The Instigator
Crescendo
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
FrankTheBob
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Remaining Nazi War Criminals Should Be Prosecuted

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 1 vote the winner is...
Crescendo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/13/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,327 times Debate No: 54636
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

Crescendo

Pro

In this debate, I will be arguing that most (if not all) of the still alive Nazi War Criminals who are at large should, if captured, be prosecuted for their crimes they committed around 70 years ago. Con will be arguing that they shouldn't be prosecuted for the crimes they committed 70 years ago.

Burden of Proof is shared, my opponent may post his or her argument in the first round.
FrankTheBob

Con

Punishing Nazi War Criminals in 2014 would be beating a dead horse. Most of them are on their last bit of life anyways. We should not waste resources finding and prosecuting these guys. The Nazi were terrible, but punishing them now would be too little too late.
Debate Round No. 1
Crescendo

Pro

"Punishing Nazi War Criminals in 2014 would be beating a dead horse."

Pointless? Perhaps. But even so, part of the reason for prison is punishment. Another reason is deterrence. Even if the criminal cannot repeat his or her crime, it's still a good idea to lock them up.
Besides, by no means is it pointless to those who suffered under these monsters.

"Most of them are on their last bit of life anyways."

So are you saying that the seriousness of one's crime is negated because it took place decades ago? It doesn't matter if the Nazis perpetrated their crimes in 1943 or 2013; they still deserve to be punished for what they did.

"We should not waste resources finding and prosecuting these guys."

Like I said: they'd be prosecuted IF they're found. In this case, it wouldn't be any more costly than prosecuting a normal criminal, correct?

Now, besides punishment, here's another reason why they need to be punished:

Deterrence.

If you don't punish them, then why should we punish a perpetrator of a lesser genocide that also took place several decades ago? To do otherwise would be to say that: "Hey! If you can escape punishment for 40 or 50 years, we'll pretend you never committed that crime."

I hand the (imaginary) microphone back to Con.
FrankTheBob

Con

Before we go any further in this debate, I would like your definition of a Nazi War Criminal.
Debate Round No. 2
Crescendo

Pro

Nazi War Criminal:

A person who partook in human rights abuses as a government employee (soldier, policeman, etc) under the regime of Nazi Germany or its satellite states, during or 6 years or less prior to the beginning of the Second World War.
That's my own definition of the word.

My contentions from the previous round stand.
FrankTheBob

Con

A Nazi soldier should not be prosecuted. No one should be prosecuted for fighting a war they do not understand. I think if anyone, the government officials should pay, not the people just following orders. Same goes for policemen.
Debate Round No. 3
Crescendo

Pro

"A Nazi soldier should not be prosecuted. No one should be prosecuted for fighting a war they do not understand. I think if anyone, the government officials should pay, not the people just following orders. Same goes for policemen."

My opponent just used what is referred to as the "Nuremburg Defense."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

However, they weren't just following orders. If you study history carefully, you'll find that many of them beat Jews and other groups, often to death, just for the fun of it. They hated the people who they were guarding, and killing them was a form of entertainment for the Nazi guards. Few, if any of them, were completely innocent.
FrankTheBob

Con

Should we also prosecute the people who were involved with the camps in the United States? If you study WWII you would know that we had camps for the Japanese-Americans during WWII. We are also guilty. We might not have out right killed the Japanese, but still. Why don't we go after these guys? I don't see a reason not to. Do you think we should prosecute the Americans who wrongly imprisoned the Japanese?
Debate Round No. 4
Crescendo

Pro

"Should we also prosecute the people who were involved with the camps in the United States? If you study WWII you would know that we had camps for the Japanese-Americans during WWII. We are also guilty. We might not have out right killed the Japanese, but still. Why don't we go after these guys? I don't see a reason not to. Do you think we should prosecute the Americans who wrongly imprisoned the Japanese?"

The Japanese-American population was detained during the Second World War because many people feared that many Japanese-Americans were loyal to the land of their descent (Japan) over their new homeland (the United States of America), and as such many Japanese-Americans would sabotage the war effort.
Now, I will admit that this was ultimately pointless.
http://www.densho.org...
However, US Officials had no way of knowing this, and many people with Anti-Japanese views held power within the Government. This Anti-Japanese sentiment was encouraged by propaganda like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
But as my opponent has admitted, the Japanese were put in prison camps, not death camps.

And even if the crimes of the US were as bad as those of Germany, that still wouldn't remove the guilt from the shoulders of most (if not all) Nazi officials.
I await my opponent's response. Vote for Pro.
FrankTheBob

Con

Okay, so my opponent has clearly done his homework. The points I have brought forth so far were not the best. I know I'm losing this debate so far, but I think can still get my point across. I have done some researching and I think I have a solid point to get across. I know it's sort of cheap to bring up these points now that Pro can't respond and I apologise for that, but I think with these statements I can have a chance at winning.

The Nazi We Prosecute Today

Today, there are almost no real high-ranking Nazi on the lose. Most of them have ether died or have been prosecuted in previous years. The sane person would look at this and say mission accomplished, but there are still people today who are still hunting Nazis. The Nazis we see prosecuted today are low ranking and have put their past behind them. You have to understand Germany was brainwashed into thinking the Jews were responsable for their misfortune. These low ranking soldiers and policemen that Pro wants to prosecute were decived into thinking the Jews were responsable. Now who do you think we should go after, the decived or the decivers? And now that the decivers are mostly all dead, why do we think it is now okay to go after the decived?

Most German Soldier Have Already Recived Their Punishment

Why should we punish Nazi soldiers twice for the same crime? When the nazi surrendered, the soldiers were sent to POW camps for years before being allowed to go home. Now tell me, is it far to be punish them a second time? I hope your answer to this question is no.

Conclusion

Though I agree that the Nazi did horrible things, I don't think it is fair or justifiable to prosecute them now.
We are generations removed from this war and the people who fought are now old and tired. I think this is a great time to bury the hatchet, but let us not forget what happened. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. It has been fun debating with you Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Crescendo 3 years ago
Crescendo
Did the Allies put people in death camps? Did the Allies herd German civilians naked into gas chambers? Granted, we "detained" Japanese-Americans, but in considering this one must keep in mind:
A. This was necessary to prevent Japanese saboteurs from harming the American war machine.
B. They Japanese-American detainees were not systematically exterminated.
Posted by Adam2 3 years ago
Adam2
We didn't try Allied War criminals, and Danish war criminals (because Denmark, although neutral at first, joined the Allied powers), so why should we try Nazi or other Fascist "war criminals."
Posted by Crescendo 3 years ago
Crescendo
Maybe.
Posted by FrankTheBob 3 years ago
FrankTheBob
Woah! 5 rounds?! Are you trying to kill both of us?
Posted by Crescendo 3 years ago
Crescendo
Please do not troll this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 3 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
CrescendoFrankTheBobTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both pracised good conduct. S & G - Tie. Both upheld proper spelling and grammar. Arguments - Pro. Con dropped alot of Pro's arguments from Round 2 like never responding to the cost and deterrence points. Con somewhat touched on the "deserving" point in his last round, but failed to convince me that just because they are old or possibly not capable, that they should just be left alone. Con also dropped Chinese prison camps after Pro successfully rebutted it by showing the difference between death and prison camps. The final arguments raised by Con were also lacking because Pro already showed earlier how the Nuremberg defense doesn't account for the fact that these men still committed illegal acts and failed to show how they were "brainwashed". All of this leads to Pro winning arguments. Sources - Pro used sources, albiet two were wiki, to further strengthen his points when needed, whereas Con used none. For this, Pro receives sources points.