Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

RFD Hitler Nobel Prize Debate

Posts: 1,232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 3:28:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is an RFD for the debate Resolved: Hitler deserved a nobel peace prize between Balacafa and Whiteflame

Pro"s burden here is massive, having to not just demonstrate that Hitler was peace-inducing, but also that this characteristic of Hitler"s is in fact a superlative of possible candidates, deserved of the Nobel Peace Prize in a time that imagines Hitler surviving the war.

Pro Round 2:
1.War was forced on Germany by Poland"s immense power, and Poland "delivered the first blow."
*Con refutes this with round 3 #4, pro"s source lacks context/viability and checking the source shows such.
*Con refutes this with round 3 #7 and #8, nothing in our history indicates Poland attacking first, and checking up on it proves Con correct, and it would require cover up to hide such. Con"s winning this point.

2.Thousands of German men, women, and children were killed in massacres in Poland, before the war, and Hitler came to the rescue"castration occurred as well.
*Con never directly addresses the source that pro provided for this fact, and the source seems to demonstrate these atrocities, so Pro gains a little here.

3.Because of #1 and #2, Hitler was not the aggressor and was employing "self-defense." Any moral being would respond to such, any country would respond thusly.
*Con refutes with round 2 #10, hitler could have stopped after Poland and didn"t, going beyond self-defense, *Con also refutes with round 4 #7 shows the response from Hitler was over the top. I buy these refutes, because mass murder seems incongruous to the alleged atrocities.

4.Hitler attempted a deal with England"If England agreed to be neutral, then Hitler would withdraw from the countries already occupied by Germany, and would buy English products"England declined, because they were war hungry.
*Con never directly addresses this, but refutes with round 3 #10 that after 1941 Hitler refused to work with Britain, which is sourced, and I"m buying that this is more akin to Germany"s and britain"s relationship at that time, so the products thing seems irrelevant here.

5.Hitler allowed England to escape the battle at Dunkirk to encourage peace.
*Con refutes with Round 3 #11 sourcing and demonstrating that this was a power move for hitler rather than a peace move, and Con"s winning this point.
Like a persistent lover, Hitler was tenacious to be peaceful with Britain.
*Both Con"s round 3 #10 and #11 negate hitler"s persistence to be peaceful, and Con"s winning this too.

Con Round 2:
1.Pro needs to show "Hitler committed acts aimed towards peace that rivaled other recipients of the time." The prize is a rare superlative.
*This to me is part of the major impacts on the resolution because, unlike Pro, Con recognizes that the award is intended to separate run-of-the-mill peaceful people from the most deserved of the peace prize.
*Pro refutes however, in round 4 #5 that mentioning the other candidates is an appeal to emotion, and he wrongly calls this an ad hominem, it"s not, and Con"s point should not be dismissed because it is EVER crucial, because it shows Hitler"s peacefulness was not a superlative at the time. Con gains massive ground here.

2.Hitler was a mass murderer, because of the 15-20 million dead by the genocidal effort of the Nazis, whom he commanded, during the holocaust.
*This is sourced and is demonstrated by Con, and Pro"s only refute is round 3 #4 that Hitler was acting out of self defense"this does not negate all of the dead at the hands of Hitler, so Con wins this point too.

3.Nazi Germany confiscated $8 billion of private property from innocent people.
*Pro refutes with round 3 #6 that Germany had to pay $23 billion, so that leaves $15 billion lost for Germany and they had 5.3 million deaths themselves.
*This is a weak refute since it does not negate the confiscation of $8 billion and in fact Pro concedes this point.

4.Germany imposed a tax on leaving Germany"25% of people"s wealth which went to war.
*Pro dropped this and the source Con provided demonstrates this un-peaceful, war-expanding, right-violating fact of the german rule under Hitler.

5.Nazi Germany imprisoned and forced people into labor camps with poor conditions and under threat of murder.
*Pro refutes with round 3 #8-10 that Nazis provided adequate water, Auschwitz was exaggerated, and german physicians tried to reduce typhus in the camps"Pro gains somewhat here.

