The Instigator
Emmo
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
wiggityp
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

i can confuse the most people with my argument

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/2/2013 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,508 times Debate No: 35228
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

Emmo

Pro

Pick a topic, whatever topic and argue it. I'll find a way to confuse as most people and you. The rules are the argument must be somewhat intelligible, as in you aren't for example to start typing "opsd fojff", random letters, or random words and trying to string them up. Its a battle of confusing wits. Accept with an argument of whatever you please. By the way, don't make it stupid, don't make it about tv shows, music, sports or something that's so subjective there could never be a right answer. Make it about something relevant in the world. Or something cultural, historical, religious or philosophical
wiggityp

Con

Well, I'll be very interested to see what you do with this.

My argument is:

The Holocaust in Europe was overall a negative* event for the people who were victims of it. While there was undoubtedly a strong unifiying effect on the victims before they were murdered, either in the camps or among escaped/liberated survivors and certainly there were positive side effects such as greater global awareness of crimes against humanity/steps taken among nations to prevent future atrocities etc., I think we can confidently assume none of the victims would ever say/have said that they were ultimately glad it happened to them, nor would most other people who don't have swastikas tattooed to their forehead.

Please now attempt your "mind rape"



* a : lacking positive qualities; especially : disagreeable b : marked by features of hostility, withdrawal, or pessimism that hinder or oppose constructive treatment or development <a negative outlook> <negative criticism>

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Emmo

Pro

Jeez, that is a tough one. I had to think really hard for a response. Here it goes:

In certain instances it is necessary to sacrifice ones life for the greater good of one's community. Ofcourse you could and probably would remind me that the Jews did not choose to be killed nor did they die in times of war. However through their death, even though it wasn't intended by the Nazi's or the Jews led to the creation of a jewish state with a G.D.P of 253 billion
http://www.heritage.org...

The Nazi's infact helped the Jews inadvertently by allowing them to be empowered with sovereignty over their own nation, something which they would not have got had they still been in Germany.

Please note that the victims of the Holocaust also include descendants of people who were killed during the holocaust, descendants who possibly reside in Israel and these very same descendants benefited from over 800million paid in reparations by Germany. Had the holocaust not happened, they would not have been literally given such a relatively large sum of money.

On top of this, Germany recently agreed to pay 60 000 survivors (victims of the holocaust) with over 700million Euros
http://www.spiegel.de...
Had they not experienced the holocaust, their nation Israel would probably not
wiggityp

Con

wiggityp forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Emmo

Pro

The Jewish nation of Israel would not exist if the holocause had not taken place. Therefore it can be said that direct benefit gained by the victims of the holocaust was having the survivors and their descendants given a country, a country with one of the most powerful armies, considering the fact that the Jews were discriminated against in Germany prior to the Holocaust with Germans going as far as blaming them for the post world war 1 concessions and the treaty of versailles which robbed Germany of its dignity as a nation.

When a person dies a chemical called DMT is released which is similar to a psychedelic drug, therefore numbing the pain or atleast reducing the pain of death vastly. Jews who were killed during the Holocaust escaped the persecution they would have endured in Germany had they not died. That on its own is another benefit

wiggityp

Con

wiggityp forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Emmo

Pro

argument carried forward
wiggityp

Con

First of all, let me apologize for the foreitfeture of the previous two rounds. Unfortunately something very pressing arose and demanded my attention over the last week or so.

In response to your arguments. I can't imagine that any of the descendants of those killed in the holocaust felt that monetary reparations are adequate compensation for the loss of their families and the gross cultural humiliation they suffered. Would you? Also, it is entirely possible that a Jewish state would of arisen eventually, and even though Israel came about following the war, I'm sure that it was still not much consolation for those who were driven to animal insanity in a concentration camp, forced to watch the torture, rape and mass murder of their friends and family. Particularly the European Jews who had lived their entire lives in Europe only to be handed a small isolated spit of sand in the Middle East surrounded by people who by and large despise them. Yeah...that was probably a totally fair recompense in the minds of most Jews.

Your statement of:

"The Jewish nation of Israel would not exist if the holocaust had not taken place."

is entirely your opinion and thus completely ineffective in countering my stance of--The Holocaust was overall a negative event for the people who were victims of it. How could anybody say that it wouldn't of existed at some point even had the tragedy of the Holocaust not spurned its creation.

