The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

The Holocaust was a Bad Thing

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/11/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,450 times Debate No: 31194
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)




I really just want to see if anyone will take me on for this one. So let's do this:

Definitions: "Holocaust" - As in the one Hitler initiated in Germany in the early-mid 20th Century
"Bad Thing" - Bad, Thing.

1. Millions of people died
Death of innocent people tends to usually be bad.

That will be my only argument for now. Let's see where this goes...


I guess I'll try even though this is a very near-hopeless position. But I'll amuse the debate community and hopefully not offend anyone.

The World War II was primarily begun as the German's conquest for a pure Aryan race. The ensuing conflict led to the little war known as World War II. Without the World War II, there wasn't anything to pick America out of the Great Depression. In fact, it is now recognized as the sole successful solution to the Depression. With WWII, the United States was able to become the dominant global hegemon for decades and they still are. So without the Holocaust to start it all, there would be no capitalist America.

II. Prevention Against Genocide
After the WWII, the world became more aware of rising dictators and imminent genocides. Despite them still happening in the last 70 years, awareness have been raised, primarily from the atrocities of the Holocaust.

III. Slows Overpopulation
With less people on Earth, there is less people to reproduce which slows the growth of the population. Overpopulation will eventually lead to way more deaths due to the limitation of resources so it will actually make the deaths of the Holocaust seem not as bad.

In conclusion, the Holocaust and the reforms it brought changed the future drastically into where we live now.
Debate Round No. 1


I wish my opponent best of luck and commend him for taking Con on this topic xD

1. Re: 'MURICA!
( This site talks about "Broken Window fallacy" Saying that while a broken window can lead to a better window being put in, If the window was never broken, the shop owner would not have to pay to put a new one in. After that analogy, It gives more examples on how spending on war takes money away from a nation's civilians.

Bottom line: While war is thought to help an economy, in all reality it's better that a war never happens in the first place.

2. Re: Prevention Against Genocide
( While I understand Wikipedia is not commonly considered a reliable source, you'll find that this section is crawling with citations showing that after world war two, thousands of Germans were exiled from their homes (an ethnic cleansing resulting directly from WWII). You'll also find that the number of genocides has not decreased in any way after WWII. In fact, looking up the list of genocides in history, it seems that perhaps more have happened after WWII then in any era of the same length.

Bottom Line: The Holocaust had a negative to no effect on the genocide rate.

3. Re: Slows Overpopulation

My Argument: Overpopulation is not an issue

( There is more food being produced now than at any other time in the history of the world. The starving people's rate had even dropped to 13%.

I will also run on this sources logic that when a resource becomes more scarce, it becomes more valuable. If that were to mean a human survival decline, the Birth Rate would also decline. Therefore, if overpopulation would cause a lack of resources, the population would go back down.

4. Millions of Innocent People Died

My opponent did not even attempt to attack this argument, therefore it still exists in favor for the Pro.

Therefore, because war does not improve the economy, genocide rates have not changed, overpopulation is not a significant issue, and because millions of innocent people died, The Holocaust was a bad thing, Therefore you should vote in favor of the Affirmative.


1. Re: Re: 'MURICA!

The broken window fallacy assumes that nothing has been done to help the depression after the depression started. That, as we know, isn't true since Roosevelt implemented a plethora of organizations and acts to help the victims of the depression. However, Roosevelt's New Deal didn't work effectively and only helped with those who needed emergency relief. What stimulated the economy in the end was the mass production of World War II. Thus, if Roosevelt hadn't gone ino war, his New Deal would continually not work.

I agree that some spending tradeoff happened because of WWII as said in your link. However, what came out of it far outweighed the harms. The 50s and 60s saw unprecedented growth for the United States, growth which is key to a strong hegemon. From 1940-1950, the average wage of workers doubled. From 1950-1960, the wage doubled AGAIN!* That would be incredible if it happened today. This growth would not have been caused by the New Deal. Thus, it was imperative that America went to WWII to stimulate the economy.

2. Re: Re: Prevention Against Genocide

As I said, it might not have decreased the amount of genocides that happened in the past 70 years. Holocaust is the most notable genocide because of its awareness that it caused after it happened. Children are being taught in school the eight stages of genocide, and what is the primary example that teachers use? The Holocaust. It serves as an epitome of what not to happen, and it's atrocities generated awareness to stop future ones.

