The Instigator
WillRiley
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points

Nazis adhered to Christian Principles

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 5 votes the winner is...
WillRiley
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,831 times Debate No: 57064
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (55)
Votes (5)

 

WillRiley

Con

First round is acceptance. I hope that you will accept, and that this can be a productive and civil debate. Thank you.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Pro

I accept this debate challenge issued by my opponent.

My opponent has assured me that he will not use the "No True Christian Fallacy" as such I am sure this debate will be highly instructive.

Now I hand the debate back to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
WillRiley

Con

Now, I have agreed not to all of the typical "no true christian would do that" arguments. However, since all Christian principles come from the bible ( THE NEW TESTAMENT, NOT THE OLD TESTAMENT), I am allowed to quote it in my argument and show that Christian principles were not only not followed by Nazis, but in many were directly disobeyed. I would like to begin with this quote from the bible, this is Jesus speaking:
"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
Now, if all of the Christian law hinges on those two commandments, ask yourself, were Nazis following Christian Principles?
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Pro

Thanks my opponent.

Now let me address a core issue. My opponent has committed the No True Christian Fallacy in the first round of this debate when he says. "Now, if all of the Christian law hinges on those two commandments, ask yourself, were Nazis following Christian Principles?"

As such my opponent concedes the debate. However, I will look past this digression if, and only if, my opponent does not pursue this line of reasoning again. This rule was agreed upon before the debate. I also ask that voters disregard my opponents opening round statement as it was a clear violation of the rules.

But to elaborate further that the Nazis did in fact adhere to Christian principles I will here cite some speeches and communications by Hitler about the Nazi party. I have bolded the important parts.(1)
"We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: the common interest before self-interest. "

"The fact that the Vatican is concluding a treaty with the new Germany means the acknowledgement of the National Socialist state by the Catholic Church. This treaty shows the whole world clearly and unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism [Nazism] is hostile to religion is a lie."

"While we destroyed the Centre Party, we have not only brought thousands of priests back into the Church, but to millions of respectable people we have restored their faith in their religion and in their priests. The union of the Evangelical Church in a single Church for the whole Reich, the Concordat with the Catholic Church, these are but milestones on the road which leads to the establishment of a useful relation and a useful co operation between the Reich and the two Confessions"

"The National Socialist Movement has wrought this miracle. If Almighty God granted success to this work, then the Party was His instrument. "

To win this debate, my opponent has to prove these statements of Hitler regarding the Nazi Party false.

Again I ask my opponent to not use the No True Christian Fallacy in the remaining rounds.

I hand the debate back to my opponent.

(1) http://www.nobeliefs.com...
Debate Round No. 2
WillRiley

Con

Ok. So in your argument, your sources for saying that Hitler was a Christian come from his speeches, which, as you know, were used to try to gather support from his people. If you want to argue on whether or not Hitler lied a lot, lets take this into account: Amongst the accusations which are directed against Germany in the so called democracies is the charge that the National Socialist State is hostile to religion. In answer to that charge I should like to make before the German people the following solemn declaration: 1. No one in Germany has in the past been persecuted because of his religious views, nor will anyone in the future be so persecuted..."

Now, in saying that, since there was a Christian majority in Germany at the time, would it make sense for Hitler to isolate this group? Hitler is know to be one of the greatest deceivers in all history. Hitler himself has not said many things on the matter of his religion, but some of his close officials have-

"Once I have settled my other problem," [Hitler] occasionally declared, "I'll have my reckoning with the church. I'll have it reeling on the ropes" But Bormann did not want this reckoning postponed [...] he would take out a document from his pocket and begin reading passages from a defiant sermon or pastoral letter. Frequently Hitler would become so worked up... and vowed to punish the offending clergyman eventually... That he could not immediately retaliate raised him to a white heat...
" Extract from Inside the Third Reich, the memoir of Albert Speer

The Fuhrer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race. This can be seen in the similarity of their religious rites. Both (Judaism and Christianity) have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end they will be destroyed. The Fuhrer is a convinced vegetarian on principle.
" Goebbels Diaries, 29 December 1939
According to Marshall Dill, one of the greatest challenges the Nazi state faced in its effort to "eradicate Christianity in Germany or at least subjugate it to their general world outlook" was that the Nazis could not justifiably connect German faith communities to the corruption of the old regime, Weimar having no close connection to the churches. Because of the long history of Christianity in Germany, Hitler could not attack Christianity as openly as he did Judaism, Communism or other political opponents. The list of Nazi affronts to and attacks on the Catholic Church is long. The attacks tended not to be overt, but were still dangerous; believers were made to feel that they were not good Germans and their leaders were painted as treasonous and contemptible. The state removed crucifixes from the walls of Catholic classrooms and replaced it with a photo of the Fuhrer.
Not only was Adolf Hitler non-Christian, he was Anti-Christian. I would like to also include this quote from Albert Einstein.

Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly. - Albert Einstein
Also, I would like to ask you something. If I am not allowed to say what I have said about Christian principles, then how are we to debate? If I am not allowed to contrast what the Bible says and what Nazis did then how can I prove whether they were following the Bible? My only other choice is to continue with demonstrating that Nazism was anti-Christian.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Pro


Thanks Con.



You said in the previous round my sources say that “Hitler was a Christian come from his speeches, which, as you know, were used to try to gather support from his people”. In fact this is not what my sources say at all.



My sources are specifically Hitler (the Nazi Part leader) talking about the Nazi Party. These sources have nothing to do with Hitlers personal views they have to do with the Nazi Party. The quotes you mentioned from Goebbels, Dill and Speer have to do potentially with Hitlers personal views and not with the Nazi Party. I mention potentially, as this is not the debate topic whether Hitler was a Christian, Jew, Muslim or whatever. This debate is explicitly about the fact that the Nazi Party was adhering to Christian Principles.



As such my sources from round 2 remain unchallenged.


In fact according to my opponents qoute if anything the Nazi Party was very accepting of Christianity and religions in general. “Amongst the accusations which are directed against Germany in the so called democracies is the charge that the National Socialist State is hostile to religion. In answer to that charge I should like to make before the German people the following solemn declaration: 1. No one in Germany has in the past been persecuted because of his religious views, nor will anyone in the future be so persecuted...



Additionally, at this point I would also like to point out that my opponent has attributed a quote to Einstein which in fact is not an Einstein quote at all according to Barbara Wolff at the Einstein Archives in Jerusalem.(1)



As such my opponent has revealed nothing in his third round argument to enforce the idea that the Nazi Party did not adhere to Christian Principles.



I now hand the debate back to my opponent.



(1) http://www.skeptic.com...

Debate Round No. 3
WillRiley

Con

Now, you have tried to turn a quote around on me but you are forgetting something very, very important: The Holocaust. That was my point. Hitler was a liar, because he said there was not religious persecution Germany, which, I'm sure all of you voters know is a blatant lie. I would also like to remind that voter that you have shown now evidence of any Christian principals actually being practiced or used. Now, I'm not using the no true Christian thing, just letting everyone know, you have not listed any Christian principles practiced by Nazis. In fact, the only evidence you have so far are the words of one of history's greatest liars.

Also, you talk about how your sources have nothing to do with Hitler's personal views, just with those of the Nazi Party. Now ask yourself this; Since Hitler was brutal dictator who did not want any views that are contradictory to his in his entire nation, why would his own party be able to have view different that his own? The views of Hitler are the views of the Nazi party.

After Nazi Germany had surrendered in World War II, the U.S. Office of Strategic Services published a report on the Nazi Master Plan of the Persecution of the Christian Churches. The discussion among historians and theologians about religion in Nazi Germany often came to similar results. For Kathleen Harvill Burton, [1] there was a religious objective in National Socialism: make traditional Christianity disappear, and transform it into positive Christianity, based on Nazi mysticism as preached by Alfred Rosenberg. In particular the Bible had to be purged of all its Jewish content (i.e., the entire Old Testament, the Gospel of Matthew, and the Pauline Epistles). This was continuous with Paul Lagarde's research on a Germanised and "de-judaized" Christianism. [2] According to Rosenberg: [3]

Saint Paul was responsible for the destruction of the racial values from Greek and Roman culture;

the dogma of hell advanced in the Middle Ages destroyed the free Nordic spirit;

original sin and grace are Oriental ideas that corrupt the purity and strength of Nordic blood;

the Old Testament and the Jewish race are not an exception and one should return to the Nordic peoples' fables and legends;

Jesus was not Jewish, but had Nordic blood from his Amorite ancestors.

