The Instigator
kvaughan
Con (against)
Losing
30 Points
The Contender
zakkuchan
Pro (for)
Winning
55 Points

The Nazi's were evil.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/2/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,040 times Debate No: 1291
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (27)

 

kvaughan

Con

Nazi's suck. They killed all the Jews and made them dead and that's not alright with me. The Jews loved God and didn't afraid of anything so they didn't need to become an hero.

Indeed dialectical critical realism may be seen under the aspect of Foucauldian strategic reversal-of the unholy trinity of Parmenidean/Platonic/Aristotelean provenance; of the Cartesian-Lockean-Humean-Kantian paradigm; of foundationalisms (in practice, fideistic foundationalisms) and irrationalisms (in practice, capricious exercises of the will-to-power or some other ideologically and/or psycho-somatically buried source) new and old alike; of
the primordial failing of western philosophy, ontological monovalence, and its close ally, the epistemic fallacy with its ontic dual; of the analytic problematic laid down by Plato, which Hegel served only to replicate in his actualist monovalent analytic reinstatement in transfigurative reconciling dialectical connection, while in his hubristic claims for absolute idealism he inaugurated the Comtean, Kierkegaardian and Nietzschean eclipses of reason, replicating the fundaments of positivism through its transmutation route to the superidealism of a Baudrillard.

OK, now that's out of the way, I want to explain myself. There was a debate earlier where someone did something similar to this as an experiment to see if anyone actually reads debates or votes strictly on topic. They failed however, because it wasn't clear who to vote for if you actually read the debate. So, this is my attempt at a redo. If you read this far, vote con (not for me) in this debate. We shall see what percentage of votes go for me and judge how accurate voting is. My opponent should defend that Nazi's are OK for at lest a paragraph in each debate and then spam a quote of some kind. (the preceding and following quotes are the winners of most pretentious writing awards)

With the last gasp of Romanticism, the quelling of its florid uprising against the vapid formalism of one strain of the Enlightenment, the dimming of its yearning for the imagined grandeur of the archaic, and the dashing of its too sanguine hopes for a revitalized, fulfilled humanity, the horror of its more lasting, more Gothic legacy has settled in, distributed and diffused enough, to be sure, that lugubriousness is recognizable only as languor, or as a certain sardonic laconicism disguising itself in a new sanctification of the destructive instincts, a new genius for displacing cultural reifications in the interminable shell game of the analysis of the human psyche, where nothing remains sacred.
zakkuchan

Pro

The idea that Nazis were "evil" simply because of one particular set of actions they went about at one particular time in their history is absurd. We all make mistakes, and we all have the right to expect people not to judge us based solely off of our mistakes, without also taking into consideration our successes. Consider the following:

-The Nazis brought political order and economic success to a nation that was suffering from a massive depression brought on by World War I.
-The Nazis' central goal was to unite all of Europe, something that has recently come to fruition through the European Union, which not many people would call "evil".
-The Nazis eloquently and succinctly rejected the outmoded philosophies of various pretentious medieval and enlightenment philosophers who sought naught but the total destruction of the worth of the individual, thus ushering on a Golden Age of sorts in terms of individual value in the eyes of society.
-The Nazis were strongly opposed to such outdated rhetoric as, "Twinkle twinkle little star, how I wonder what you are. Up above the world so high, like a diamond in the sky. Twinkle twinkle little star, how I wonder what you are." I must commend them for this brave stance.
-The Nazis, according to encyclopediadramatica.com, "did it for the lulz." In my professional opinion as a triple doctorate in Lulzography, Lulzology, and Lulzmatics is that this can only bring about good results.
Debate Round No. 1
kvaughan

Con

Whether you like him or not, you have to admit that Hitler did kill a lot of people. During his dictatorial reign of Nazi Germany he exterminated somewhere around 6 million Jewish people and about 6 million other undesirables (gypsies, commies, n00bs, and emo kids) in the Holocaust, invented the Volkswagen, and was the first modern person to almost own the entire world with militaristic slapping in the form of air raids and armies. On the other hand, Hitler was also a sensitive man. When he was younger, Hitler went to art school. He was a vegetarian, a non-smoker, and also had a moustache. If Hitler were alive today, he'd listen to The Cure, The Smiths, and Depeche Mode. On the downside, he dropped out of art school, slept until three in the afternoon every day, and threw temper tantrums if you tried to wake him up. Though rejected as an artist, he has been wholeheartedly embraced as an accomplished loser. Which is basically the same thing.

