The Instigator
CrimsonArchitect
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
Ragnar
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

-Nazi Victory-

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 4 votes the winner is...
Ragnar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/11/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 901 times Debate No: 34700
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

CrimsonArchitect

Pro

-Rules-

We will be debating purely Philosophically on the Pro's and Con's of a Nazi Victory. Pro will debate the benefits of the topic, as Con will do the opposite.

Enitial Round is accepting the challenge.

Use common sense, and practical language.
Ragnar

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
CrimsonArchitect

Pro


Let’s Begin... I’m sure we all have an idea/concept somewhat of the degree of impact that Nazi Germany had upon Human history. I find myself most likely to agree with the mass majority of you about the atrocities committed by this regime; I feel your sympathies, but I trust in the Human endeavour. Conflict is merely the progression of change against the smouldering ash of ignorance, either side can claim civility; as we know history is written by it’s victors, and acceptance comes like an eventuality over time- because time heals all wounds.



War - “a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare,as by land, sea, or air.”

http://dictionary.reference.com...


Like the polar side of love, war is indifference. Disagreement at it’s finest, a human specialty. It has plagued us since our well respected beginnings, always present. Nothing, not even time could satisfy the fire of conflict between our fellow man; because the fuel was always present, indifference. This benights the un-unified nations, who seek no common ground with foreign cultures. Leading to forced unification, and elimination of the culture or the source of said indifference. My theory is what if Nazi Germany had it’s way? Eliminated every other race from the face of the Earth, destroyed all culture besides German; conquered all land, and people. Providing a single nation to dictate the will of the masses, the benefits would be extraordinary.


Try not to refute my argument because it doesn’t offer a perfect solution, disagreements will always be present. But the solution for wide scale war was apparent, the only solution; Unification under one dictation.
Ragnar

Con

Pro has asked his claim not be directly refuted, thus my argument is standalone against a globalized Third Reich.

One race does not prevent racial genocide

In Rwanda blacks committed genocide against blacks, in the name of race [1]. The groups in question were often cousins of each other, with only difference being if they identified their ancestors as hunters or farmers (it was only within the last century that the names ceased to be interchangeable if you switched profession).

Nazis kept killing more groups
In the few short years of the holocaust, the death toll is estimated between 11-13 million assorted people, around half being Jewish. Yet more and more groups kept being added, the further Hitler's new religion spread [2].

A religion based on slavery and killing people, would have a hard time ceasing to kill people. There would always be another reason, perhaps getting as desperate for spilling blood as 'Your grandfather did not have the right eye color.'

"First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communists.
Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me." -Martin Niemöller [3]


War fails to bring lasting peace

Alexander The Great conquered the known world. This did not reign in a lasting peace, instead the chaos of war resumed promptly with his passing. There are many other examples of massive areas being conquered, and within those areas peace did not reign for long. The Third Reich would fare little different.

Considering the limited manpower in Germany, their allies would be key to victory. With several ethnic groups and languages among them, new cultural splintering would be assured. Even the United States went it war against itself, with as petty a thing as cotton being the catalyst [4].

The Web of Life
Genetic diversity is important for every species. Not even getting into the inbreeding problems, the future is uncertain, and diversity is our best way to survive unexpected changes. Do we really want a single virus to be capable of wiping us out? [5]

Neo Nazis
We cannot fully envision the world under debate, but we can get modern glimpses of it through the Neo Nazi movement (mirrored by Black Panthers and others). Its contributions to society (Sea Monkeys), do not even equal the property damage after they have gatherings and trash cities (including targeting White owned businesses, everyones cars, etcetera).

Sources:
[1] http://history.emory.edu...
[2] http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...
[3] http://www.martin-niemoeller-stiftung.de...
[4]
https://www.asme.org...
[5] http://www.nps.gov...

Debate Round No. 2
CrimsonArchitect

Pro

CrimsonArchitect forfeited this round.
Ragnar

Con

Sadly Pro is MIA. Thus extend all arguments.

Closing remarks:
I ask that people not vote on conduct. Pro only missed one round, and was brave for starting such controversial debate.
If anyone has any questions about Nazis, please ask as I am very knowledgeable having been raised by members of a Neo Nazi cult.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
@CrimsonArchitect: I hope you're doing ok. Oddly I remember seeing this very question raised in a sci-fi show called 'Space: Above and Beyond.' If you ever get some time, I'd love to know what your basic rebuttal to my round 2 would have been.
Posted by CrimsonArchitect 3 years ago
CrimsonArchitect
Cool.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Sorry for the delay, I'll post my argument first thing in the morning.
Oddly I had the outline for my round2 in my head before accepting the challenge, and yet I've been very busy the last couple days.
Posted by CrimsonArchitect 3 years ago
CrimsonArchitect
Rhett Butler I have madness to my method haha- I appreciate this topic, and seek the challenge. I"m not ignorant to popular opinion, or history. But I do think I could win this, I"ve thought about it for awhile.
Posted by CrimsonArchitect 3 years ago
CrimsonArchitect
As stated, the debate is completely scenario oriented. We merely debate the obvious with intuition, and educated inferences. Yes, we can say Germany has practically taken the known world; seeing the fact everyone who deemed themselves an enemy of the Third-Reich was most likely thee only forces on the planet that could negate the rise, and globalization of the Nazi Regime. Without the Allied forces we can safely assume the Nazi Empire would find little resistance in their future campaigns, and seek total totalitarianship of all world governments. We would be debating the Pro"s, and Con"s of this,"Alternate History".
Posted by Rhett_Butler 3 years ago
Rhett_Butler
You have a burden of proof for a topic that involves the use of concentration camps throughout Europe, the murder of non-combatants, vigilant racism, and the American education system lined up against you.

Normally, I would say that it would be hard to say that National Socialism surviving to thrive is good. However, since the result of the debate involves the popular vote, and many individuals on here vote out of opinion-you're going to need to make some compelling arguments for people to even listen to you.

Just saying.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Ok this is alternate history... Are we talking Hitler ruling the world, or merely them not outright losing the war (Germany increasing in size plenty, but not spreading farther than the limits of claimed land during the war)?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by AgentRocks 3 years ago
AgentRocks
CrimsonArchitectRagnarTied
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:61 
Reasons for voting decision: It can tell.
Vote Placed by amey 3 years ago
amey
CrimsonArchitectRagnarTied
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 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: Con wins the debate hands down since pro forfeited the last round and did not have proper spelling and grammar.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 3 years ago
ConservativePolitico
CrimsonArchitectRagnarTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided good coherent arguments. Pro didn't present any real argument at all. Con get's conduct due to Pro's FF and Pro's idiotic request that his arguments not be directly refuted. Con gets sources for using meaningful sources in support of his argument in which he showed why a Nazi victory would have been undesirable. Easy win.
Vote Placed by someone123456789 3 years ago
someone123456789
CrimsonArchitectRagnarTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:43 
Reasons for voting decision: I hate nazis. There evil.