The only Christianity that Nazis were interested was only Christianity by name, and not even that if you think about it;
Nazis wanted not Christianity, (followers of Christ) but "Hitleranity" (which would be followers of Hitler). Also, I would like to remind the voters that the burden of proof is on Pro, and unless Pro can provide real evidence that Nazism actually adhered to Christian Principles, I will win the debate. Also, I encourage voters to check out some of the links at the bottom. Back to Pro.

[1] Kathleen Harvill-Burton, Le nazisme comme religion. Quatre th"ologiens d"chiffrent le code religieux nazi (1932-1945), 2006, ISBN 2-7637-8336-8
[2] Bernard Raymond, Une "glise " croix gamm"e, L'Age d'homme, Geneva, 1980
[3] Rosenberg, The Myth of the Twentieth Century
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Pro





Thanks to my opponent.

In the previous rounds I have shown that the Nazi adhered to Christian principles as they identified as Christian. This is evident from the speeches that have yet to be rebutted. The only rebuttal is and was that Hitler is a liar. Again I state this debate is not about whether Hitler is a liar its about whether the Nazi Party was Christian.


Now I feel the need to elaborate on the no true Christian fallacy. This is a tongue in cheek name given to the No True Scotsman Fallacy which can be stated as follows: "In this form of faulty reasoning one's belief is rendered unfalsifiable because no matter how compelling the evidence is, one simply shifts the goalposts so that it wouldn't apply to a supposedly 'true' example. This kind of post-rationalization is a way of avoiding valid criticisms of one's argument."(1) This fallacy is the basis of my opponents arguments, as when the Nazi Party says they are Christians, my opponent claims no they were not as that is not what Christians would do.

Let me elaborate further on this fallacy with examples from the debate.

When my opponent mentions that Positive Christianity is not Christianity, this is playing the no true christian fallacy. To elaborate, the Catholic Church is different from Westoboro Baptist, is different to Baptists, is different to Protestants etc. However all these groups are Christians, just as the Nazi Party was Christian in nature.




The fact that the Germans killed Jews, does not mean they are not Christians (No true Christian Fallacy). In fact if anything they are adhering strictly to the gospels. They are following the example set by their loving god who loved genocide and mass slaughter so much.(2) However, as the No True Christian Fallacy goes, I am sure my opponent would point to the New Testament. The New Testament where Jesus asked that the Jews be killed in Luke 19:27 "But as for these enemies of mine who didn't want me to be their king—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence!'"(3)

As we can see from these examples, my opponent has committed the no true Christian Fallacy, but not only that I have shown even more evidence that the Nazi Party was adhering to Christian Principles.

My opponent cites sources that claim the Nazi Party was not Cristian. Yet all these sources do not cite any Nazi Party specific sources and are all written after the war and are commentary. So these sources are basically committing the No True Christian fallacy.


The following point is not relevant to the debate as I have pointed out in previous rounds that this debate is about the Nazi Party and not Hitlers beliefs. My opponent states "The views of Hitler are the views of the Nazi party." So here are Hitlers views and this shows again that Hitler was a Christian and adhering to Christian Principles.(4)
"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so. - Adolf Hitler, to General Gerhard Engel, 1941 "

"Today Christians ... stand at the head of [this country]... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past ... (few) years. - Adolf Hitler, quoted in: The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872 "


I hand the debate back to my opponent for final statements and/or concession.


(1) https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
(2) http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
(3) http://biblehub.com...
(4) http://atheism.about.com...
Debate Round No. 4
WillRiley

Con

There is a fatal error in Pro's argument; Pro apparently believes that the only Christian principle is that you say that you are a Christian. The debate is not on whether or not Nazis identified as Christians, but weather they adhered to Christian principles. Now, anyone can see that there is flawed logic here:
"In the previous rounds I have shown that the Nazi adhered to Christian principles as they identified as Christian."
So, by your logic, the only requirement of being something is that you say that you are. If I go around telling everyone that I am a cow, does that make me a cow?
Also, Pro uses several Nazi objects with Christian symbols or words on them. However, these also have swastikas on them. Swastikas are originally from Hinduism and Buddhism. Does that make Nazis Hindu or Buddhist?
During this debate, the only fallacy used is the "No True Christian Fallacy" fallacy. The only "goal post changing" has been on your part. You debate me on Christian Principles, and then tell me that I am not allowed to talk about Christian Principles.
Also, Pro claims that Hitlers personal views are not representative of Nazism. It is common knowledge that Hitler was the leader, founder (not the only one but still a founder), preacher, teacher, and protector of Nazism. Hitlers auto-biography is often referred to as the Nazi Bible. To say that Hitlers personal views are not the views of the Nazi party is frankly, absurd. You say that my sources are committing the no true Christian fallacy, when in fact, one of them is from Rosenberg's book. (unless he was somehow committing the "no true Christian fallacy") The fact is that Nazi leaders, while not agreeing on much religiously, did generally agree on one thing- Their hatred of Christianity. Now, if the leaders of a party were anti-Christian, why would the organization be Christian?

