The Instigator
Topiarey
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points
The Contender
Anti-atheist
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Nazis of the 1920s-40s 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Topiarey
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,837 times Debate No: 28353
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

Topiarey

Pro

I chose to debate this topic with this guy considering he's the first Nazi I've found on this site.

First round is acceptance.

Definitions:

Evil:
I'd like to define Evil as something that is causing harm to others, and morally reprehensible.

Nazis: The fascist party governing Germany from Hitler's obtainment of emergency powers in Germany to his eventual death by suicide in 1945.
Debate Round No. 1
Topiarey

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent, Anti-Atheist, for accepting this debate and I hope it will be a good one.

I will bring up several points pertaining to the war crimes committed by the Nazis between the 1920s-40s, and will prove how the Nazis of Germany did more harm than good.

To Provide Some Backstory:

The Nazis were a fascist group of people that for many years attempted to overthrow the democratic system run by Germany. Through means of revolution and political manipulation, they tried it all until they came into power. They then cleansed the population of germany of their opponents and started the greatest war in world history.

Ethnic Cleansing/Experiments

Ethnic cleansing is the process or policy of eliminating unwanted ethnic or religious groups by deportation, forcible displacement, and ultimately mass murder. As most of the world knows, the third reich held an impressively sophisticated system of exterminating anyone that did not fit in their race of Aryans, the largest group of which was the Jews.

To begin with, the concept of the "Aryan race" is ridiculous prejudiced doctrine created by one of the most evil men of the 20th century. The supremacy of one race over another is based on no actual evidence other than the enemies' of the Aryan race having economic supremacy in the German economy.

However, the nazis were not necessarily evil for being racist. They were evil for exterminating any race they saw as inferior. This included the Jews, Gypsies, and Homosexuals for the most part, ignoring political prisoners. The inhumanity and pointlessness of their mass killings is what we look down upon. Men, women, and little children were shoved into gas chambers and suffocated, were mass shot, were shoved into pits of fire to burn and their fat was used to keep the flames burning.

No human being, or race of human beings, deserves to have gone through this. No human being or group of human beings should ever plan something like this. This is what makes the Nazi's evil. They blamed the problems of their society randomly on a specific group of people that had always been hated, and they committed terrible atrocities.

To Summarize: The Nazi's are evil because they thoughtlessly killed millions.

Strength over Weakness - The Philosophy of the Nazi Party

The fundamentals of the Nazi manifesto point to a philosophical idea: the strong stand over the weak, and the weak do not deserve to live. The weak, are the non national socialists, and the strong are the germans. Their dangerous ideology gave them leeway and reason to directly lead to the deaths of over hundred million people in World War II. In fact, it is this ideology, that proves they are evil. The concept of killing who they CONSIDER weak just because of their weakness is one of the most inhuman, anti-humanitarian, and overall insane inventions but unfortunately carnal instincts of the human conditions. The strong has always dominated the weak, and the Nazis took advantage of this and in every way they possibly could exploited the weak.

To Summarize: The Nazi's are evil because they follow evil philosophical/ideological ideas that preach the strong harming the weak.

The Secret Police - Fascism

From the rise of the Nazi state to its fall, a fascist society was helmed by Adolf Hitler that mass murdered domestically and internationally. By use of a secret police, the Nazis mass murdered their own people who had anything to say against the totalitarian dictatorship. On the news and TV everyday we hear about dictators who massacre their own people, but in fact this was on a much larger level. We consider them evil, why should the Nazis be considered good? Political suppression and the attempts to find hiding Jews plagued this state. Mass executions of communists were an everyday sight.

The Nazi's literally controlled everything in society, from the things kids learn at school to the thoughts of the citizens. Through mass propaganda and the brainwashing of children they practiced mass spying, similar to that Winston experienced in the novel 1984. There was no room for disagreement with the Nazi's in Germany, and most people were brainwashed not to.


To Summarize: Through means of mass terror against its own people, political suppression, mass brainwashing, children taught to spy against parents, and mass executions of political opponents the Nazi's caused SEVERE harm to their own people purposefully, making them evil.



I am looking forward to hearing my opponent's responses.


Sources:

1. Ethnic Cleansing:
http://en.wikipedia.org...


2. Strength over Weakness:
http://creation.com...

3. Police State: http://books.google.com...;
Anti-atheist

Con

1. Ethnic Cleansing/Experiments

Hitler did want to create a super race to help humanity. This isn't racist. All he wanted was a race of strong men who have amazing endurance and intellect to help everyone as a world. The misunderstandings come from the so called "Ethnic Cleansing" part. There's many counterexamples to this, as interbreeding with jews was encouraged[1]. Many weren't killed because they were a different race but they were elite rich who wanted to destroy the economy. There's no evidence to show they killed off because of inferior genes. The "Aryan" race didn't orignally mean white. The nazis did base this view of a superior race off of false understanding of genetics, but that doesn't make it evil.