VOTE PRO VOTE PRO VOTE PRO, that's what I meant to say
Hitler is also one of the most talked about people on internet forums and message boards. No matter what the subject is, there is no doubt that Hilter's name will come up eventually in conversation OTI. It is also customary on the internet to post Hitler's likeness repeatedly as a sign of friendship and respect. In short, the internets <3 Hitler.
zakkuchan

Pro

There seems to be some misunderstanding about what we're talking about here.

Nazism has come to stand for a belief in the superiority of an Aryan race, an abstraction of the Germanic peoples. During Hitler's time, the Nazis advocated a strong, centralized government under the F�hrer and claimed to defend Germany and the German people (including those of German ethnicity abroad) against Communism and so-called Jewish subversion. Ultimately, the Nazis sought to create a largely homogeneous and autarkic ethnic state, absorbing the ideas of Pan-Germanism.

Historians often disagree on the principal interests of the Nazi Party and whether Nazism can be considered a coherent ideology. The original National Socialists claimed that there would be no program that would bind them, and that they wanted to reject any established world view. Still, as Hitler played a major role in the development of the Nazi Party from its early stages and rose to become the movement's indisputable iconographic figurehead, much of what is thought to be "Nazism" is in line with Hitler's own political beliefs - the ideology and the man continue to remain largely interchangeable in the public eye. Some dispute whether Hitler's views relate directly to those surrounding the movement; the problem is furthered by the inability of various self-proclaimed Nazis and Nazi groups to decide on a universal ideology. But if Nazism is the world view promulgated in Mein Kampf, that world view is consistent and coherent, being characterized essentially by a conception of history as a race struggle; the F�hrerprinzip; anti-Semitism; and the need to acquire a Lebensraum at the expenses of the Soviet Union [16]. The core concept of Nazism is that the German Volk is under attack from a judeo-bolshevist conspiracy[16], and must become united, disciplined and self sacrificing (must submit to Nazi leadership) in order to win.

Hitler's political beliefs were formulated in Mein Kampf (My Struggle, 1925). His views were composed of three main axes: a conception of history as a race struggle influenced by social darwinism; antisemitism and the idea that Germany needed to conquer a "Lebensraum" ("living space") from Russia. His antisemitism, coupled with his anti-Communism, gave the grounds of his conspiracy theory of "judeo-bolshevism.[16]" Hitler first began to develop his views through observations he made while living in Vienna from 1907 to 1913. He concluded that a racial, religious, and cultural hierarchy existed, and he placed "Aryans" at the top as the ultimate superior race, while Jews and "Gypsies" were people at the bottom. He vaguely examined and questioned the policies of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, where as a citizen by birth, Hitler lived during the Empire's last throes of life. He believed that its ethnic and linguistic diversity had weakened the Empire and helped to create dissension. Further, he saw democracy as a destabilizing force because it placed power in the hands of ethnic minorities who, he claimed, "weakened and destabilized" the Empire by dividing it against itself. Hitler's political beliefs were then affected by World War I and the 1917 October Revolution, and saw some modifications between 1920 and 1923. He then definitively formulated them in Mein Kampf.[17]

In both popular thought and academic scholarship, Nazism is generally considered a form of fascism - a term whose definition is itself contentious. The debate focuses mainly on comparisons of fascist movements in general with the Italian prototype, including the fascists in Germany. The idea mentioned above to reject all former ideas and ideologies like democracy, liberalism, and especially marxism (as in Ernst Nolte[18]) make it difficult to track down a perfect definition of these two terms; however, Italian Fascists tended to believe that all elements in society should be unified through corporatism to form an "Organic State"; this meant that these Fascists often had no strong opinion on the question of race, since it was only the state and nation that mattered.