Also, I'd point out that there were hundreds of thousands of non-Jewish victims of the holocaust who still don't have a sovereign state (the Romani, the homosexuals :), and I'm sure that they would all agree that Jewish compensation doesn't do diddly-squat for them.

And seriously, the DMT bit? As someone who has recreationally tried DMT, I can guaruntee you (as could any reliable source of info on psychedelics) that it would absolutely in no way mitigate the horror as you were trooped en masse naked in to a gas chamber to slowly asphyxiate, or as a German boot heel was stomping your skull to mush in the pavement. If anything it would augment the shock and horror in such a situation to an unimaginably terrifying degree.

In conclusion: I respect your self-esteem and the monumental challenge you've undertaken to try and confuse my argument. However, No.1) you have not confused me, although I can't speak for others. No.2) your argument did not effectively or even adequately counter my argument that the holocaust was overall a negative event for the people who were its victims. Undoubtedly there were some corollary positive outcomes, but those in no way balance the immense scale of atrocities perpetrated unto the victims of the Holocaust, much less sway anybody to thinking that the Holocaust was a positive thing for it's victims. Really I don't think anybody could counter my position unless they themselves were a Nazi or some kind of anti-semetic troll. Honestly, I just needed to get three debates under my belt so I can start voting.

I would suggest a little more humility in any future challenges you make. Or at the very least offer your own argument. You realize that the argument I did choose was not even remotely the most difficult to counter. I might have said, "Human beings need to eat or they'll die." although that would not have been very sporting of me. I'm happy to go again at any point in a real debate if ever you wish. Thanks and good luck.


Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by wiggityp 3 years ago
wiggityp
I think that it is basically impossible for you to win a debate on--if you can confuse the most people. Especially, since I'm not trying to confuse anybody, we are not really competing, and short of people telling us at the end of the debate whether or not they became confused and which one of us was responsible, I don't think there is any reliable way to assess who "confused" more people. Also, it is highly unlikely that most of the competent users on DDO are going to be "confused" by an argument unless it is just poorly written; nor are they probably interested enough if this debate to have much input. Perhaps you really meant to use the word "convinced" instead? In which case you are basically just saying "I can win a debate" which obviously you could--anybody could, theoretically. And that is really not much of a debate at all.

However, if you wish to debate me on my initial argument that:

"The Holocaust was overall a negative experience for the victims of it." Than I will accept. Although if it is just a straight debate using that as a prompt and you actually think you can win...well than power to you man that would be astounding to behold. So, on the off chance that you could do it I'm willing to test your prowess to satisfy my intrigue about your confidence. But, I don't think I'll have another debate on whether or not anybody can confuse anybody else. That, I say, would be rather a waste of time.

Let me know.
Posted by Emmo 3 years ago
Emmo
we should debate again on the same topic
Posted by wiggityp 3 years ago
wiggityp
Also, I'd be interested to hear whatever rebuttal you can make to my last round, feel free to PM me with it if you feel that it is actually valid.
Posted by wiggityp 3 years ago
wiggityp
Well that's true. I'm down to debate you again if you pick a better topic. Let me know.
Posted by Emmo 3 years ago
Emmo
not a fair debate, you forfeited and decided to argue the last round when i had no chance to rebut any argument you made
Posted by Emmo 3 years ago
Emmo
sorry about that forgot the other half of argument. i'll just include it in the next debate. sucks cause it was more creative
Posted by Emmo 3 years ago
Emmo
Well confuse as in, to put it crudely mind rape, it doesn't necessarily have to change your mind or the audiences mind but it must confuse in the sense that one would be allowed to argue the most warped arguments ever with the objective of confusing as many people as possible. Well i'd try and confuse them and you'd do the opposite
Posted by wiggityp 3 years ago
wiggityp
What exactly do you mean by "confuse"? Do you mean change our minds with objective digestible facts and convincing rhetoric? Which would be the objective in any debate. Or are you saying you will somehow bamboozle or trick us with something like reverse psychology? I think I'm down, I'd just like to be a little more comprehending of what your proposing. Could you break down how you want the rounds structured? Unless your wits are far more dazzling than they seem I'm pretty sure I have some "confusion-proof" arguments to hit you with. Thanks.
No votes have been placed for this debate.