Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

RFD: Hitler Deserved a Nobel Peace Prize

famousdebater
Posts: 3,934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 2:51:38 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
This is a debate between balacafa and whiteflame which can be viewed here (http://www.debate.org...)

I will begin by complementing both debaters for putting so much effort and time into such a long and well thought out debate. As always, I am happy to clarify anything in my RFD and some clarifications and updates may be made. I have even changed my voting decision a couple of times because I missed something out in the debate, so don't hesitate to ask any questions or make any clarifications with me, now onto the debate.

**Disclaimer: I was requested to vote on this by Pro but that did not effect my decision in any way.**

(1) History - The history part of Pro's case was mainly an attempt to justify the actions of Hitler that may be brought up later in the debate. He proved quotes and sources to back up his views. He explained that the Polish were the first to attack and they did this because of their alliances (Britain and France), this was a powerful opening because it is commonly thought that Germany were the aggressors. He highlights horrific acts committed by the Polish, showing through both objective and subjective evidence that the acts of the Polish could not go unpunished, even if Hitler was peaceful. He continues by posing the well sourced and backed up theory that Dunkirk was a symbol of peace directly from Hitler and he demonstrated that Hitler presented many beneficial terms to Britain in order to assume a position of neutrality. Overall, this is a strong case by Pro (which I am buying at the moment).

Con's rebuttal begins in a strange manner. He seems to misunderstand the intentions of Pro's history arguments and assumes that they are used as actual arguments towards his case. The history contention was most likely used as an argument to show that Hitler had good reasoning to make the decisions that he made and that he was peaceful. This is also probably the reason that 'History' was not labelled as a contention since it was not a direct argument towards the resolution. This misunderstanding costs Con because his rebuttal is primarily focused on the fact that the 'History' does not show that Hitler deserved the prize. Con then claims that Hitler failed to end the war at some point. This claim was not sourced and I could not find any other references to this within the debate so I am forced to disregard this claim as irrelevant since I am provided with no reason as to why I should buy it. Con then lists lots of names of peaceful people who were awarded the prize. This is is more of an argument than a rebuttal. It doesn't focus on any of Pro's case and just introduces an argument into the rebuttals round. He then bizarrely makes many claims that are subjective and quite strange. He claims that all of these individuals are clearly peaceful. This isn't explained properly and since he doesn't actually say why, this is leaving voters to decide for themselves whether or not these people are actually peaceful. Merely stating what they have done is not enough. The point needs to expanded much more.

I'm going to divide Con's specific rebuttal up into separate points because Pro's history contention is split up separately by Con.

(2) Poland Attacked first - My analysis of Pro's case is above. Con's rebuttal consists of a timeline of events leading up to the treaty. Some of the events that Con listed are self explanatory, however the significance needed to emphasized more and the point is slightly diminished as a result. This does give me more of a background on the events and therefore Con is currently winning on this part of the rebuttal. Con's next move is a strong one. He manages to specifically find out about the individuals that Pro cited and pick out why they may be bias and that there are no other records of it on the internet. This does render Pro's argument to be a non-impact(ful) one ultimately. Con is doing a good job on this one. Con does make a final bit at the end which isn't really convincing because he states that Hitler should have requested that Britain and France reconsider the treaty. It is under Con's burden to show that the treaty could even be reconsidered since this was a rebuttal directly from him and without any evidence to suggest that this was even possible it is an argument that Pro can easily dismiss.

Pro's counter rebuttal to this part was extremely powerful, solely due to the fact that he was able to find so many online (and book) sources to prove that Con was incorrect in stating that his version of events did not happen. Since I am forced to buy Pro's version of events due to the shere number of sources that Con deemed non-existent, and on top of the fact that Pro correctly points out that the significance of Con's arguments are not adequately explained, I am forced to give Pro the win on this part of his argument.

(3) Hitler Proposed Peace -
Pro's argument is explained in the 'History' section. Con's opening to his rebuttal is unconvincing. He states that it is strange that he stopped trying to achieve peace after a certain date but then fails to state why exactly this is strange. I feel really bad for doing this to Con but his argument is mitigated - a lot. He makes many claims that he possibly (accidentally) failed to source. For example, when he makes the claim that Germany have already defied international laws. Where is the sourcing? He lists all of the countries that Germany brought harm to but fails to provide sources for specific countries. This gives them little to no weight upon the resolution.

