The Instigator
kvaughan
Pro (for)
Losing
42 Points
The Contender
zakkuchan
Con (against)
Winning
46 Points

The Nazis 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
Pro Tied Con
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: 1/3/2008 Category: Education
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,170 times Debate No: 1294
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (28)

 

kvaughan

Pro

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

Con

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.

Primarily, we need to remember that everyone makes mistakes, and that it is incredibly presumptuous and unjust for society to judge a person or group of people based on one single tiny mistake some 60 years ago.
Debate Round No. 1
kvaughan

Pro

look, what you don't understand is that The Hitler Youth was a logical extension of Hitler's belief that the future of Nazi Germany was its children. The Hitler Youth was seen as being as important to a child as school was. In the early years of the Nazi government, Hitler had made it clear as to what he expected German children to be like:
"The weak must be chiselled away. I want young men and women who can suffer pain. A young German must be as swift as a greyhound, as tough as leather, and as hard as Krupp's steel."

Nazi education schemes part fitted in with this but Hitler wanted to occupy the minds of the young in Nazi Germany even more.

Movements for youngsters were part of German culture and the Hitler Youth had been created in the 1920's. By 1933 its membership stood at 100,000. After Hitler came to power, all other youth movements were abolished and as a result the Hitler Youth grew quickly. In 1936, the figure stood at 4 million members. In 1936, it became all but compulsory to join the Hitler Youth. Youths could avoid doing any active service if they paid their subscription but this became all but impossible after 1939.

The Hitler Youth catered for 10 to 18 year olds. There were separate organisations for boys and girls. The task of the boys section was to prepare the boys for military service. For girls, the organisation prepared them for motherhood.

Boys at 10, joined the Deutsches Jungvolk (German Young People) until the age of 13 when they transferred to the Hitler Jugend (Hitler Youth) until the age of 18. In 1936, the writer J R Tunus wrote about the activities of the Hitler Jugend. He stated that part of their "military athletics" (Wehrsport) included marching, bayonet drill, grenade throwing, trench digging, map reading, gas defence, use of dugouts, how to get under barbed wire and pistol shooting.

Girls, at the age of 10, joined the Jungmadelbund (League of Young Girls) and at the age of 14 transferred to the Bund Deutscher Madel (League of German Girls). Girls had to be able to run 60 metres in 14 seconds, throw a ball 12 metres, complete a 2 hour march, swim 100 metres and know how to make a bed.

"Every girl belongs to us"
League of German Maidens poster

The whole Hitler Youth movement was overseen by Balder von Shirach.

Balder von Shirach

To the outside world, the Hitler Youth seemed to personify German discipline. In fact, this image was far from accurate. School teachers complained that boys and girls were so tired from attending evening meetings of the Hitler Youth, that they could barely stay awake the next day at school. Also by 1938, attendance at Hitler Youth meetings was so poor - barely 25% - that the authorities decided to tighten up attendance with the 1939 law making attendance compulsory.
zakkuchan

Con

So you're saying that the Hitler Youth program also made the Nazi party evil? I'd be inclined to disagree. I think every child needs the sort of structure the Nazis provided through said program. We don't want a bunch of kids growing up with cultural diversity all around them, subverting the proper messages of conformity and agreeing with the leaders.

Also, consider this: "After the boy scout movement was banned through German-controlled countries, the HJ appropriated many of its activities, though changed in content and intention. For example, many HJ activities closely resembled military training, with weapons training, assault course circuits and basic strategy. Some cruelty by the older boys toward the younger ones was tolerated and even encouraged, since it was believed this would weed out the unfit and harden the rest." So what we're talking about here is really nothing more than a Nazi Germany version of Boy Scouts. Are you saying you're anti-Boy Scouts?

Clearly, then, the Hitler Youth was not an "evil" program of the Nazi party. And as I have said, the mistakes that they did make (e.g. mass extermination of the Jews and a number of other types of people in the most sinister, diabolical and downright *mean* genocide ever to grace the face of this planet) should not cause people to judge the entire movement as "evil".
Debate Round No. 2
kvaughan

Pro

Ah, but you're forgettings some very important facts.

National Socialist philosophy came together during a time of crisis in Germany; the nation had lost World War I in 1918, but had also been forced to sign the Treaty of Versailles, a devastating capitulation, and was in the midst of a period of great economic depression and instability. The Dolchstosslegende, or "stab in the back"[citation needed] described by the National Socialists featured a claim that the war effort was sabotaged internally, in large part by Germany's Jews. The National Socialists suggested that a lack of patriotism had led to Germany's defeat (for one, the front line was off of German soil at the time of the armistice). In politics, criticism was directed at the Social Democrats and the Weimar government (Deutsches Reich 1919-1933), which the National Socialists accused of selling out the country. The concept of Dolchstosslegende led many to look at Jews and other so-called "non-Germans"[citation needed] living in Germany as having extra-national loyalties, thereby raising antisemitic sentiments and the Judenfrage (German for the "Jewish Question"[citation needed]), at a time when the V�lkisch movement and a desire to create a Greater Germany were strong.