3. Re: Re: Slows Overpopulation

It doesn't matter if food is produced at the highest rate per capita right now. If it did, why are billions of people still facing starvations? It's because of the unequal distribution of food. The terminal impact would be worldwide starvation with only a slim fraction of the people in the world enjoying the daily nourishment of food. By slowing population growth, we can postpone this inevitability.

"I will also run on this sources logic that when a resource becomes more scarce, it becomes more valuable. If that were to mean a human survival decline, the Birth Rate would also decline."
If that logic is true, why are the countries with the scarcest food source ALSO the countries with the HIGHEST birth rates? Of the top 30 countries with the highest birth rates, 29 of which are in Africa.** This obviously show a discorrelation between food scarcity and birth rate.

4. Re: Millions of Innocent People Died
Millions of people who weren't tried for any of their crimes died. Innocent people and people who weren't given a trial aren't the same. So there is a remote possibility that all the victims of the Holocaust committed crimes before. Just suggesting...

*The American Pageant, 13th Edition, by Kennedy, Cohen, and Bailey, pg. 854 (I'm an APUSH student)

So to recapitulate, Pro's fallacy was fallacious itself. The money that would've been used to help the economy would be wasted like the majority of the New Deal, and only the war's massive stimulus could bring America out of the depression. The Holocaust brought reforms within the classrooms, educating kids about the atrocities of genocide, grassroots style. Overpopulation is caused the unequal distribution of food, not the shortage of food itself. And lastly, there is no proof that all the victims of the Holocaust were all lawfully "innocent".
Debate Round No. 2


1. RE: Re: Re: 'MURICA!

The basis of my opponent's argument is that WWII improved our nation's economy. However, there is one historical point he fails to see...

...We did not enter World War 2 because of the holocaust. We entered World War 2 because of Japan's attack on pearl harbor (

Furthermore, Japan had a far less aggressive role in the actual Holocaust then Germany, as they had a more neutral view on the Jewish people. (

Therefore, We cannot credit the Holocaust for making the United States a hegemon.

2. RE: Re: Re: Prevention Against Genocide

Teachers can educate children on genocide all they want. The fact is, it's not preventing future genocides. Genocide continues to happen after the Holocaust, be it a primary example or not.

Osama Bin Laden (1993-2001) 3,500 Killed

Fidel Castro (1959-1999) 30,000 Killed

Papa Doc Duvalier (1957-1971) 60,000 Killed

Richard Nixon (Vietnam, 1969-1974) 70,000 Killed

Saddam Hussein (1980-1990) 600,000 Killed

The Kim Family (1948-present) More than 2,000,000 Killed

Mao Ze-Dong (1958-1969) 78,000,000 Killed (Far more than in the Holocaust)


...And all of this happened after the Holocaust. As much we want to believe that the Holocaust was the genocide to end all genocides, history doesn't lie. Genocide has not stopped.

Therefore, we cannot credit the Holocaust for decreasing the amount of genocides in the years that followed.

3. RE: Re: Re: Slows Overpopulation


But there aren't billions of people facing starvation. 925 million is the number here.

Besides, the population growth of the world is practically exponential:

Assuming the population of the world does reach 10 billion by 2050, and even if you don't want to, you can still consider that the population of the world is currently 7 billion. 11 million deaths from the Holocaust is not significant enough to solve any population problem.

Therefore, as we cannot credit a block of cheese from stopping a train, we cannot credit the Holocaust for slowing overpopulation to any significant degree.

4. Re: Re: Millions of Innocent People Died

Let's use the statistic of people who have committed a crime deserving to be punishable by death in a year divided by the total population: It turns out to be less than 1%. Petty crimes excluded (because people who steal candy don't deserve to die), It's fair to say that more than 99% of the people killed in the Holocaust were innocent (that is, innocent to the point where they didn't deserve to die). And that's an on-average estimate, and still adds up to millions.

Therefore, My original point remains true.

A small side note: My opponent suggests that there is a possibility all of those victims committed a crime worthy of being punishable by death. With no real math being used, I'd estimate the odds of that are the same as the odds of a quarter landing on it's side and then getting struck by lightning.

5. Conclusion:

Pro wins the round because there is no solid proof that the Holocaust indirectly made America a hegemon, nor that it slowed our overpopulation problem. Pro also wins the round because history proves that there is no significant decrease in genocide simply because the world suddenly had a realization of their wrongdoing because of the Holocaust.