2. Strength over Weakness - The Philosophy of the Nazi Party

Hitler did not believe in evolution. Nor this philosophy. He said "races were created distinct by God"[2] that includes jews. There's many examples against the nazis using this philosophy. They had many doctors caring for the young and weak[3].

" The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise." - Hitler.

3. The Secret Police - Fascism

The USA does these things all the time. Hitler only killed those who were going to kill innocents. Germany is big. There would be executions, but all were justified even by the most stern anti-nazi

1. Gals, Doug. 1987. The Master Race.
2. Hitler, Adolf. "On the Jews and their Lies"
3. Weindling, Paul. 2005. Nazi Medicine and the Nuremberg Trials: From Medical War Crimes to Informed Consent
Debate Round No. 2
Topiarey

Pro

I'll jump right into rebuttals.

1. Ethnic Cleansing/Experiments

My opponent has stated that Hitler was in fact, against ethnic cleansing, and wasn't racist. All he wanted, my opponent says, was to create a race of strong men who have amazing endurance and intellect.

May I point out, that in order to create this master race of men (which is based off an extremely primitive race theory), ethnic cleansing is necessary. Interbreeding with Jews in Germany was absolutely not encouraged in Nazi germany, half Jews were discriminated against while full Jews were executed in gas chambers. How is this not racist? To value one race over another to begin with is racist.

I know that "Aryan" doesn't mean white. That does not in fact make the Nazis not racist. Racism is evil, having a race theory almost always leads to violence against minorities. They murdered millions of jews, therefore they are EVIL for the reasons I have stated: The Nazi's are evil because they killed millions.

I also want to say that the Nazi's in Germany associated all those that were rich with the Jews, therefore it doesn't matter if they killed rich people because they closely associated Jews with the rich. Not all of the Jews were rich bankers, against most stereotypes. Many were middle class that were slaughtered with everyone else.

I do ask that my opponent give me more accurate sources, such as web documents or websites. When I entered in his first source into Google, author and all, the only thing that came up was this debate itself. I'd like to see an exact factual piece of evidence from a legitimate source that says Hitler was against ethnic cleansing to counteract my piece of evidence.

2. Strength over Weakness- The Philosophy of the Nazi Party

Your quote of "races were created distinct by God" does nothing to support your case or go against this ideology. Hitler and his Nazis believed in the inferiority of the Jews and some other minorities over the Germans, and made it his goal to eradicate weakness from the earth. While he may not have supported the Darwinist theory of EVOLUTION, he believed in a different type of evolution involving races or the strong humans over the weak.

I'd also like to point out that your third source, saying that many doctors cared for the youth, describes young Aryan Germans in sickness. If a Jew was sick, he was executed. If a Jew was seen as being unfit for work when they arrived at the camp, they were sent to the chambers. This small example of caring for people of their own race, who they naturally saw as superior, does not make up for the evil of their ideology.

The Germans were evil because of their evil philosophy.

3. The Secret Police - Fascism

While I do agree that the US does at times use propaganda and the FBI to do their dirty work, IT DOES NOT MATTER. To put it into context, instead of interrogating people, the Secret Police were murdering thousands. And no, this is ridiculous. Hitler killed anyone who didn't support him politically or were for freedom of press. He outlawed Communism for absolutely no reason other than to defeat his opponents. The Communists were not going to murder people. They simply were against fascism. The Jews hiding under floorboards weren't going to murder people. They were simply against fascism.

I ask that you don't source the Reichstag fire as a reason for outlawing communism, for the man who was charged with burning it down was clearly mentally unstable, and the actions of one man do not condemn an entire philosophy. In retrospect, the actions of an entire country such as Nazi Germany, do condemn Nazism.

I'd also like to say that many people believe Hitler staged the Reichstag fire, but there is inconclusive evidence.


To Summarize The Debate:

My opponent, Anti-Atheist, has created what appears to be fake sources, has manipulated quotes from others to support his argument, and has fabricated what he calls facts.

I have given three broad points as to why the Nazi's were evil, and he has failed to refute a single one.

Vote Aff.
Anti-atheist

Con

Ethnic cleansing

Pro claims in order to create a super race you must kill all others. This is wrong! As if you want to create. a super potato we dont need to kill all other potatoes

" also want to say that the Nazi's in Germany associated all those that were rich with the Jews, therefore it doesn't matter if they killed rich people because they closely associated Jews with the rich. Not all of the Jews were rich bankers, against most stereotypes. Many were middle class that were slaughtered with everyone else."

Wrong. Poverty sicken jews were spared.

" do ask that my opponent give me more accurate sources"

Ohhb you dont like sources because they prove me right? Conduct and sources go to me.

Strength over Weakness- The Philosophy of the Nazi Party

All races were created by god however the white race is the choosen ones. This philosophy is a darwinist philosophy. Therefore the nazis didnt have this view.

Sometimes the jews were killed for being sick but so dis other nazis. It was only a rare event that happened if they were low on resources or it was life threating and couldn't of been resolved.

