The Instigator
Patriotgames8
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
MisterDeku
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

Is Nazi ideology still valid today?

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...
MisterDeku
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/26/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 970 times Debate No: 36021
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Patriotgames8

Con

I see many members on this site declare themselves members of the US Nazi party, (Oxymoron), with emphasis on the "moron". I am a Christian, have lived in Germany, speak German and have an intricate knowledge/university degree re: the history of the NSDAP/Hitler. I will crush through my intellect any "pro" Nazis that choose to meet their "Stalingrad".
MisterDeku

Pro

I'm going to preface this debate by stating that I am not a Nazi. I, like my opponent, believe that what Hitler and the Nazis did in WWII was the epitome of evil. I fully believe that anyone who would choose to be a nazi is a hateful and ignorant person.

I'll also go so far to state that any dogmatic ideologue is not a force of good. But that will come into deeper play later on.

That said, nazis have the right to be hateful and ingorant. No matter how insufferable this may be.

I won't use this round to make arguments despite the fact the Con hasn't prohibited such an action. However I will provide some observations.

First, we see that the Burden of Proof is on the Con. It's not my job to show that Nazi Ideology is still valid today, it is my opponent's burden to prove that it is not.

Second, since the resolution states 'still valid' we must assume that at one point this ideology was valid.f

Finally as this is an academic debate, we can't make assumptions about the nature of the world, people or morality. Unless something is logically or empirically established in the round, we can't use it as a meter to vote on.

Thanks to Con for making this debate. I look forward to his opening arguments
Debate Round No. 1
Patriotgames8

Con

In my opening argument I stated "I will crush through my intellect any "pro" Nazis"

Pro stated : " I'm going to preface this debate by stating that I am not a Nazi." (Con scratching head).

How can we debate if we agree Pro?


Then Pro states " I'll also go so far to state that any dogmatic ideologue is not a force of good..."

Again I (Con) agree.


After that Pro says " That said, nazis have the right to be hateful and ingorant. (Sic) "

I (Con ) agree once again, within the USA anyway. 1st amendment right, however, a public display of this hate or even the swastika is forbidden in Germany as it may cause psychological distress to others. Remember that although the German constitution is modeled after that of the US it is much "younger" and therefore a bit more enlightened, perhaps.


Then Pro writes " Second, since the resolution states 'still valid' we must assume that at one point this ideology was valid." I do not debate semantics. Google definition/example:"The meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text: "such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff".

As to the question of Nazi ideology being valid at any time I refer Pro to: http://books.google.com.tw...


Pro also stated: "Finally as this is an academic debate, we can't make assumptions about the nature of the world, people or morality."

I have made no such assumptions...I simply posed a question for DEBATE.


Pro also says " Unless something is logically or empirically established in the round, we can't use it as a meter to vote on."

If you feel this way why did you accept the debate?


Finally Pro ends with "Thanks to Con for making this debate. I look forward to his opening arguments"

I will end by thanking Pro for the remarks but as witnessed by your own comments, I see no use in wasting any more of your/my time.

I will re-post the argument with a change to the title/semantics and opening argument. I thank Con for teaching me to be more specific. Will any true NEO-NAZIS please step forward? Or is there hopefully none of you left.
MisterDeku

Pro

My opponent hasn't presented an argument yet as to why Nazi ideology is not still valid. You can't assume something is true in the scope of an academic debate until it has been established in that round, so as it stands the con is winning the debate by default.

Next, I accepted this round despite not being a Nazi myself because I wanted to take the challenge. A good portion of the members on this site debate for sport, not to defend their personal beliefs. That is exactly what I do when I debate. If I believe I have ground to argue, I'll debate any resolution just for the heck of it. Because at the end of the day, debate is a fun thing to do.

I don't mind if My opponent starts to debate in the next round despite having wasted this one. I really want to have this debate with him and have the challenge of defending such a pro-skewed resolution. But unless Con actually makes an argument, I won't get that chance.

That said, the floor is yours Con.
Debate Round No. 2
Patriotgames8

Con

In his opening round PRO stated:
" It's not my job to show that Nazi Ideology is still valid today."

CON: Are we still playing semantics..if so, see my last round.


In his second round PRO states:
"My opponent hasn't presented an argument yet as to why Nazi ideology is not still valid.."

CON: It's called hindsight 20/20, last I checked. The death of over 20 million people not evidence enough?

I also refereed PRO to the below link and it seems he did not read that info. I invite the voters to do so.

I stated last round.."As to the question of Nazi ideology being valid at any time I refer Pro to: http://books.google.com.tw......


As stated previously I want to debate a "True believer" in NAZI ideology and am not just in this for a discussion with someone in agreement with my basic premise. That being said, I appreciate Con's love of the sport of debate. Unfortunately, I was looking for someone who disagreed with National Socialistic dogma. I shall be more careful next time when posting my debate heading..as stated in my last post:
"I will re-post the argument with a change to the title/semantics and opening argument. I thank Con for teaching me to be more specific. Will any true NEO-NAZIS please step forward? "


Thank you CON. And once again I am truly sorry, for the both of us, that you accepted this debate.



MisterDeku

Pro

Blah!

Con isn't even trying. I don't feel like dealing with this anymore. I forfeit.
Debate Round No. 3
Patriotgames8

Con

As I stated earlier, I am not into debating a 'devil's advocate" and agree wholeheartedly with your decision Pro. We agree too often and on too many points to hold the type of debate I had hoped for.
I shall never place a question mark at the end of a debate topic.
PS I will leave it to the voters to decide if I was "trying". I was Pro.
It is a shame this degraded into a "Blah!" response from you! That's what I would expect from a child
not someone of your evident intelligence. I look forward to an adult debate and shall rephrase my topic. Thank you for your time. Unfortunately, it seems we have wasted both of ours. What a shame!
MisterDeku

Pro

MisterDeku forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Patriotgames8

Con

Patriotgames8 forfeited this round.
MisterDeku

Pro

MisterDeku forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Duncan 3 years ago
Duncan
Who do you think will take this debate? Really?
Posted by Patriotgames8 3 years ago
Patriotgames8
The Nazi party is not allowed in Germany and I believe Russia..however it is protected under the 1st amendment to the US Constitution..believe it or not...as it should be no matter how offensive
Posted by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
Yes. There's no law against it at all. People won't like you at all, though.
Posted by Piccini 3 years ago
Piccini
You can be openly Nazi in the US? (I'm not an US citizen, hence my legal doubt)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Patriotgames8MisterDekuTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by Nataliella 3 years ago
Nataliella
Patriotgames8MisterDekuTied
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: Conduct: Pro, because Con used ad hominem arguments, saying he couldn't debate if he didn't agree with his stance. S&G: Tied. Arguments: Pro, because Pro actually presented them. Con didn't do anything but say Pro was unwelcome in the debate. Sources: Neither used sources. Tied.