The Instigator
hazlepeace
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tylergraham95
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

ww11-Hitler

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 2 votes the winner is...
tylergraham95
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/10/2013 Category: People
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 697 times Debate No: 37569
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

hazlepeace

Pro

Hitler was a very good leader
tylergraham95

Con

I assume that my opponent means to imply that, In WWII Adolf Hitler was a very good leader. Good being defined as to be desired or approved of.
I accept my opponents challenge and take the negative position, that In WWII Adolf Hitler was not a good leader.
I look forward to this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
hazlepeace

Pro

Yes Adolph Hitler from ww11. To verify the comments, i am fully aware he was an awful man but i strongly belive he is a great leader and an inspirational one to in the fact that he can lead so many people to do as he commands. I am looking forward to this debate as well!!!
tylergraham95

Con

I am slightly confused by my opponents second round argument, although I understand that the first round is typically used for acceptance, I expected him to begin his argument, regardless, I shall begin my argument.
Not to be offensive, but it's WWII (roman numerals being the capital letter i) not WW11 (implying world war eleven).

I thank my opponent for his time and thank him for accepting my definitions.

I will begin by defining my argument via my contentions

A) Morally, he was a terrible man.
B) A convincing public speaker does not a great leader make.
C) Although he made a powerful Army, he was a terrible tactician.
D) He is given undue credit to the successes of Germany during WWII
E) He lost the war.


First
I will address his morality. Murder is viewed negatively by the vast majority of people, and by the vast majority of religions (moral creeds). Hitler committed mass murder and genocide without remorse. Clearly he was very undesirable in the moral sense.

Second
I contend that his ability to make public speeches and sway the emotions of his people, did not make him a good leader. Just because people will do what you tell them does not mean that you are fit to lead. If you drive your country to defeat at the hands of its enemies, you are not a good leader.

Third
I contend that although Germany did experience rapid industrialization under his lead, this did not mean that he was a good leader because he mismanaged it so poorly. He is notorious for the various military disasters that he effected during his campaigns in WWII. Including the famous failure at Dunkirk, the massive failure of Operation Barbarossa, and his poor defense against the D-Day invasions. This brings me to my next two contentions.

Fourth
Hitler is given much undue credit regarding the successes of Nazi Germany during and before WWII. The economic growth Germany experienced was not all because Hitler was a master of economic development, and the early victories Germany enjoyed during the war were not all entirely due to his military planning. Military minds such as Erwin Rommel are much to thank for this.

Fifth
And finally, Hitler lost the war. Hitler started the war, and under his command he lost the war. Therefore, Hitler was a failure as a leader.

I believe I have set up a more than adequate argument and I await my opponents response eagerly.
Debate Round No. 2
hazlepeace

Pro

First of i am female not male , i will now begin my argument

Even though Hitler lost the war , he was one of the most famous leaders to stand out. Convincing somebody to murder takes incredible power and not to feel anything about it.

Not only was he a great public speaker i do believe he was a good leader because he had so much power behind him. Almost everything is successful with power and that's why Hitler was so successful.

Even though Germany lost the war and my county won, his actions even now have a long term effect on people. Even though that statements may seem harsh , he must have been a bloody good leader to still have actions effecting things nearly a century on........
tylergraham95

Con

I apologize for the misconception regarding gender.

I will start be refuting my opponents argument and then I will build upon my previous argument. Then I will have final focus on my argument.

My opponent claims that Hitler was one of the most famous leaders, and that he convinced people to commit murder, and must therefore be a good leader. This is illogical. Fame does not make you a good leader. Furthermore I would contend that many leaders have convinced their people to commit murder. In all honesty convincing humans to kill en masse, as history will show, isn't nearly as difficult as one might think. There are multiple cases throughout history of weak leaders convincing the people to kill.

My opponent goes on to claim that Hitler held a great deal of power. That is true. He was the military dictator of the powerhouse that was Nazi Germany. Holding power does not make you a good leader. Exercising power in an effective manner makes you a good leader. When Hitler left his country weakened and hated by the world. Hitler left Germany in a weakened state. Hitler lost the war. Therefore, he was not a good leader.

My opponent also claims that because Hitler left his mar on the world that he was a good leader. This also doesn't make sense. Plenty of people have greatly affected history but this neither makes them bad, nor good. It only makes them memorable. It makes them important to history. Sometimes the worst leaders are the ones that leave the biggest marks in history.

My points regarding Hitler military failures still stand. My opponent has failed to refute any of my contentions. I urge strongly that you vote in the negative.

I await my opponents response eagerly.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
Easy debate to score. The principle contention was over the definition of leadership.

PRO contends: "Not only was he a great public speaker i do believe he was a good leader because he had so much power behind him. Almost everything is successful with power and that's why Hitler was so successful."

CON contends: "Plenty of people have greatly affected history but this neither makes them bad, nor good. It only makes them memorable. It makes them important to history. Sometimes the worst leaders are the ones that leave the biggest marks in history."

CON also emphasizes that Hitler lost the war, which refutes PRO's contention that Hitler was successful. I agree with PRO that Hitler was persuasive, but ultimately agree with CON that " Exercising power in an effective manner makes you a good leader," and that by losing the war (and since this debate was ONLY about WWII), that Hitler was not a good leader.

Arguments CON, S&G as well for proffering a much more structured argument, fewer mistakes, and etc...
Posted by tylergraham95 4 years ago
tylergraham95
Realized that I posted that I was waiting for a response after posting my argument haha. I forgot this was the final round. I would like to thank my opponent for her time and effort and a fun debate.
Posted by TheEnergyHippo 4 years ago
TheEnergyHippo
You didn't show what you meant by good leader so I will not debate. He was an awful person. But he was smart.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
hazlepeacetylergraham95Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments.
Vote Placed by Juan_Pablo 4 years ago
Juan_Pablo
hazlepeacetylergraham95Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I awarded points to Con because his arguments were more detailed, more thorough over Hitler's WW2 leaders, and more convincing. Secondly, Con cited information that is reliably accepted as true. Pro's argument was that Hitler was a good leader because he convinced many people to support his plans and even die for him. Hitler was very effective with his propaganda, but his constant failures ultimately caused the deaths of millions of Germans (not counting holocaust victims) and led to Nazi Germany's defeat in WW2 - and his inevitable suicide. Con's evaluation of Hitler's leadership was simply more accurate than Pro's!