German Nazism, on the other hand, emphasized the Aryan race or "Volk" principle to the point where the state simply seemed a means through which the Aryan race could realize its "true destiny." Since a debate among historians (especially Zeev Sternhell) to see each movement, or at least the German, as unique, the issue has been settled in most parts showing that there is a stronger family resemblance between the Italian and the German fascist movement than there is between democracies in Europe or the communist states of the Cold War;[19] additionally, the crimes of the fascist movement can be compared, not only in numbers of casualties, but also in common developments: the March on Rome of Mussolini to Hitler's response shortly after to attempt a coup d'etat himself in Munich.

Also, Aryanism was not an attractive idea for Italians who were seen as a non-Nordic population, but still there was a strong racism and also genocide in concentration camps long before either was in place in Germany.[20] The philosophy that had seemed to be separating both fascisms was shown to be a result of happening in two different countries: since the king of Italy had not died, unlike the Reichspr�sident, the leader in Italy (Duce) was not able to gain the absolute power the leader in Germany (F�hrer) did, leading to Mussolini's fall. The academic challenge to separate all fascist movements has since the 1980s and early 1990s been ground for a new attempt to see even more similarities.

I hope I have clarified.
Debate Round No. 2
kvaughan

Con

you're forgetting some very important facts about this debate and about Hitler. Because of this, you cannot reasonably defend that the Nazis were evil.

* That loser wasn't even a German, he was Austrian
* Hitler served in the German army in WWI (as a private), and got pwned with tear-gas by the Allies and since he was dumb as heck he assumed it was nerve-gas and spent months in a hospital cyring to Linkin Park.
* A dog saved his life from being hit by a mortar round.
* Hitler lieks mudkipz
* He was a vegetarian. Not out of principal but because he had horrible IBS and gastritis and his stomach couldn't handle meat. He also had terrible breath and smelled bad.
* His dog was named 'Blondie'. Quiz your history teacher on that one!
* He actually wanted to become an artist
* He painted houses before he became emo
* He was addicted to meth and had syphilis, just like every other white supremacist
* If Hitler would have lived out his dream of becoming an artist, he would have over 9000 more pageviews than Snapesnogger
* Hitler only had one testicle
* Hitler decided to start a little war just for the lulz
* Hitler, because of his definition of a Jew, was a Jew. And since Jews did WTC, Hiter is responsible for 9/11.
zakkuchan

Pro

Now wait a minute there. It's not very fair to say that Hitler lieked mudkip. I think you're racist for saying that.

Furthermore, we wouldn't want to forget about this:

Nazism and communism emerged as two serious contenders for power in Germany after the First World War, particularly as the Weimar Republic became increasingly unstable. What became the Nazi movement arose out of resistance to the Bolshevik-inspired insurgencies that occurred in Germany in the aftermath of the First World War. The Russian Revolution of 1917 caused a great deal of excitement and interest in the Leninist version of Marxism and caused many socialists to adopt revolutionary principles. The Spartacist uprising in Berlin and the Bavarian Soviet Republic in 1919 were both manifestations of this. The Freikorps, a loosely organized paramilitary group (essentially a militia of former World War I soldiers) was used to crush both these uprisings and many leaders of the Freikorps, including Ernst R�hm, later became leaders in the Nazi Party. After Mussolini's fascists took power in Italy in 1922, fascism presented itself as a realistic option for opposing communism, particularly given Mussolini's success in crushing the communist and anarchist movements that had destabilized Italy with a wave of strikes and factory occupations after the First World War. Fascist parties formed in numerous European countries.

Many historians, such as Ian Kershaw and Joachim Fest, argue that Hitler's Nazis were one of numerous nationalist and increasingly fascistic groups that existed in Germany and contended for leadership of the anti-communist movement and, eventually, of the German state. Further, they assert that fascism and its German variant, National Socialism, became the successful challengers to communism because they were able to both appeal to the establishment as a bulwark against Bolshevism and appeal to the working class base, particularly the growing underclass of unemployed and unemployable and growingly impoverished middle class elements who were becoming declassed (denounced as the lumpenproletariat). The Nazis' use of pro-labor rhetoric appealed to those disaffected with capitalism by promoting the limiting of profits, the abolishing of rents and the increasing of social benefits (only for Germans) while simultaneously presenting a political and economic model that divested "Soviet socialism" of elements that were dangerous to capitalism, such as the concept of class struggle, "the dictatorship of the proletariat" or worker control of the means of production. Thus, Nazism's populism, anti-communism and anti-capitalism helped it become more powerful and popular than traditional conservative parties, like the DNVP. For the above reasons, particularly the fact that Nazis and communists fought each other (often violently) during most of their existence, nazism and communism are commonly seen as opposite extremes on the political spectrum. Nevertheless, this view is not without its challengers. Several political theorists and economists, primarily those associated with the Austrian school, argue that nazism, Soviet communism and other totalitarian ideologies share a common underpinning in socialism and collectivism.

