Was Hitler right?
Debate Rounds (4)
My opponent is saying that if Hitler was allowed to invade Antarctica, the economy would improve because the penguins in Antarctica would have worked for him in ice factories. However, there is literally NO EVIDENCE AT ALL saying that ANYONE was experiencing ice shortages during WWII. My opponent provides no evidence or logic at all to back up his claim, (plus, penguins are not physiologically capable of performing manual labor) and therefore his point falls.
Since the resolution (debate topic) doesn't say what Hitler was right about, I will be talking about his most infamous act: the Holocaust. My opponent, as Pro, is arguing that Hitler's discrimination of the Jews was justified. Just as some background, I will give some statistics for how many Jews were killed during Hitler's time: 6 MILLION. My opponent is arguing that the murder of 6 million Jews and the imprisonment of millions of others is justified. Clearly, it is not.
In any case, the murder of the six million Jews and several million other peoples in the Holocaust is nothing compared to the biological murder of the millions upon millions of indigenous American Indians during the European discovery and colonization of North and South America. Just a few centuries later, the United States of America became a world superpower. All I'm saying is that Hitler recognized this and planned his own genocide to push the German economy forward, but was stopped by greedy capitalist pigs and the beautiful Soviet Union.
As to your point about the murder of American Indians leading to the United States becoming a world superpower, this is completely false. The reason America became a world superpower is because of the principles it was founded on, which did NOT include the extermination of the Jews. I honestly do not understand why my opponent is arguing that genocide is good.
And, as my opponent decided to point out, I do seem as if I am supporting genocide. My opponent, however, is the one who brought up the genocide of the Jewish people, where as I was only focused on the economic prospects of Hitler and the Nazi party. My opponent, constantly bringing up the Holocaust, is more genocide obsessed than I.
Alas, the principles that even the Nazi party was founded upon, aside from the antisemitism, were mostly about the law and economy of the German Republic, as stated in the following article: http://www.historyplace.com.... This involved nationalization of banks and industry and increased pensions for the elderly, which helped the German people and economy from the pit of the Great Depression. This is what created the German war machine and boosted economic status that the German people still hold to this day.
I thank my opponent being promt in his response.
I would like to start off by saying that my opponent contradicted himself. In round 2, he stated that the genecide of the American Indians was what boosted America to a world superpower, and then in round 3 he stated that the changes that America made to adabt were the reason that America is a world superpower, not because of the attempted genecide of the American Indians. Since he has made no rebuttal for my attack on his American Indians argument, we can assume that my attack flows through the round.
Pro also attacked me by saying that since I pointed out the Holocaust, I am therefore supporting it. This is simply false. The resolution states, "Was Hitler right". One of the things that Hitler did was the Holocaust, and it was not right. I fail to see how my bringing up that Hitler was wrong to kill 6 million Jews is supporting Pro.
My opponent sates that the Nazi party actually improved the German economy. However, according to http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... only made it appear that unemployment rates were dropping. My source says, "A number of policies were introduced which caused the unemployment figures to drop. Women were no longer included in the statistics so any women who remained out of work under the Nazi’s rule did not exist as far as the statistics were concerned. The unemployed were given a very simple choice: do whatever work is given to you by the government or be classed as "work-shy" and put in a concentration camp. Jews lost their citizenship in 1935 and as a result were not included in unemployment figures even though many lost their employment at the start of Hitler’s time in power. Many young men were taken off of the unemployment figure when conscription was brought in (1935) and men had to do their time in the army etc. By 1939, the army was 1.4 million strong. To equip these men with weapons etc., factories were built and this took even more off of the unemployment figure. With these measures in place the unemployment figure had to fall drastically and many saw the Nazi figures as nothing more than a book-keeping trick." So you see, none of the so-called "reductions" in German unemployment were completely falsified. Not only does this totally knock out Pro's point about German economy, but it also supports my case: I think that we can all agree that what Hitler did was lying. And, I think that we can all agree that lying is wrong, and the the resolution is asking if Hitler was right, and since he lied, and lying is wrong, Hitler was wrong.
Since i have completely rebutted every single attack that my opponent has made against my case, I will now attack his.
Basically, my opponent argued at the beginning of the round that if Hitler had been allowed to invade Antarctica, then he would have improved the worldwide economy by having penguins work for him in "giant ice factories". I have already attacked this by saying that it is impossible for penguins to do manual labor. All he said was that, "Penguins do have the capability to perform manual labor, P.E.T.A. just gets in the way with every test we do." Besides the fact that this is completely wrong, I would like to ask my opponent for evidence saying that we have, in fact, run tests to see if penguins are able to do manual labor, and if PETA has, in fact, intervened.
As this was the only point that my opponent made for Hitler, and I have provided several (the Holocaust, Hitler faking his unemployment statistics), I see no other ballot than that of the Con.
Alas, my opponent, being opponently my opponent's opponent opponential opponent, may be saddened to learn that this was, of course, under the funny section of the organization's website. I expected a hilarious debate, but it was saddened and scientifically done by my said opponent. It is possible my opponent was playing the straight man, but did not go along with any of the material poured into his lap. I mean, penguins doing manual labor? That's hilarious!
Yet, if they did acknowledge such, then my opponent was just playing me into being an angry individual behind a computer screen in order to shout out stuff, but I'm just sad the debate went the way it did. After all, if the audience is willing to look at my previous debates, then they would know I take nothing of this seriously and only wish to add some humor into other peoples' lives. My opponent, granted it is necessary in such situations, does take their debates very seriously and does give out certain factoids that are necessary, but delivers them in such a dry way that if they were spoken, it would be very uninteresting to listen to. I suggest for my opponent to liven up and create some use of pathos and humor rather than just logic.
Again, I thank you for being my opponent, and I hope that one day your sense of humor will develop enough to be at least mildly entertaining. I wish you and the audience a good day.
I thank my opponent for debating this round with me.
My opponent seems to think that debate is some sort of joke. I do not. I do not accept a debate without the intention of providing valid and logical arguments. It is not my job to "entertain" the audience, it is my job to successfully counter all of my opponent's points and defend my own. Since I have done both of these things, I believe that I should win this debate.
Also, my opponent attacking my sense of humor is a logical fallacy know as "ad hominem". Ad hominem is when you attack someone personally instead of their case. Saying that my lack of a sense of humor is a reason to vote against me is an example of ad hominem. As such, almost all of my opponent's final speech is invalid.
Now onto the one point that my opponent brought up in his final speech that didn't have anything to do with my sense of humor: My opponent states that he never said that I was supportive of genocide; only that I was genocide obsessed. Yes, I am! Genocide is wrong. We are arguing if Hitler was right, and since he committed genocide, and genocide is wrong, then Hitler was wrong.
Also, see if you can spot the irony in my opponent's first few sentences: "...and that my opponent may someday learn how to spell genocide. One that note..." In case you missed it, I italicised it for you.
My opponent has hardly made any attempt to block my previous attacks in his final speech, and since I have thouroughly proved that Hitler was, in fact, wrong, I see no other ballot than that of the Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 1 year 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:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Pro clearly did not take the debate seriously, and indicates such. Spelling: Both messed up; neither was significantly worse; no vote. Arguments: Pro was never able to refute Con's arguments that the Holocaust were a bad thing. Pro's major response, that the USA also committed genocide, is a non sequitur; it's irrelevant to the goodness or badness of the Holocaust. Con proved Pro was contradictory about the genocide of Native Americans. Con also conclusively won the penguins debate, which clearly had the largest impact in the round. Sources: Con used two reputable sources; Pro used none.
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.