...And millions of innocent people were killed.

6. Party Cannon

Please Vote Pro


First, I want to thank Pro for creating this debate. I thought it was fun and a good competition of creativity.

1. Re: Re: Re: Re: 'MURICA!

Pro has conceded to my arguments of the failure of Roosevelt's New Deal. That means he also conceded to the fact that USA needed the war to regain it's shambled economy. Now on to my rebuttal.

The conception of the Holocaust is the root cause of the entire WWII, and this happened when Hitler published his book Mein Kampf in 1925.* Even though it didn't spark the Pearl Harbor, the convoluted internal links is surely evident. Without the conception of the Holocaust, there would be no implementation of the Holocaust, which would mean Japan wouldn't have sided with Axis because there would be no European conflict. Thus, the entire conflict of WWII begun with the conception of Hitler's genocide.

Hitler's Holocaustic ideas led to the WWII, which brought the US into war. This war was what brought the US out of the depression and into the global leadership position.

2. Re: Re: Re: Re: Prevention Against Genocide

The fact is that there will always be genocide in the world. The only good that can come from this world is educating the world by starting in the education. In the Genocide unit, the primary example is the Holocaust. It sets as an example for the things that can happen if we don't stop genocide attempts in time.

Thus, in a genocide-inherent world, the best thing to do is still to educate our kids about it, which is the undisputed product of the atrocities of the Holocaust.

3. Re: Re: Re: Re: Slows Overproduction

The Pro has dropped the fact that global hunger is in fact caused by the unequal distribution of food and not the shortage. He says that the 11 million deaths from the Holocaust isn't a lot in the long run, but the resultant World War II killed over 60 million people, a staggering 2.5% of the world population at the time!** Because of these casualties, we prevent a lot of people from having children which would make the population of today way more than 7 billion. This in the long run, which is about 50 years from now, is very substantial.

The amount of people killed in WWII is substantial enough to change today's population. This, in turn, does affect the global hunger.

4. Re: Re: Re: Millions of Innocent People Died

I conceded that these people died for it is a fact that people died. However, these people died to make world a better place.


Even though the immediate effects of the Holocaust and WWII were bad, the long-term reform, effects, and prevention far outweigh the harm of the Holocaust. In the end, the United States became the hegemon because of its power gained from WWII. Once again, thank you for hosting this debate! I hope the impartial voters will only evaluate the contents within this debate. Thank you, and have a nice day.

Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by MassiveDump 3 years ago
Bro. Does a troll have to tell you not to feed the trolls?
Posted by justin.graves 3 years ago
Torture, murder, and rape... just hilarious. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Or maybe those that think it's funny.
Posted by justin.graves 3 years ago
Holocaust jokes... the lowest form of humor just barely above puns. And not nearly as funny. Yeah, let's joke about millions of dead people! Yeah, I'm sure they all think it's hilarious.
Posted by MassiveDump 3 years ago

It's just a joke, loosen up.
Posted by justin.graves 3 years ago
I'm not sure who to cyber-slap in this situation... the drunken lemur who created this debate, or the lobotomized idiot who took the bait.
Posted by devin.cooper64 3 years ago
Actually I take what I said back, both of these users are presenting stupid arguments and are using every logical fallacy in the book.
Posted by devin.cooper64 3 years ago
MassiveDump made the most on sided debate ever, which means he will win no matter what.
So lets hope LadyGaga can bring up some good arguments and do a good job, then he/she will get a vote.
Posted by philochristos 3 years ago
The only argument I can think of that could possibly be raised against you is the argument from nihilism. A person could just deny that there is any objective right and wrong at all, in which case, the holocaust could not have been wrong.

Or, a person could make a utilitarian argument combined with a genuine believe that the arian race is superior to Jews and other undesirables, and that we could help the human race evolve to a higher state by selectively killing inferior people. Instead of natural selection weeding out inferior people, it would be purposeful selection.

But I seriously doubt anybody will seriously advocate that. This debate is just begging for a troll to accept.
Posted by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
Most one-sided debate of the millennium.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I felt that Pro made the bet arguments. He also usually had sources to back him up.
Vote Placed by ExiOrca 3 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Not going to be radical or anything but Con made better arguments, whereas Pro only use his source to explain his points while not making much arguments. Source to Pro.