The Remaining Nazi War Criminals Should Be Prosecuted
Debate Rounds (5)
Burden of Proof is shared, my opponent may post his or her argument in the first round.
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:
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.
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.
My opponent just used what is referred to as the "Nuremburg Defense."
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||5||0|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.