The Instigator
InsertNameHere
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
Anarcho
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points

Tea Partiers are Nazis

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
InsertNameHere
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/4/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,712 times Debate No: 15124
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (5)

 

InsertNameHere

Con

I'll be arguing that members of the US Tea Party are indeed not Nazis, contrary to my opponent's claim that they are. In order to avoid tricky semantics I'll be laying out the definition.

Na�zi
   /ˈnɑtsi, ˈn�t-/ Show Spelled [naht-see, nat-] plural -zis, adjective
–noun
1.
a member of the National socialist German Workers' party of Germany, which in 1933, under adolf hitler, seized political control of the country, suppressing all opposition and establishing a dictatorship over all cultural, economic, and political activities of the people, and promulgated belief in the supremacy of Hitler as F�hrer, aggressive anti-Semitism, the natural supremacy of the German people, and the establishment of Germany by superior force as a dominant world power. The party was officially abolished in 1945 at the conclusion of World War II.
2.
(often lowercase) a person elsewhere who holds similar views.
http://dictionary.reference.com...
Obviously by Tea Party I mean the US political movement and not the English social gathering where people get together and drink tea.

Arguments will come next round once my opponent accepts this debate. Thank you.
Anarcho

Pro

I thank my opponent for creating this debate and will do my best to make a good argument that Teabaggers are indeed Nazis.

Obviously due to this being the 21st century they could not belong to a party that no longer exists so I will go with the second definition that they hold similar views. The Teabaggers are well known racists, the only reason that they are trying to say Obama wasn't born in this country and is Muslim is because he is black but try not to openly say this and instead of hatred of Jews they have a hatred of Muslims. For example the Teabaggers protested a Muslim fundraiser for a women's shelter and homeless just because they were Muslim even with little children with the Muslim parents they didn't relent of their remarks of telling them to "Go home Muzzies!" and personally wouldn't be shocked if they were the ones that performed another kristallnacht. http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com...

http://blogs.creativeloafing.com...

http://wonkette.com...

http://wonkette.com...
Debate Round No. 1
InsertNameHere

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. Good luck to both of us!

First off, my opponent addresses the issue of Obama's citizenship. While I don't necessary agree with The Tea Party's approach to this, it is a legit form of political protest. One concern seems to be that Obama may be an African rather than an American and Tea Partiers have a goal to stay true to the US constitution which says only Americans can be president. At first glance anybody could be confused without knowing his background, considering he's black with a Kenyan father and his middle name is "Hussein", generally associated with Islam and Islamic countries. Also, it takes much more than just a few racist remarks to make one a Nazi, which I'll expand on in the next rebuttal.

Secondly, my opponent mentions protests against Muslims. While this can be viewed as racist, it's still not representative of Nazism. Muslims are not being sent to concentration camps to be systematically slaughtered nor are Tea Partiers preaching that. In fact, their party platform mentions nothing of the sort, emphasizing Fiscal Responsibility, Limited Government, and Free Markets. (http://www.teapartypatriots.org...) In a Tea Partier's ideal government state sanctioned genocide would be impossible(it's against the US Constitution which they strive to uphold) as would a corporatist society, which is another defining feature of Nazism/Fascism. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Lastly, the Tea Party is active against Islam due to certain groups such as Shariah 4 America who want to implement Shari'a across America, a system that is contrary to American values, something as I emphasized before, is something the Tea Party strives to uphold. http://shariah4america.com...

I'll now be handing this over to my opponent. Good luck, once again!
Anarcho

Pro

My opponent claims that the Tea Party is just genuinely concerned about their country so they do not want someone that wasn't born in America to be President in order to stay true to the Constitution which they do want, that is the parts of it that they like. While this may be true to an extent it is irrelevant in this case as Obama has already been proven by the state of Hawaii to have been born IN Hawaii, Teabaggers just claim it is a conspiracy because they just cannot accept that an African-American was voted into office.

Next my opponent says that because Muslims are not being exterminated in concentration camps that Teabaggers cannot be Nazis but I say just give them some time, the Nazis didn't start out killing Jews either but built up to it while showing their discontent of those who practice the Jewish faith just like Teabaggers are showing their discontent for those that practice the Islamic faith and don't hide it unlike what my opponent says. The tactic of dehumanizing the enemy to make it easier to kill them is an old one indeed. Also many innocent Muslims and Arabs are sent to Guantanamo Bay all the time where they are tortured in ways that lead to death.