He then provides a more convincing rebuttal (which is now sourced) in regards to Germany's ultimate motivation of gaining peace with Britain was to gain power and have a higher chance at winning the war. He then references to Dunkirk and shows that Hitler was actually just showing his power off. He then shows that due to the fact that he is an autocratic and possibly insane leader, this is not unlikely for him to do. The sourcing is strong and manages to successfully refute the Dunkirk and peace offering arguments that were presented by Pro.

Pro easily counters the beginning of Con's rebuttals to this part of his argument, simply, due to the fact that Pro is able to prove that Hitler stopping to attempt at peace was not strange and since he provided a source to back up his claim whilst Con relied on bare assertions, I buy Pro over Con here. He continues to show that they had to fight back at some point in order to keep the death toll to a minimum. This not only negates this point but it is turned into an offense to Pro's case, showing that part of Hitler's motivation was to reduce the death toll and bring about peace. Pro attacks the fact that Con dismissed his sources as not up to date and didn't explain how or why. However Pro also fails to explain why his sources are preferable and why Con's are wrong. This argument is neutral and isn't awarded to either side.

(4) Beliefs - Pro begins this relatively short contention by showing that beliefs should not be an aspect when choosing to award the Nobel Peace Prize and provides the analogy that the Nobel peace prize can be awarded to anyone and it is the same as saying that a Christian should not be awarded the prize because he is Christian.

Con refers to this argument as meaningless because he never argued this.

Pro points out that many of Con's argument relate to his hatred towards Jews (stated by Con in his Poland history rebuttal) and the fact that he is autocratic and believes that he is superior (stated by Con in his Dunkirk rebuttal). Therefore, due to the fact that Con did in fact argue this, I count this is a concession to this argument and I award Pro the victory on this contention.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
famousdebater
Posts: 3,934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 4:22:27 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
(5) Too good - Pro basically summarizes his history argument here but with a few extra points. The extra points include how his nobility cost him the war in North Africa, why he lost the battle of Britain because of his goodness, how he delayed his attack on Russia, how he lost the war on Russia and his keeping of the treaty with Japan despite them not being trustworthy enough for having this alliance.

Con makes baseless arguments saying: "I'd argue that the Night of Long Knives and Kristallnacht make it clear that Hitler was a harsh leader who cracked down on anyone who disagreed with him." -- why? What is significant about these times? Asserting that you'd argue these things aren't doing a lot in support of your case and against Pro's. His peace offer was then portrayed as a 'surrender' before the war has begun. This was strong but really should have been included as part of the rebuttal to this specific point. Nevertheless, the argument was strong and showed that the peace offer was simply a false portrayal on what it actually was.

Pro's rebuttal is unconvincing and ultimately costs him this contention. He states that the argument is already refuted by Dunkirk which is a sufficient rebuttal for this part but the next part was a surprise to me. He stated that the Polish started it which was true but goes on to claim that this would be the end of it and our lives would go on as usual with less deaths. I (as a voter) have two problems with this. The first being that this claim is not sourced or explained which it has to be under his burden. Secondly, he accepted the backstory of what happened in Poland by Whiteflame so this means that he acknowledges that Hitler would not stop then as there is an evident pattern in land conquering. Pro loses his contention due to this mistake.

(6) False hopes - Pro's final contention revolves around the idea that Hitler wanted to be in alliance with Britain (peacefully and willingly). This relatively short contention emphasized Hitler's reluctancy to fight against Britain and the allies due to the fact that he was hoping for an alliance. These claims do stand and have an impact upon the resolution due to the fact that they are sourced well.

I am genuinely shocked at Con's surprisingly weak rebuttal. He refers to some of other contentions briefly however the main problem with this is that these contentions have already been refuted by Pro and therefore they do not stand. Since these contentions have been refuted the interlocking of this contention to those contention means that this rebuttal has hardly any impact. He then makes the following claim: " Pro gives no reasons to believe his interpretations are more accurate." The problem is that he did. He provided sourcing, evidence and books to back up his arguments and to ultimately prove that Hitler was reluctant to fight.

Pro points out this concession and shows that his arguments still stand and therefore he wins this contention.

(7) Burdens - Now this isn't particularly important and doesn't have much of an impact upon the resolution and the outcome of the debate but I'll address it anyway. Con doesn't sufficiently explain his point which made this part a bit confusing for me to get at first. From what I've understood of what Con has said: Pro must explain why there should be such a huge change in history. The problem is that the debate wasn't based on likelihood and furthermore the debate resolution (and Hitler's survival) was agreed upon by both parties upon acceptance. I do not buy Con's argument to begin with.

Pro points out these consideration and the fact that it was accepted upon by both Pro and Con in the acceptance round and therefore the burdens are more or less equally split.

