The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points


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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 662 times Debate No: 70011
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




i was having an argument with my mother and sister about justification. i said that you can justify anything, as long as people have their own opinion. for example, hitler. i could justify what hitler done by stating things like, he was abused as a child, he wasn't brought up like "normal" people. and i could say that he is a good rolemodel, just by stating that he was brave, that he was determined, he was a soldier and saved somebodys life, how he was talented. if i asked someone to name a person with all of those attributes, do you think the first person which will come to mind is hitler, no.

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?


Ok then, so your argument is that everything can be justified and you use Adolf Hitler being abused as an example. Well do you really think that just because he got beaten up gives him the moral right to authorise the deaths of millions of innocent people? Because that is your argument is it not? One man, however badly brought up, who ordered deaths of innocents can never be called justice.
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.
Debate Round No. 1


the Oxford dictionary states that the definition of justification is, the action of showing something to be right or reasonable. So it is not if the situation is justified or not, it is the action of you showing something to be justified which means no matter how much of an absurd reason you give to justify something you have justified it. going into it being morally justified would be a different story but just sticking to the definition you can clearly justify anything. encase you still don't understand, I shall give you an example.
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.


Once again your argument is full of holes.
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.
Debate Round No. 2
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Heraclitus 1 year ago
A good debate by the way. Thank you.
Posted by Heraclitus 1 year ago
But by justifying their actions you are saying that thir actions are reasonable.
Your point is invalid
Posted by seannerino 1 year ago
i would like to add, i am not a supporter of hitler or sexual abuse i just understand how one could justify doing so. my opponent has failed to understand my points and has resorted to silly tactics to gain votes. no one who votes for myself, think sexual abuse or Hitler acts are reasonable but understand how one could justify them
Posted by ladskipdepiss 1 year ago
A more proper word for the type of 'justification' you claim is rationalisation, and human capacity for rationalisation is profound. So instead of phrasing it as Hitler was justified to have done the things he did, a more fitting way would be that you could rationalise and provide possible explanations for why he did what he did. Justification comes from a higher level, associated with morals (objective morals to distinguish it from ethical values) rights and duties, which are commonly not opened to dispute.

To illustrate, you could rationalise Hitler's actions using a line of reasoning, I could provide another which conflicts yours. We could not be both 'justifying' Hitler's action, because our 'justfication' rejects each other.

I hope you understand my message here.
Posted by seannerino 1 year ago
yes, sorry for not making that clear.
Posted by philochristos 1 year ago
What is the resolution? I assume it's something like, "Any action can be morally justified."
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DarthVitiosus 1 year ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
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.