Finally, I would like to say that only idiots/FOX News audience and hate mongers actually believe that Shari'a Law would ever be implemented in America. They are just sheep that must be easily tricked if Sarah Palin is their leader to be an obedient army against Muslims to distract them from the real issues much like shiny keys to infant or in this case Hitler misleading Germany to hate Jews in orde to distract them.

Awaiting my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 2
InsertNameHere

Con

I thank my opponent for a quick response. Now to rebuttals...

Firstly, my opponent points out that the Tea Party simply doesn't like Obama because he's black. There may or may not be some truth to that statement, however, it's certainly not the sole reason. Tea Partiers have been widely known to protest his policies which they feel are unamerican and unconstitutional. Many of these protests have been to address issues such as wasteful spending and high taxes, two things Tea Partiers feel Obama's policies are contributing to. http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
It is also worth noting hat if Tea Partiers were Nazis they would certainly not be protesting as Nazism traditionally calls for dictatorship. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Secondly, my opponent feels that Tea Partiers want to exterminate Muslims in concentration camps. This is untrue for a few reasons. Tea Partiers often emphasis that they support small government that doesn't interfere in the lives of individuals. This would extend to all American citizens. There would also be no need for them to exterminate Muslims since many Tea Partiers support more restrictive immigration policies instead. That would already reduce the numbers of Muslims entering America. Also, again, killing anybody off would be opposed to the American constitution which Tea Partiers strive to uphold. Trying to amend anything to allow genocide would also likely result in political suicide. Why any politician would want to do such a move is beyond me.

Thirdly, my opponent mentioned Guantanamo Bay. Like immigration, there's mixed views among Tea Partiers on whether to keep Guantanamo bay open. Those who support it genuinely feel that it'll protect America from terrorist threats. After 9/11, it is perfectly reasonable that some Americans would be concerned about further terrorist attacks happening on American soil. America, along with Canada, Britain, Spain, and Australia, is one of Al-Qaeda's top targets so it's a perfectly legit fear. http://www.nationalterroralert.com... Nazis targeted individuals for no legit reason at all.

Lastly, my opponent mentions the point about Shari'a and states it would never be implemented in America. This is quite incorrect and there's a very real possibility it could. Here in Canada there has been debate over whether to introduce Shari'a courts. Some European countries already have Shari'a courts in place in order to settle domestic disputes. http://www.timesonline.co.uk... As I mentioned in round 2, most aspects of Shari'a contradict the American values that Tea Partiers fight to uphold.

Good luck to us both in the next round!
Anarcho

Pro

I thank my opponent for the rebuttal, I was thinking she might not have had the time.

Interesting that my opponent neither confirms or denies that the Tea Party dislikes Obama because he is black, I will agree that it is not the sole reason they dislike him although it is the major one. My opponent claims that they protest the policies that are unconstitutional (except of course what they don't like and would want used on their enemies so say Muslims. The first, fourth, fifth, sixth, secenth, and eighth they would not mind being broken if done to Muslims) but if that were true then those people should have protested Bush a lot more since he literally said that the Constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper." It just seems to me that the person that said probably the most unconstitutional thing that could be said barely got any flak to them since Teabagger protests didn't any good turnouts until Obama was just inaugurated not inacting ANY policies yet, how could he? It was his inauguration! Maybe Obama being President is unconstitutional to them? Wonder why that is....

My opponent forgets a peculiar thing about Teabaggers and the Republican Party. While they want a smaller government for economics to be taxed less they only protest against things like health care and welfare, never war. So they must be fine with the government using tax money to go to war then if they don't object. So if an invading army is fine with them then they could support it committing a genocide.

Thirdly, yes it is correct that they care about terrorist attacks on American soil but only American soil, anywhere else and it doesn't matter to them. A fear of al-Qaeda however is just irrational, a majority of the attacks they have done (not that many for such a feared organization) they just claimed responsibility for, it could not be them at all. All Guantanamo Bay is for is to kidnap mostly innocent Americans and torture them which is probably going to make them become terrorists in effect of being tortured for no reason and harboring a resentment towards the country that did such a thing to them.

Finally, much to contradict my opponent I will say that Shari'a Law could never be implemented in America because there has to be a separation between church (religion) and state which isn't gong to be broken to please a minority any time soon. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Wishing luck to my opponent in the final round.
Debate Round No. 3
InsertNameHere

Con

I thank my opponent for getting round three up in time.