6.#5 created many weapons for war.
*Pro drops that the camps were used for an increase of war supplies under Hitler"s command, and this does not speak to Hitler"s attempts to reduce standing armies, massive gains here for Con.

7.Unethical medical experiments done on people under Nazi control"spinal cord punctures.
*Pro only mentions german physicians" attempts to rid typhus not unethical medical experiments"Pro mentions conditions in the camps, but fails to acknowledge the medical treatment of camp members irrespective of typhus.

8.Nazis attempted to sterilize everyone who wasn"t Aryan, or change people to Aryan by changing people"s eye color.
*Pro drops this, and Con sourced it and explained it well; it"s not very peaceful either.

9.Hitler started WWII which destroyed fraternity between nations by increasing standing armies, and World Wars are the antithesis of peace.
*Pro refutes with hitler"s withdrawal of Dunkirk, and hitler"s "deal" with England. These were never truly demonstrated by Pro, and were healthily refuted by Con, and Pro continues to defend this increase of standing armies by saying hitler had to do it. I must stress, even if it were justified, it lead to an INCREASE in standing armies, which is antithetical to the Nobel prize as Con points out.

10.Hitler initiated the war by invading Poland and Czechoslovakia and these invasions incited no war with others, so Hitler had a chance to stop here and didn"t.
*Pro doesn"t ever address why Hitler didn"t stop here, instead justifies its beginnings with self-defense, this does not address the continuation/addition of enemies inciting a world war"con"s winning this too.

11.Hitler showed his desire to expand war by allying with Japan and Italy"Hitler started, continued, and expanded the war, and because of this, is partially responsible for 40 million deaths.
*Pro drops the ally with Japan argument"
Posts: 1,232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 3:36:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Pro Round 3:
1.Hitler wasn"t anti-jew, just against jews, and Hitler liked jews more than people knew.
*Despite Con"s intermittent quoting of this, this is still a DIRECT contradiction even if it was used to show how hitler"s anti-Semitism was misinterpreted. Anti-jew and against jews is the same thing, period, so Con pointing this out speaks to an inconsistency with Pro"s portrayal of Hitler"s hatred.

2.Unforced Jews fought for Hitler in the war
*Con refutes in round 4 #3 that it was only for Finland that jews fought and they had to conceal their jewness. Con sourced this too.

3.Hitler married a jew.
*Con refuted by saying that Pro"s source says that Hitler Unwittingly married a jew, but this is also irrelevant to the resolution, so no ground gained.

4.Repeat of Round 2 #3, so we can"t assume Hitler didn"t like a particular minority"Hitler didn"t like being attacked first, the particular minorities were killed by chance as a result of self-defense on Hitler"s part.
*Con refuted with round 4 #4 6,000,000 is a disproportionate amount of minority deaths to be random, and this 6,000,000 number is not refuted ever.

5.Hitler wasn"t homophobic, in fact homosexuals served in WWII for Germany with distinction, because of the stronger bonds formed between the men.
*Con sourced that gays were executed and incarcerated round 4 #5

6.Germany suffered 5.3 million dead, yet had to pay $23 billion for what?
*Con doesn"t address this, but so what? How much money has to be paid doesn"t show peacefulness of anyone"if anything it shows all of the damage Germany had to repair under Hitler"s rule.

7.Concentration camps were introduced by Poland.
*Since Pro agreed with Con"s rendition of history, and history does not have Poland creating concentration camps, this is disregarded"it would be irrelevant to Hitler"s peacefulness as well.

8.Nazi"s gave people in the camps adequate water.
*Con refutes with round 4 #8
9.Auschwitz was exaggerated.
10.German physicians tried to reduce death rate in the camps trying to limit typhus"the Nazis were concerned for prisoner"s health.
11.Concentration camps were set up by Germany only because of how the Germans were treated before and during the war.
12.Allies committed war crimes too, and Hitler is not responsible for every decision.
13.Repeat round 2 #3, so Germany had to invade Poland.