The simplicity of Nazi rhetoric, campaigns, and ideology also made its conservative allies underestimate its strength, and its ability to govern or even to last as a political party. Michael Mann defined fascism as a "transcendent and cleansing nation statism through paramilitarism", with "transcendent" meaning that the all classes were to be abolished in order for a new, organic and pure people: all classes are abolished by transition, all "others" (an estimated two-thirds of the German population alone[56]).[57]
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
hahaha! well thank god that the contender is winning.
Posted by Conspicuous_Conservative 9 years ago
Conspicuous_Conservative
although I agree with the side of the instigator of this topic I found his arguments lacking facts and was solely based on opinion. With sophomoric language and unorganized details and made up references I feel the oother gentleman to be the victor
Posted by AMBagoli 9 years ago
AMBagoli
that is a whopper of a second sentence.....i had to go outside and take a smoke break half way through reading it because i got tired.

"Indeed dialectical critical realism.....the superidealism of a Baudrillard." i dont even care if that is grammatically correct.....thinking about still gives me the shivers. last night i had a nightmare that i was reading a never ending sentence, words and sounds just kept coming over and over from all directions.....i was scared.

but anywayz......good sentence.
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
I was tempted to vote Con (the one marked as con, not real con) simply because of meme use.
Posted by AREA 9 years ago
AREA
As much as Germans allowed their leadership to commit evil acts, there were many they would not stand for. Once the extermination of the mentally challenged was discovered, the German people rose up to force a stop to it, and it did stop. That was probably the primary reason the final solution was done in secret.

The leadership was fighting an existential war from which there would be no escape should they lose the war, and they chose their own lives over others to save money for their war budget instead of using it to imprison the Jewish people.
Was that evil?
Yes!
Here's why.
The evil in our world isn't the type we see in action movies were people kill for fun. That's simply criminally insane. Evil is choosing to hurt others for your own ends. Maybe the survival of Nazi Leadership was at stake, but they chose to end teh survival of their prisoners to help them in their goal of self preservation. We can all understand the goal of self preservation, but we mustn't agree with their decision to imprision and murder. And if we draw a line at self preservation for a government in Germany in the 1930s-40s, then we must do the same for all who govern on this earth. We must not let our fears lead us into evil.
Posted by zakkuchan 9 years ago
zakkuchan
Haha, I was confused from the beginning between your side being marked "Con" and you defending the topic/resolution. I decided I should just go with refuting what you were saying, which is that Nazis are/were evil. So I refuted that. :P And it was fun!
Posted by kvaughan 9 years ago
kvaughan
screwed this one up. He needed to say Nazis were not evil. His position is the one most people assume.
Posted by kvaughan 9 years ago
kvaughan
woops, yeah, that's what I meant
Posted by qwerty15ster 9 years ago
qwerty15ster
"If you read this far, vote con (not for me) in this debate." Huh? you are the con.......... so do you simply mean vote against you?
27 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by atheistman 8 years ago
atheistman
kvaughanzakkuchanTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
kvaughanzakkuchanTied
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 
Vote Placed by panthercub21 9 years ago
panthercub21
kvaughanzakkuchanTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
kvaughanzakkuchanTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by cinderella1992 9 years ago
cinderella1992
kvaughanzakkuchanTied
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 
Vote Placed by kenito001 9 years ago
kenito001
kvaughanzakkuchanTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Farooq 9 years ago
Farooq
kvaughanzakkuchanTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Masterworks 9 years ago
Masterworks
kvaughanzakkuchanTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by aaeap2 9 years ago
aaeap2
kvaughanzakkuchanTied
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 
Vote Placed by jlholtzapple 9 years ago
jlholtzapple
kvaughanzakkuchanTied
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