Now, I again remind the voters that the burden of proof lies on Pro, and since Pro has not delivered any evidence other than Nazis using Christian symbols and claiming to be Christian, which is a totally flawed argument, I urge you to vote Con.
Thank you.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Pro





Thanks Con.



Least I have to remind you. You accepted the debate on the premise that you would not use the No True Christian Fallacy. As such to now claim its unfair is absurd.




Firstly, I need to point out again that my opponent makes and appeal to ignorance (and No True Christian Fallacy) as Christian is defined as "a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings." As such this continual argument that the Nazi Party was not Christian when professing to be is ridiculous.




When Pro says "If I go around telling everyone that I am a cow, does that make me a cow?" this shows that Con does not understand the argument. We are talking about a position (immaterial thing) and not a material thing (cow).




Pro says "Swastikas are originally from Hinduism and Buddhism. Does that make Nazis Hindu or Buddhist?" No, as the Nazi Party never said they were Buddhist. However, as I keep pointing out they said they were Christians.

In this debate, I have shown multiple times that the Nazis were a Christian Party. According to the definition of Christian this means they adhered to Christian principles as I pointed out.

Additionally, Con has not rebutted any of my arguments from round 2 which stand unopposed and has neglected the bible versus which show the Nazis were carrying out the will of God. In fact It seems simple that I have met the burden of proof multiple times. Con never once showed that the Nazi Party made any official statement showing that they were not Christian.

I now hand the debate over to the voters. It seems to me an easy vote, and I would urge you to not be swayed by fallacies especially the one fallacy that was agreed upon not to be used in this debate.



Thanks again Con.

Debate Round No. 5
55 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by WillRiley 3 years ago
WillRiley
Thank you, I think it was a good debate, despite our differences.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Congratulations.
Posted by WillRiley 3 years ago
WillRiley
http://www.debate.org...
Look at the first four, then at Jesus, then back. Read the Bible. Know Gods word! Know what the Nazis believed. Nazis were pretty much as far from Jesus and God as you can get without sprouting horns or something. Jesus's teachings were all about love, to love your neighbor as yourself, and he said that we should be kind to the poor and weak. Nazis sought to eliminate the poor and weak. Jesus showed no favoritism toward any race, and even the people who hate gays he disagrees with, for Jesus, when a woman was caught in sexual immorality and she was about to be stoned, he stopped them and said "Let
him that is without sin among you first cast the stone at her"
I rest my case,
Goodnight, and God bless.
Posted by WillRiley 3 years ago
WillRiley
All the women and children were locked in the church while the village was looted. Meanwhile, the men were led to six barns and sheds where machine guns were already in place.

According to the account of a survivor, the soldiers began shooting at them, aiming for their legs so that they would die slowly. Once the victims were no longer able to move, the soldiers covered their bodies with fuel and set the barns on fire. Only six men escaped; one of them was later seen walking down a road heading for the cemetery and was shot dead. In all, 190 men perished.
The soldiers proceeded to the church and placed an incendiary device there. After it was ignited, women and children tried to escape through the doors and windows of the church, but they were met with machine-gun fire.

You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them.
The state removed crucifixes from the walls of Catholic classrooms and replaced it with a picture of Hitler.
"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Do you think Nazi labor camps stopped on Sundays?
You shall not murder.
11 Million murdered, 72 Million Total death on the side of the allies (Rough Estimate, including Holocaust Victims)
You shall not steal.
Jewish communities entirely confiscated by the state.
http://alphahistory.com...
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
I know Jesus was a Jew I know that his followers Jews.
However, as you will attest yourself that they were governed by new teaching and were no longer Jews besides been born Jewish.

FYI: I was just making a joke about the Norseman argument. as I found it amusing.

Also I am done trying to run in circles.

This argument is going so far away from the original question. The Nazi called themselves Christian and that's what they were. It was everywhere in their party and the people that made the party and slogans etc etc.