3. The Secret Police - Fascism

You don't rebut here. you just repeat

Summery

Pros arfumebts are weak and fully refuted
Debate Round No. 3
Topiarey

Pro

This debate is getting fairly interesting, so again I'm just going to jump back into refuting.

1. Ethnic Cleansing

I stated that Hitler and his Nazis believed that they must preserve their master race by murdering the Jews, so as to prevent them from breeding with the Aryans. While if you want to create a "master race" (even though race theory is extremely unethical and wrong), you technically don't HAVE to murder everyone else, this does not change the fact that the Nazis did.

My opponent is denying common knowledge and suggesting that "poverty stricken jews were spared". This blatant lying on the side of the Con is enough to give me conduct straight out. Jews, no matter rich or poor, were associated with the upper class in capitalist societies, were universally hated, and were universally executed. There is NO debating this. My opponent is either lying or trolling, either case I get conduct.

And no, I ask you to give more accurate sources because your source doesn't exist in any galaxy except this debate. I researched because I was wondering what possible source could support this trolling.

2. Strength over Weakness - The Philosophy of the Nazi Party

First of all, there is no proven existence of a god. Second, the philosophy you brought up is not Darwinism. Darwinism strictly refers to the evolution of different classes of organisms, not blacks and whites.

While the Nazis didn't follow Darwinism, they followed a similar philosophy that instead used the concept of "Evolution" as a race theory, in which some races are naturally superior to others.

I don't care if it was because they were "low on resources". They killed people against their will because they were weak.

3. The Secret Police - Fascism

I did rebut stating that your logic doesn't support your argument. If the US does it, it doesn't mean it isn't evil.

I proved that not everyone that was killed was violently opposing the Nazis or randomly killing people. This blatant disrespectful not caring about what I'm saying and suggesting "he repeated himself" goes against the purpose of debate, especially since all I did was introduce new reasoning.


Summary:

Con failed to refute anything this round. Please extend my past summary.

Because my arguments are clearly superior despite the blatant falsifying of sources and misrepresentation of pieces of evidence in his favor, Aff gets Arguments. Because he has used near perfect grammar all the time in comparison with my opponent's often incorrect grammar and spelling, I get S&G. Because he falsified sources, lied, and acted like I was whining complaining that his sources weren't real, I get conduct. Because I used legitimate sources instead of his ridiculous use of falsified evidence and making up books, I get sources.

Aff has clearly won this debate.
Anti-atheist

Con

Man pro did aweful. Didn't even touch upon anything I said to make it impossible to refute.

Conduct goes to me
Arguments go to me
Sources go to me

VOOOte me
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Topiarey 4 years ago
Topiarey
Are you KIDDING me? How is this a troll debate on my part?
Posted by Topiarey 4 years ago
Topiarey
Sorry that I haven't posted an argument yet. Kinda busy atm but I'll get it in the next day or so
Posted by Anti-atheist 4 years ago
Anti-atheist
I'll accept in a few days
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by The_Master_Riddler 4 years ago
The_Master_Riddler
TopiareyAnti-atheistTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: con refuted none of pro's args con had bad grammar con's args were not very good and valid google is not a good source con calls pro awful
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
TopiareyAnti-atheistTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I think there is a danger in scapegoating the Nazis for atrocities committed by nearly all nations during this period. The Nazis treated the Jews with as much disdain as the Americans treated the Japanese. The degree was more severe, as was the degree to which Germany was losing the war. Regardless, both justified ghettoization and mass killings to achieve their ends. Anyway, CON simply did not put up a convincing defense. I would also be hard pressed to do so, unless the resolution were to be based on relative evil during that time period. Changed my voting...after looking at CON, it is clear this is a troll debate instigated by PRO.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
TopiareyAnti-atheistTied
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: " Hitler only killed those who were going to kill innocents" - Such arguments by the con were simply his own unsupported opinions that are blatantly false that fell well short of refuting any of the pro's arguments. Pro pointed out many of Hitler and the Nazi's misdeeds that the con tried to dance around but ultimately got crushed by them. Arguments to the pro, sources to the pro since hes the only one who used them, and conduct to the pro due to cons shitty conduct in the final round
Vote Placed by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
TopiareyAnti-atheistTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to pro for con calling pro "awful" S/G For "VOOOTE CON!" Pro made more convincing arguments (in my opinion) Sources were far more reliable, the ones from pro.
Vote Placed by Chicken 4 years ago
Chicken
TopiareyAnti-atheistTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Anti-Atheist is simply a troll (look at his last round). All of Pro's arguments go unrefuted in the end, with con using arguments that seem to bypass pro's and create indirect clash. Con's burden is to create direct clash with Pro, who has the BOP. Pro's burden is to uphold his/her case for affirmation. It's quite obvious who won this, the Ethnic Cleansing, and Secret Police give pro the win. Pro's second point on philosophy goes cleanly extended as well, but that's an extremely bad argument to use, even though it is voting ground because con fails to address any relevant portion of Pro's case. Conduct to pro for con's last round.