Debate Rounds (2)
i said all of those things to my mother and sister and got no response, all they done was shake their head and say i was ignorant. so as they did resort to attacking my i suppose i won the argument.
they also think im some fucked up kid who thinks raping or murder is okay, which i dont i can just understand how someone would be able to justfy it.
i challenge anyone?
Justification for your information according to the Oxford dictionary is 'The action of showing something to be right or reasonable.' No matter how hard you try mass murder of millions is not right or reasonable.
He still chose to be prejudice from his own freewill and chose to discriminate against Jews. He didn't have to set up a vicious totalitarian regime. He chose too and to justify that would be to sympathise with someone considered the most unreasonable man in history.
You also say that because Hitler was brave and determined somehow it's ok then that he did what he did.
It doesn't matter if you are brave or cowardly, analytical or emotional because it's what you do that defines you and what he did was neither right or reasonable and can never be and therefore cannot be justified and therefore since that cannot be justified, not everything can be justified and so your whole case is disproved.
I can justify someone sexually abusing another person by stating that they were also sexually abused and might still be traumatised by the events. it is scientifically proven that people who have been abused are more likely to abuse. the reason something like this would never work in court, i hope. Is because people have more common sense than that, which also means that justification is totally unreliable. and that anything can be justified.
For example you said how this was about justification not moral justification but surely the examples you used such as Hitler and sexual abuse are moral.
Also sexual abuse is not reasonable or right and you are trying to justify it so by that you are arguing that it can be right or reasonable. Because that's the definition. If you are voting remember that if you vote for my opponent you are in other words saying that sexual abuse and the many evil acts if Hitler can be seen as right and reasonable.
To answer your question on sexual offenders being scientifically proven to have been sexually abused, well have you ever thought about those people from bad backgrounds that have gone on to great and honourable deeds, consider Mandela maybe so I am not saying that bad backgrounds have no effect but you can overcome the effects because that is proven also and so they still hold responsibility for sexual offending.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DarthVitiosus 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:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to meet his burden of proof. Pro should polish up some of his arguments to meet his burden of proof. Con pointed out clearly that Pro's justification was still moral justification. Neither side touched upon the justification of particular actions in depth but Con did it a bit more. Con Wins since Pro failed to meet the resolution.
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.