The Instigator
ShabShoral
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Romanii
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Plato & Dualism Caused the Holocaust

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 1 vote the winner is...
Romanii
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 12/7/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,026 times Debate No: 83572
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (1)

 

ShabShoral

Pro

First round for acceptance.
Debate Round No. 1
Romanii

Con

Pro has put together a very eloquent critique of Platonism, but unfortunately, none of that is really relevant to the resolution. The only part of it where Pro even attempts to affirm the resolution is here: "Oh, and all immoral things come from faulty conceptions of reality, and Hitler was a Christian, so he believed in transcendence as influenced by Plato, so the Holocaust was directly caused by Platonism. QED."

Needless to say, this argument is unsound. To see why, let's reformat Pro's argument syllogistically:

P1: All immoral things are caused by misconceptions of reality
P2: The Holocaust was immoral
C1: The Holocaust was caused by a misconception of reality
P3: Platonism is a misconception of reality
C2: The Holocaust was caused by Platonism

This is a blatant non-sequitur. C2 doesn't follow from its preceding premises at all -- Platonism has not been shown to be the misconception of reality which caused the Holocaust. There are an infinite number of misconceptions which could have served as the Holocaust's cause, and burden of proof is on Pro to definitively prove that it's Platonism. The only time he even attempts to fulfill that burden is when he mentions Christianity, but his reasoning is absurd... Firstly, it isn't clear that Hitler's Christian beliefs played much of a role in his motives for starting the Holocaust -- that's a pretty controversial subject on its own, so Pro is gonna have to provide a lot more evidence here. Futhermore, even if Christianity did play a role in Hitler's motives, that has no bearing whatsoever on Platonism. The role that Platonism plays in Christian doctrine is completely distinct from the part of Christian doctrine which was used to justify anti-semitism -- the former deals with God's ontological relationship with reality, whereas the latter deals with the history surrounding Jesus's crucifixion.

In conclusion, Pro's argument is entirely insufficient. The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 2
ShabShoral

Pro

My opponent's arguments stand only if the real/unreal distinction is valid. The burden of proof is on Con to prove this distinction.

Back to Con.
Romanii

Con

My opponent has not defined what the hell the "real/unreal distinction" is, nor has he explained how my argument assumes its validity.

Back to Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
ShabShoral

Pro

My opponent is begging the question by assuming that concepts such as "BOP", "arguments", and "justification" have any validity. Watch him squirm whilst trying to non-circularly define these concepts. If he cannot, I win the debate, for my arguments cannot be contested.

Keep in mind that I am merely using Cartesian terminology for convenience. One must recognize my case as nonsense to transcend the faulty metadichotomy of dichotomy and immanence, of metatranscendental and subliminal, of the burrowed and the burrowing.
Romanii

Con

lmao
stfu
vote con
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Romanii 1 year ago
Romanii
... nevermind. pls concede. no more heidegger. pls no more heidegger
Posted by ShabShoral 1 year ago
ShabShoral
Deconstructuralist postmodern heideggerian rebuttles.
Posted by Romanii 1 year ago
Romanii
hahaha if it's the most absurd comeback... then maybe I wanna see it....
Posted by ShabShoral 1 year ago
ShabShoral
I'm torn between putting effort into constructing the most absurd comeback in ddo history and just conceding. Let's see how lazy I am.
Posted by Romanii 1 year ago
Romanii
C'mon man, it literally takes 5 seconds to type "I concede". Shouldn't be taking you this long.
Posted by ShabShoral 1 year ago
ShabShoral
lmao that was clever. Kudos.
Posted by Romanii 1 year ago
Romanii
I think you should run the argument you did in this debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by ShabShoral 1 year ago
ShabShoral
Thank you! I finished my book and I literally just slapped a conclusion on a section of it so that I didn't have to forfeit. I posted with 27 minutes left lol.
Posted by Romanii 1 year ago
Romanii
Wow. That was very well-written. Even if the conclusion is wonky lol
Posted by ShabShoral 1 year ago
ShabShoral
eh, I'm probably going to forfeit honestly. I really need to finish this book, lol
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SarcasticMethod 1 year ago
SarcasticMethod
ShabShoralRomanii
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: ShabShoral is avoiding any proof of his resolution in favor of word-bending and sh*t-talking. Romanii has no BOP to uphold, so he wins on default, though I don't know what his conclusion was supposed to be and I don't like it. This was a poor debate and a waste of a good critique of Plato. I award ShabShoral no points, and may God have mercy on his soul.