well as better spelling. I felt Con also got too sarcastic at points for my taste. Thus, conduct, s/g, and argument points to Pro. I applaud wrichcirw for taking on this debate, and hereby grant him the win. And, as a side note, I am happy to have now cast my 100th vote here on DDO!
Vote Placed by Gandhi 4 years ago
Gandhi
Adam2wrichcirwTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I think it's rather ludicrous that Con uses the English and Danes as examples of the most evil beings in history as opposed to Hitler. Both of these are countries and at one time empires, but not beings. Queen Mary I would have been a good example, another genocidal ruler like Hitler, but alas Con did not provide an example of anyone who was could be more evil than Hitler.