[SHARED BOP] Hitler's philosophy is superior in morality and reasoning to Stalin's
Debate Rounds (5)
I went con to this because when I made this debate before there was large-scale confusion as to whether or not one simply could win by saying neither was superior to other and both were equally disgusting.
There is a shared burden of proof (BoP) so simple negation of my points will result in a seven point forfeit in votes since you must have constructive points of your own in favour of Hitler's philosophy.
I was once your typical pro-capitalist, anti-communist guy. I studied basic politics and thought I knew all about it. However, if you were to take Hitler as a main figure in what we propose as pure capitalism (since the African and Indian versions of it have turned it into ugly corruption) and were to take Stalinist Communism (as opposes to Marxist/Trotskyist Communism) as the true form of communism (whereby force is a far more encouraged method than democracy) then I will prove to you that Stalin, as opposed to Hitler, proves communism to be a far superior political regime.
I shall now outline both philosophies with a quick opening statement as to why I think Stalin's is superior, I want my opponent's opening statement (in favour of Hitler's philosophy) in round 1, it is not just for acceptance.
Stalin's philosophy: Whilst adapting to the needs of workers is allowed, the majority of a regime should purely be to make all people feel equal, think the same and to work for the common good of their state, not for the individual only.
Stalin's moral code:
Hitler's philosophy: All people must compete mercilessly to succeed. However, only those with blonde hair and blue eyes are truly entitled to do so (Hitler had brown hair and brown eyes). Any who are rich (for example the Jews) should be annihilated as this is the true concept of capitalism in the Nazi sense of the word.
Hitler's moral code:
I think Stalin's philosophy and moral code, although just as severely tyrannical as Hitler's, show much more fairness throughout. He would rather a communist disabled black man than a capitalist white man. Hitler would kill the weirdo before the normal looking guy before even realising the clash in ideology, at which stage he would just command the other man to be killed, this is a stupid system of morality as both men end up dead and useless to Hitler.
First of all, the Soviet communist era was only good when Lenin, the first leader, was still in charge. During Lenin's era, Communism was in its purest form. People were viewed equal, the economy recovered the damage caused by WW1 and the Russian civil war and prospered with the two 5 year plans.
Okay let me comment on your version of Stalin's philosophy
My comment on philosophy #1: Murdering and torturing are both equally cruel, especially when you murder hundreds of thousands of people as committed by Stalin's government and the NKVD (Soviet's sort of secret service). The Soviets massacred millions of people during the course of World War 2, for example. How can you consider that less cruel just because the Soviets chose to kill instead of "torture then kill".
My comment on philosophy #2: This is again not true because the Soviets didn't kill their political enemies in a merciful manner. Many were killed by shooting.
Sometimes shooting didn't kill everyone instantly, as the soviets didn't bother to shoot everyone at the head, especially in mass executions. Some victims would suffer from non lethal gun shot wounds and they would be left to suffer and die "much" later from their wounds. Do you think that's merciful?
My comment on philosophy #3:
Actually segregation was common in the Soviet Union. Religious people especially suffered from this as the Soviet Union was against religion.
My comment on philosophy #5:
The education system in the Soviet Union "brainwashed" children to grow up believing in the Soviet system a supreme being. For example They were taught the "soviet version of history" in which every historical fact which was against Soviet interests was censored.
Hitler's moral code #1 didn't aim to torture any enemy or make them useful. In fact Hitler was trying to make the method of killing as efficient as possible, this included the minimizing of suffering in the victims' part. That was because he feared that his victims' suffering would attract sympathy from the Germans.
For example: the construction of gas chambers for killing political oppositions and jews.
Hitler never used religion as part of his regime, as you claim in moral code #2. In fact he was ignorant of Christianity and he even mistreated it sometimes. His regime was strong because Hitler was clever enough to use the issue of German post WW1 suffering to aid his cause. He never mistreated other religions apart from Jews.
Moral code #3 is correct.
Conclusion: You argument is wrong
P#1: If murder and torture are equally cruel why is it many animal welfare people are all for eating meat if the animal had a nice life before the relatively 'instant' death? Because killing isn't wrong if the being felt barely any pain, that's why. Hitler adored torture, amking beings work on a bread a day, then gassing them after what they thought would be their first shower in months, turning their lungs inside out and burning them inside out, what an a$$hole.
P#2: Shooting is merciful in comparison to gassing. If it isn't let me just tell you that unlike Stalin who insisted on head, or heart, shots to conserve ammunition, Hitler was very happy to line some jew rebels up and have his men shoot them anywhere ont he body again and again (they failed to bother using automatic guns like in the movies, for quite some time).
P#3: He did not harm the religous, he harmed only the people forcing people to believe in it (such as egocentric pedophilic priests whom had been having a whale of a time.
P#5: The education system did not at all brainwash children. He INSISTED teaching unreligious science ONLY. EVOLUTION over CREATION etc et era. They were not taught censored history that's a f*cking false claim. Stalin allowed people to hold any belief and live any way they wished, he even brought back churches in WW2 for morale. HE just hated the brainwashig that had let to his severe bullying as an atheist child in an Orthodox school.
MC#1: wtf? "didn't aim to torture any enemy or make them useful." okay well how about you watch this movie posted. Jews in concentration camps, of any age, were scum to Hitler.
Have you read mein kampf? He writes "
p#2: How is shooting merciful compared to gassing? Gassing uses gases like Carbon Monoxide etc. Death by such gases doesn't involve pain at all. You inhale the gas, you lose consciousness, then you die. That's it.
Meanwhile death by shooting is always gruesome, bloody and painful. Even if you shoot at the head, you never know if your victim feels pain or not before dying "instantly".
Yes Hitler shot Jews that way, but it doesn't mean that Stalin did not. During Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, the Soviets killed their prisoners who were in the path of the advancing Germans. They were in such hurry, so couldn't have bothered to shoot at the head etc. Some didn't even die quickly. Just look up "prisoner massacres by the NKVD" on Google.
p#3: He did harm the religious by closing down religious buildings. You can search that on Google.
p#5: I don't have much knowledge concerning point 5 so I will leave that out.
mc#1: Yes I have watched that movie before. And the Jews in the movie are killed by gassing. That goes in line with Hitler's moral code which I have mentioned before, which is to make the killings as painless as possible for the purpose of efficiency.
PS: We all know he was against the Jews. What we are talking about right now is which guy's moral codes are better. So it's very useless to bring that quote from Mein Kampf up. Both Stalin and Hitler were evil and killed people.
RationalMadman forfeited this round.
The drugs Hitler used made people scream is pain and agony. Froth at the mouth and tear up at the eyes.
Both were super evil. Both were turranists. Both should go to hell if there is one.
However Stalin's philosophy is superior in morality and reasoning because the way he treats people is unaffected by his 'emotional state' at the time whereas Hitler would often alter between a nice shot to the head and/or a torturous operation to extract information from a jew including killing their children right before their eyes.
Stalin used far less dirty tactics than Hitler and stuck to a philosophy (communism) instead of an incessant hatred (to a certain race) towards something people couldn't help for it was genetics.
mrvenomous forfeited this round.
In the end, the rational madman Stalin won. Over the mad rationalman Hitler :)
mrvenomous forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
|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:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.