Whether you like it or not that is the fact.
Posted by WillRiley 3 years ago
WillRiley
You didn't actually respond to my argument.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
LOL, Jesus the Norseman. That image is something Megan Kelley put in my head and I will never forget.
Posted by WillRiley 3 years ago
WillRiley
Now, of course, Jesus was talking about Pharisees, not Jews in general. The Pharisees were the people who constantly criticized Jesus teachings. Also, Yeah, totally, Jesus was constantly saying to kill Jews. You can tell by all of the big blonde Norsemen he surrounded himself with-
Peter- Jewish
John- Jewish
James- Jewish
Andrew- Jewish
Phillip- Jewish
Tomas- Jewish
Bartholomew- Jewish
James the Lesser- Jewish
Mary Magdalene- Jewish
Paul- Jewish
Simon (Not Simon Peter)- Jewish
Mark- Jewish
Joseph- Jewish
Mary- Jewish

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF. There is no other commandment greater than these.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave no free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

So Peter opened his mouth and said: "Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him."

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. (Jesus is saying that you should not attack those who sin, but allow God to judge them.

"You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others?

Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Which means that the Westboro baptists and the Nazis were Christians. They both believe/believed what you believe that Jesus Christ was the man. Christian "a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings."

Jesus teachings "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. " Very Naziesque been against the Jews or the Gays.

another "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. " Jesus the home wrecker.

Jesus on the Jews "Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" very Nazi Jesus.

So these are the teachings of Jesus. This is what the Nazis were doing.
Posted by WillRiley 3 years ago
WillRiley
My perspective has decided what church I want to attend, not which was Christian. You say-
Its your perspective that has decided this. As such you have decided what is Christian and what is not.
But in reality, I was distinguishing between two groups I had already said were Christian. You continue to lie, and try to twist my words. Did I say that Catholics were not Christian? No! I said that I prefered personally Methodist worship to Catholic Mass. Does that mean it is wrong or non-Christian? No! Stop twisting my words.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Adam2 3 years ago
Adam2
WillRileyiamanatheistandthisiswhyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gave proof that Hitler hated Christianity, whereas Pro didn't live up to it.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 3 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
WillRileyiamanatheistandthisiswhyTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con broke the rules by using the fallacy as an argument in R2. Due to this, I am awarding Pro Conduct points. S & G - Tie. I noticed minor spelling errors that were made on both sides. Due to this, I'm leaving these points undistributed. Arguments - Pro. It was shown by Pro that the Nazi party, as a whole, had the support of the Christian church and also declared their own Christian ties within their manifesto. There were two things going for Pro, the fact that Con tried building his case on the fact that Hitler is the same entity as the Nazi party as a whole, and that the Nazi regime had not adhered to *every* Christian principle. Both of which had no real weight when considering the resolution at hand. For these reasons, Pro wins arguments. Sources - Tie. Both debaters utilized sources to strengthen or further validate their points. Great debate guys.
Vote Placed by Themba 3 years ago
Themba
WillRileyiamanatheistandthisiswhyTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Both of you mutually agreed not to bring up the fallacy. Con repeatedly brought it up on several occasions in the debate.. Since it is classified as a rules, any violation is a misconduct. So conduct point to Pro. Con's argument stems around hitler and his executives while Pro argument was towards Nazis. The resolution was about Nazis adhering. Pro makes cases based on the manifesto of the party whereas Con's argument was from Hitler. Hitler vs The Party, The resolution states about Nazis, as such it pertains to things that is listed under the party's ideology. Pro wins arguments. Con was too fixiated on the executive branch that is Hitler. Con brought studies that are supplementary as acts of war crimes doesn't reflect contents advocated by the party. Arguments to Pro. An unusual, surprisingly good debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
WillRileyiamanatheistandthisiswhyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: No such fallacy exists, so it's impossible for Con to commit.
Vote Placed by JackFritschy 3 years ago
JackFritschy
WillRileyiamanatheistandthisiswhyTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: pros argument was essentially that nazis claimed to be christiains so they were christians. This debate was about the nazis adhering to christian principles, not if they claimed to be christian. When con brings up hitler's anti church quotes, pro responds they are just hitler's views not the nazis. When con used evidence of christian persecution, pro simply repeated that their claimed christianity made them christian. This dosn't show that they adhered to christian principle.