It is reasonable to argue that the JC Penney Hilter tea pot scandal was intentional.
1. No semantic or loophole arguments; I'm new and it's not interesting to me to argue over the likely mistakes in my setup.
2. First round is for acceptance, no new arguments in the last round
3. I hope you will laugh at the meme but this is not a troll debate?
If they burn it down, it's for punishment.
Thus it is wrong.
Thanks to Average Atheist for accepting. In the end many arguments arrive at a Hitler comparison so this argument is certainly and reasonably of interest to the debate.org community.
Definitely reasonable: It is reasonable to argue virtually any point provided that the argument is sensible. The debate title could be rephrased, “is it possible for a reasonable person to argue that the Hitler teapot story was created deliberately?”
Stirring Controversy to push products is a common business strategy According to Forbes although it may not be a good strategy, “Some brands make a point of stirring controversy — it’s a tired old strategy in the fashion apparel business.” 
The attention JC Penney received created additional web traffic and sales. The ‘Hitler teapot’ sold out Tuesday while 30 other teapots in the JC Penney line did not . The increased web traffic and attention the brand has received is certainly helpful. This is especially true at a time when the struggling company has reversed its strategy back to a large emphasis on sales and discounts.
Nazi pot designer, Michael Graves, stands to benefit as well: This guy has to wake up every morning and design teapots for JC Penney pining for a career change. He could even have acted independently. The teapot is featured on the cover of his website and is still in the incriminating ‘Hitler-esque’ pose while JC Penney has changed the angle on there website.
Why a Billboard? JC Penney is a giant retail store with thousands of products. Why on earth would they chose to feature their Godwin’s Law tea pot as the sole product on their billboard at a time when the company desperately needs some attention? It is perfectly reasonable to argue that the billboard was designed to give the company a little press at a time when they need it.
My opponent defends Hitler teapots, do you really want to side with a potential Nazi?
In a debate like this it is almost bad form NOT to compare your opponent to Hitler so con should not take offence. Even on the off chance that my opponent is, in fact, in love with Hitler do you want to join him in his cause? In his opening statements con indicated that it is characteristic of Jews to burn down buildings. Nazi sympathize much?
Rebuttal: While it is true that a reaction from the Jewish community could pose a problem for the company any response would only provide more publicity. Active violence or even legal action is very unlikely. An overtly anti-Semitic bill board from Wodka Vodka generated a fair amount of press, public denouncements and controversy but not even a threat of violence. 
Just-Your-Average-Atheist forfeited this round.
Fair enough. The Con argument is very difficult to support. If you want to present mainly hilarious or entertaining arguments I will attempt to respond in kind. Just looking to understand and enjoy the site.
Hugs and Rhinoceros,
No problem Rhino. I'll call it a tie if you compare me to Hitler in this final round :) see you next time.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|