The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

The Nuremberg Trials were unjust.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Castile has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/7/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 521 times Debate No: 95242
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




This is my first debate on this website, so I want to start off with a bang! My topic is something I feel strongly about, and that is the Nuremberg Trials being unjust to the Nazis. I am not a supporter of what they've done, I'm in fact a Jew myself with family members who fled Europe for America to escape, however I think the trial itself was unfair and the people accused of the "crimes against humanity" were facing extremely biased . I shall explain further in the later rounds. To mix things up, I will allow con to make his opening argument in addition to a statement of acceptance into this debate if he/she so chooses.

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening Statements (or addition to opening statement if opponent chooses to do so in round 1)
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Conclusions

If this turns into an insult match/flame war I will cancel the debate. I will also cancel the debate if my opponent resorts to calling out grammar issues if he/she has nothing else to discuss. May the best debater win!


I personally think that the Nuremberg Trials were just for what the Nazis and its allies have done. As a lover of history I hope this debate welcomes you to the website as I'm also new here.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for joining me, and welcome to the website to you too :-) I too am a lover of history, however I'm mostly interested in modern history from WWI and beyond. On a more serious note, I'd like to add that in the conclusion round no new arguments or rebuttals can be made, unless it is to clear up a MISUNDERSTANDING of the previous argument that the opponent did not realize. There may also be no new arguments during the rebuttal, since a rebuttal is an argument of "you're wrong and here's why" and not "you're wrong because I have evidence I haven't brought to the discussion yet."

First off, I would like to discuss what exactly a "crime against humanity" is. It was used before the Nuremberg Trials to describe the actions of King Leopold II of Belgium Administration of the Congo. When the Trials came, the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal was to be created to draft out the rules of the future Nuremberg Trials, however until then they had no way of punishing someone for a "crime against humanity" for actions done to said person's own citizens that complied with the views of multiple countries. Thus, they had to include an official definition of what "crimes against humanity" are in the document. This was created a couple months before the trial, therefore the Nazis shouldn't have been punished for that specific reason since they committed said crimes before the definition was introduced, meaning the punishment that followed was ex post facto.

Next we must look at the famous defense used by the Nazis: "I was only following orders". Like crimes against humanity, this has existed beforehand but only got into the spotlight during the trials. Due to the shocking and often gruesome nature of the acts committed by the Nazis, it is understandable why one would pass this as an excuse to shift blame for one's crimes onto a higher power. However, studies have shown that when one is ordered to do something by a higher authority/power, their actions feel more passive than voluntary, allowing them to disconnect from their own actions. In the research article "An Assessment of Moral and Character Education in Initial Entry Training (IET)", it was found by William that even during just basic military training, ones perception of morality can be shifted from what it is normally during peace time.

Thirdly, one must think about the point of view of the Allies holding the trial. The trial was already against the favor of the Nazis because they were on the losing side of the war. The Allies wanted to punish the Nazis because of the acts they committed, and yet there are examples of people aligned with the Allies committing war crimes , and yet hey were never put up for trial in Nuremberg (it doesn't have to be crimes against humanity). These include, but are not limited to, events such as the London Cage Torture and the death of thousands of POWs through neglect because the camps they were in were understaffed.

I can't wait to see what my opponent has to say on the matter. This was much more fun to research than I expected it to be :-)

Sources (I expect my opponent to provide his/her sources as well)
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
In a not to distance future in Europe, muslims will probably kill non muslims and visa versa. Who will you trial for what ? Justice is an idea. Life devolops its own justice..The nazis were true to theire beliefs as the US is true to its beliefs..Think the US is responsible for more killings then the nazis..Start with Korea and Wietnam.
Posted by Hayd 1 year ago
Please change voting system to select winner rather than 7 point. Make 72 hours to submit arguments and make the voting period last a month and I'll accept. Send the challenge to me so someone doesn't accept it
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.