Firstly, my opponent points out Bush's controversial statement about the US Constitution just being a piece of paper and that The Tea Party didn't protest it. While I have no doubt in my mind that he said this, my opponent fails to realize that The Tea Party didn't even exist during Bush's presidency as the movement it is today. This makes his comparison inaccurate. It was actually founded in 2009 in response to many of the policies enacted by previous presidencies. http://en.wikipedia.org... In the end, Tea Partiers protest against Obama's big government policies just like they would have during previous presidencies had they existed.

Secondly, my opponent mentions that the Tea Party Never protests war. As I mentioned earlier in this debate, Tea Partier views on many issues vary, war being one of them. Protesting these mixed issues could certainly lower morale and create tensions within the party. As another point, more and more Americans are becoming dissatisfied with America's involvement in several wars anyway. Both wars have also been receiving less attention from politicians in favour of more recent, bigger issues. It's an obvious choice to want to focus on protesting the issues the most people are focusing on such as healthcare reform.

Thirdly, the issue of terrorism is mentioned. It is quite contradictory of my opponent to claim American intervention in other countries is bad while also condemning America for not caring about terrorist attacks outside US soil. For America to care about such attacks and want to do something about them would mean intervention which my opponent seems to be against. Instead, Americans have to work on countering these attacks on their own soil, which includes locking up many suspected terrorists in order to extract info. Many are not "innocent" as my opponent claims and in many cases that is almost impossible to prove, especially in a world where a terrorism threat is very real. Also, Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for attacks because they carried them out. By doing so they obviously know they have nothing to hide by admitting to bombing civilians. Not only that, but they even promise to continue fighting so it's no mystery what their intentions are. I doubt they would be that stupid to openly admit to attacks somebody else carried out, especially when the world knows they have a goal of global Jihad. In a world where Al-Qaeda targets and attacks innocents America's paranoia is legitimate. Using my opponent's logic, fearing the Nazis during WW II would have been irrational when they were openly going around Europe conquering and killing civilians.

Lastly, my opponent fails to fully comprehend that separation of church and state means very little to radical Muslims trying to implement Shari'a. Separation of church and state exists in most of the western world yet many countries are already introducing elements of Shari'a. Why? These same Muslims have found ways to take advantage of the rule of freedom of religion in order to implement their religious laws. Nobody can say they wouldn't try the same thing in America. There has been continuous debate in various states over whether to introduce Shari'a or not. One such case is Oklahoma where a bill forbidding Shari'a was blocked by a judge. http://www.politico.com...

I am almost out of character space so I'll stop here and wish my opponent good luck in the final round. Voters, please vote fairly and good luck to both of us!
Anarcho

Pro

Anarcho forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
You had like three days to post a reply...
Posted by Anarcho 6 years ago
Anarcho
AARRRGGGGHHHH!!! Stupid computer froze when I tried to post my argument and the time ran out!!!!
Posted by InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
Just that Tea Partiers are Nazis, lol.
Posted by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
Is the resolution "some members of the Teaparty are Nazis" or "all members of the Teaparty are Nazis?"
Posted by Robikan 6 years ago
Robikan
I look forward to reading this debate. I don't know that "Nazi" is an appropriate term for Tea Partiers, but they certainly exhibit a lot of the same rhetoric-fueled bigotry and insanity that Nazis did.
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
Your avvies look creepy together o.o
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
Your avvies look creepy together o.o
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
InsertNameHereAnarchoTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't come close to proving his case. Generalizations like the resolution require statistics; he would need to show that a majority of teapartiers subscribe to Nazi beliefs, and he didn't even try to do that. Pro loses conduct for the forfeit.
Vote Placed by TUF 6 years ago
TUF
InsertNameHereAnarchoTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Via forfeit.
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
InsertNameHereAnarchoTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con got off topic in parts of the debate and didn't make very convincing arguments. Pro forfeited a round. 3-1, pro
Vote Placed by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
InsertNameHereAnarchoTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Anarcho forfeited the last round INH, made a grammatical error "the Tea Party Never", Anarch made a spelling error "The first, fourth, fifth, sixth, secenth, and eighth" Anarcho seems more convincing to me. I do not have the ability to check sources.
Vote Placed by darkkermit 6 years ago
darkkermit
InsertNameHereAnarchoTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO forfeited