Con then allows voters to decide. I agree with Pro however this didn't really affect my vote.

(8) Mass murdering f*ckhead - In this contention, Con attempts to show that Hitler was a mass murderer by emphasizing holocaust statistics and the deaths involved (especially in relation to Jews). He also makes brief references to other groups such as homosexuals and the disabled members in society. He shows that they were specifically targeting these people and that this wrong especially on top of the deaths involved in it.

Pro shows that Hitler liked Jews more than he let people know and used examples such as Hitler marrying a Jew shortly before his death and due to the fact that Jews even fought for Hitler during the war. This was sufficient to show that Hitler's connotations in regards to his hatred towards Jews are exaggerated. Pro even went to the extent to disprove the minor argument in regards to homosexuality, showing that they fought with 'distinction' during the war.

If this was the 7 point distribution system I would award Pro with the conduct point due to what Con says next. He removes part of what Pro says in order to make it seem as if he is contradicting himself multiple times when really he isn't. This is what Pro really said: "Hitler wasn"t an anti-Jew. Yes, he killed people but death is inevitable during war . I admit that he was against Jews but that was not why so many Jews were killed. There is a lot of evidence suggesting that Hitler liked Jews more than he let people know." Con completely took this out of context and changed it to this: "Hitler wasn't an anti-Jew... I admit that he was against Jews... Hitler liked Jews." The last part is especially misleading. Pro said that Hitler liked Jews more than he let people know. Con then accused Pro of saying that that he said that Hitler liked Jews. This attempted alteration of Pro's words would have given me enough to base a vote against Con on conduct because of this. The problem then is that Con bases his argument based on his own manipulation of Pro's quote. He makes the assumption that Pro believes that the Nazis like Jews. Pro did not say this. Pro said that Hitler liked Jews more than he let people know but he also said that Hitler was still against Jews - just not to the extent to which the average person perceives it to be. Con then (luckily) makes a good recovery from this precarious position by quoting extracts from Pro's article showing that the Jews that fought for Hitler fought in fear of their identities being revealed. He also shows that Pro's homosexual quote was referencing to the allies - not the axis. He then proves his quote in relation to Hitler marrying a Jew to be a identification error and therefore it does not count as the love for a Jew or Jews in general. Since parts of this argument stand and some do not, I vote on this contention as neutral due to it being so close that I cannot form a definite opinion on this contention.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
famousdebater
Posts: 3,934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 6:19:09 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
(9) Confiscation - This was a strong contention since Con managed to demonstrate that people's homes and properties in general were destroyed to such an extent that the figures went up to roughly $8 billion and on top of this to leave the country that had to pay an unreasonably high amount of money. This was not only significant in showing the errors of the Nazis but it also shows that this was used to fund the war effort.

Pro then brings up a valid point. Germany had to pay almost triple the amount of money than what they deserved to pay (according to Con) and even if you argue that this was because of the deaths he almost pre-refuted this argument by showing that other countries (on the allies) never had to pay reparations for the lives that they took.

I believe that in this round Con's misinterpretation is less purposeful. He states that Pro concedes that confiscation happened (true). He then says that Pro also concedes that it specifically happened to the Jews (false). In the initial round by Con bringing this argument up, the word Jews is never mentioned once. Since, Con never stated why it is immoral to deprive people of their homes it is unrealistic to assume that Pro has to show why this act is justified. Pro does drop the leaving the country element and since this was a full drop whereas Con's wasn't, this argument is mitigated to any extent and therefore I vote Con on this contention.

(10) Imprisonment and Forced Labor -Con's contention is probably the most obvious argument that would be coming from the negative case in this debate. The concentration camps. He lists the extremely high statistics in regards to the number of death camps and the numbers imprisoned. He even showed that the Germans, Nazis in particular relied on the weaponry made here.

Pro's rebuttal is unconvincing. He shows that Poland did far worse. Whilst this is true and I do buy this, it is does not show me why what Germany did was right and justifiable.

Con's counter rebuttal is almost as poor as Pro's. Again, Con fails to cite key evidence. He states that they house mainly Jews (unsourced) which is a mitigating factor leaving Pro's case slightly stronger than I thought that it would be left. Although the dropped arguments are pointed out and therefore this does work in Con's favor, ultimately, however, this doesn't have as strong of an impact as it could have had.

(11) Eugenics - Con showed that the Axis - Nazis in particular used very violent methods and irrational / immoral techniques in order to perfect their master race (ie. themselves). They ended up giving their patients infectious diseases whilst trying to do things such as eye color changes, which was a key feature by which Nazis were distinguished by. This was ultimately summed up as dehumanization which is not an exaggeration (if we take Con's examples and descriptions as true).