On January 5, 1919, the party that eventually became the Nazi Party was founded under the name German Workers' Party (DAP) by Anton Drexler, along with six other members.[11][12] German intelligence authorities sent Hitler, a corporal at the time, to investigate the German Workers' Party. As a result, party members invited him to join after he impressed them with the speaking ability he displayed while arguing with party members. Hitler joined the party in September 1919, and he became the propaganda boss.[12][13] The party was renamed the National Socialist German Workers' Party on February 24, 1920,[12] against Hitler's choice of Social Revolutionary Party.[14][15] Hitler ousted Drexler and became the party leader on July 29, 1921.[15][12]

Although Adolf Hitler had joined the Nazi Party in September 1919, and published Mein Kampf in 1925 and 1926, the seminal ideas of National Socialism had their roots in groups and individuals of decades past.[12] These include the V�lkisch movement and its religious-occult counterpart, Ariosophy. Among the various Ariosophic lodge-like groups, only the Thule Society is directly related to the origins of the Nazi party.

The term Nazism refers to the ideology of the National Socialist German Workers Party and its Weltanschauung, which permeated German society (and to some degree European and American society) during the party's years as the German government (1933 to 1945). Free elections in 1932 under Germany's Weimar Republic made the NSDAP the largest parliamentary faction; no similar party in any country at that time had achieved comparable electoral success. Hitler's January 30, 1933 appointment as Chancellor of Germany and his subsequent consolidation of dictatorial power, marked the beginning of Nazi Germany. During its first year in power, the NSDAP announced the Tausendj�hriges Reich ("Thousand Years' Empire") or Drittes Reich ("Third Reich", a putative successor to the Holy Roman Empire and the German Empire).
zakkuchan

Con

You're being completely and totally unfair to the Nazis. Sure, they've done some pretty rotten stuff at certain points of their existence (viz. the worst genocide in history). But that doesn't mean that the entire National Socialist German Workers' Party was or is a bad or "evil" entity. Using the sort of contentions that would prove the Nazis were evil, one could prove just about anyone "evil" based solely off of a few mistakes.

Furthermore, consider this: "The Nazi racial philosophy was influenced by the works of Arthur de Gobineau, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and Madison Grant, and wholly embraced Alfred Rosenberg's Aryan Invasion Theory. The theory traced Aryan peoples in ancient Iran invading the Indus Valley Civilization, and carrying with them great knowledge and science that had been preserved from the antediluvian world. This "antediluvian world" referred to Thule, the speculative pre-Flood/Ice Age origin of the Aryan race, and is often tied to ideas of Atlantis. Several of the founders and subsequent leadership of the Nazi Party had been associates — and very occasionally members — of the Thule-Gesellschaft (the Thule Society), which romanticized the Aryan race through theology and ritual.[22]" In other words, all they wanted was practical application of beliefs that they *truly* held; this cannot possibly be considered "evil".
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
lmao, afeinberg's comment!
Please tell me he was joking!
Posted by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
Actually sorry for my last comment, I was trying to make people believe I actually liked the Nazis so I could see them go "how can you vote con? the nazis were terrible". But anyways the experiment is over and what I said was kind of inappropriate, so I apologize
Posted by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
Oh my god, this is so funny! hilarious! But I won't give it away for those who didn't get it...

Heil Hitler! The nazis were awesome! Vote Con!
Posted by aceofelves 9 years ago
aceofelves
The intentions don't justify the actions.
Posted by hattopic 9 years ago
hattopic
I read some of the quotes and started cracking up. It amazes me that there are actually people that don't bother looking over the arguments.
Posted by afeinberg 9 years ago
afeinberg
Zakkuchan, you were really brave to accept Kvaughan's challenge, but proving that the Nazis weren't evil is harder to pull off than getting into Yale with a D average. Sure, they didn't intend to be evil, but they were. Mass murder based on sexual, ethnic, or religious orientation and questing for world domination is by definition bad. Once again, I salute your attempt.
Posted by zakkuchan 9 years ago
zakkuchan
Note that "Pro" won in each of our experiments, despite the fact that in one of them, we were debating the wrong sides (i.e. "Pro" won even when "Pro" was making "Con" arguments).
Posted by bcaldwell100 9 years ago
bcaldwell100
I think you certainly did a better job than I did. Foxman and I are still working on another experiment. The only problem with actually debating on both sides, even if it was really bad, is that you have to take into account that some people are really stupid. If you give them arguments to quote then they can actually say that you won the debate. I've actually seen real debates as bad as this, where one side clearly won and the voters gave the other guy the win. When challenged to actually cite when their pick one, they'd go to one of his crapy arguments and carry it. I do commend you for trying, and certainly doing better than me.
Posted by DaltonDem 9 years ago
DaltonDem
the opposition is distorting the facts.
Posted by shlh1514 9 years ago
shlh1514
The Nazis were wrong to try to annialate the whole Jewish race and maybe so other races, but they wanted the country to become "one" the same no outcast. I'm not saying that I am a Nazi approver, making the country and the people in it is great. It will stop segragation throught the country and show that there is "every man is equal" in a country. One mistake is one mistake. There is no one mistake is bigger or smaller why? It is the way people rate the mistakes you do.
28 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 8 years ago
pcmbrown
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 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 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 malmal16 9 years ago
malmal16
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 redinbluestate 9 years ago
redinbluestate
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 Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
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 DeATHNOTE 9 years ago
DeATHNOTE
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 kannonuk4 9 years ago
kannonuk4
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 SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
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 rwebberc 9 years ago
rwebberc
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