Pro manages to demonstrate very strong points in his round. He shows that the Nazis gave them clean drinking water, which demonstrates that conditions were much better than they were made out to be by Con. He shows through reliable sourcing that Auschwitz was not a secret and people were released from it, the statistics presented were high and the sourcing was convincing. Pro furthermore, managed to prove that Nazi concentration camp doctors genuinely cared about their patients and tried to cure diseases this was a very powerful and contrasting rebuttal to Con's initial argument and it is difficult for me to determine a winner of this contention at this point. In addition to this Pro was also able to show that the allies also committed war crimes, meaning that war crimes were not uncommon in this time and that in comparison the axis war crimes were nothing like the allies.

Con diminishes Pro's argument in relation to water showing that although the water quality was high, this gives no figure on water quantity which was low. Con argues that Pro dropped the deaths from the inhumane condition however he is wrong. Pro shows that the doctors had genuine concern for their patients and therefore the conditions were not as horrific as they were described and attributed by Con originally. He then references to typhus which was possibly the main cause of death. The problem is that he doesn't sufficiently explain and reference to how the Germans were directly (and knowingly) responsible for this. Con could have won this if he had sufficiently refuted Pro's claims in regards to doctor conditions however the rebuttal on this was insufficient and due to this mass sterilization and torture are mitigated to the extent that I am forced to neutralize this contention since there are so many factors supporting both Pro and Con on this issue.

(12) WW2 - Con begins by showing that the war would never have begun without Germany's invasion of Poland. The problem with this is that I have already (as a voter) bought the fact that Poland has done all of these terrible things to Germany and because of this I have also bought the second part of Pro's argument in the respect that Germany's retaliation is justified and because of this, the WW2 contention bares little weight. I have also bought (from C2 of Pro's case), that Germany made alliances with Japan to keep the treaty and prevent deaths. This means that Germany did not use this treaty to prolong the war effort as Con puts it. The part of this contention that bares the greatest weight is in regards to the lives that Hitler is responsible for. It was concluded that Hitler is responsible for the majority of the 80 million deaths. This was concluded by showing that Hitler's efforts are clearly a negative for peace. The majority of this contention is already irrelevant and has no impact upon the resolution but the last part is key.

Pro managed to prove that Hitler was not directly responsible for all the deaths and on top of this, he showed that the death toll would have been considerably higher without the retaliation of Hitler and the Nazis. By fighting back, yes Hitler made himself responsible for deaths but the toll would have been higher if he just sat back and watched.

Con's rebuttal is unconvincing. He drops all statistics and evidence and completely relies on the subjectivity of voters and readers. "it's never peaceful to invade another country " Why? It is easy to think of a scenario and just off the top of my head I can think of many scenarios in which it could be considered justifiable and possibly peaceful (in the long term) of invading other countries. You need to do more than this to prove that it is always not peaceful - especially if it's an unsourced claim (which it was). I vote Con on this contention based on a subjective counter with no evidence to support his argument.

(13) Requirements - I disagree with the previous voter in regards to the requirements element of the peace prize. I believe that Pro did meet these and Pro showed that they did so adequately. The reduction of armies at Dunkirk was a requirement that Pro did meet (as per my RFD). Hitler clearly promoted peace conferences with Britain as Pro's contentions describe and therefore he meets the next requirement in regards to promoting peace conferences.

(14) Conclusion - After contemplating on this decision greatly, I must vote Pro on this debate due to the fact that he was able to show that Hitler met the Nobel peace prize requirement and was able to refute the most significant arguments placed against him in the debate that had any great significance. He was able to uphold most of his arguments and the ones that he failed to uphold had little significance to the debate itself. If anybody has any questions in regards to RFD and voting decision then feel free to post here with questions and concerns and if you show me and errors I will make updates necessary and may
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 6:35:01 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
While I do appreciate the extensive reasoning, I'll admit, I'm baffled by a lot of your analysis, particularly on my contentions. I don't want to make a big deal of it here since you've made your decision and I don't want to attempt to alter it, but at some point I'd like to discuss this decision with you.
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 8:56:23 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 7:46:29 PM, Romanii wrote:
wtf

Bump
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 8:57:40 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 8:56:23 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 12/6/2015 7:46:29 PM, Romanii wrote:
wtf

Bump

It's a 3 way debate. LOL
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2015 10:17:54 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Who doesn't deserve a Nobel peace prize. they give them out to just about anyone who makes a news headline.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%