Con Round 3:
1.Nobel Peace Prize has requirements not met by Hitler, and preventing war isn"t one of them.
*This has massive impact on the resolution, and Pro doesn't address preventing war's absence in the Nobel requirements.

2.It could be that there were glimpses of Hitler"s peacefulness, but they are grossly outweighed by his non peacefulness.
*This is not addressed by Pro, possibly because it is damning. It shows that Hitler wasn't even close to the superlative of peace.

3.Hitler was responsible for 20,000 camps in different countries and these are not just wartime casualties.
*Pro does not address this,

4.Pro"s argument is from a particular site that cites all of pro"s other sources without context.
*Pro's only refute is another tu quoque which does not negate Con's argument.

5.Repeat round 2 #11 negates the importance of Hitler"s one alleged attempt to end conflict.
*Pro only claims that this attempt is peaceful and does not address hitler's egregious acts.
6.Other people around this time who actually received the prize negate Hitler"s peacefulness superlative and show international efforts at peace"none caused mass death to achieve their peace.
*Pro"s only refute was round 4 #5 and this does not address why I should buy that Hitler was a superlative, compared to the other candidates, of peace. Con is still winning this, and this is quite impacting on the resolution.

7.1933-1939 went down differently than Pro claimed, and there is no mention of Poland attacking first.
*I"m glad that Con pointed out the accepted history, and Pro actually concedes Con"s rendition of history in round 4 #6"the problem? This does not have Poland giving the first blow, so I now must accept that the first blow argument is null.

8.Pro"s source is an inaccessible book, and there is very little online showing Poland instigating first"is someone covering up info?
*Pro"s only refute to this is a tu quoque, that is to say that Con did it too, so it should be ok for Pro"this is a fallacy and does not negate Pro"s source"s lack of context or inaccessibility, nor does it support the idea of Poland attacking first.

9.Hitler didn"t engage with Britain or the LON and though had other options, chose full scale invasion/occupation.
*Pro responds with round 4 #6 and #7 that invasion was necessary because of the confines of the treaty with Britain and france and to reduce more german deaths"the problem? This effectively admits the invasion and the rejection of the League of Nations which allowed for other options than un-peaceful full scale occupation"Con"s winning this too.

10.Hitler stopped trying to work with Britain after 1941, because the goal was to reduce the war to a single front and invade Russia on their path to victory.
*Pro drops it"

11.Hitler"s stopping of Dunkirk was a power flex"he ruled via fear.
*This is crucial here"Pro"s main argument for why hitler deserves the peace prize is this particular act, which is claimed by Pro to be peaceful and war reducing. I however, see it as Con sees it because his source is the International Business Times and it supported a valid case for Dunkirk being a power flex, and Pro never shows any reason why this source should be ignored, so Con"s winning this crucial point.

12.Like #11, the Night of Long Knives and Kristallnacht show Hitler"s harshness.
*Pro drops it.

13.1939 Peace offering from Hitler was a demand for USSR to surrender.
*This is also crucial. This is to be an example of peace by Hitler and Time magazine"s article that Con sourced is really supportive of the fact that this in fact was a demand for USSR to surrender, which doesn"t reek of peacefulness"I buy Con"s source"s information and it seems credible and with no credibility contention from Pro, I"m left buying Con"s argument on this too.

14.Hitler bombed London to rubble.
*Pro dropped this and he"s british...The Blitz! Yeah, Con sourced that too and Pro"s round 4 #7 that Germany had to fight back to reduce german casualties does not negate the bombing to rubble of London, which is not peaceful, justified or not.
Posts: 1,232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 3:38:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Pro Round 4:

1.Hitler met Nobel requirements, reducing standing armies, and holding peace conferences because of Dunkirk and reducing attacks on Russia, and Hitler held peace conferences with the British, giving them benefits, and Dunkirk is another peace conference.
*Con"s sources negate Dunkirk and the fake USSR deal as peaceful acts.

2.Concentration camps not hitler"s fault, you can"t equate all nazi behavior to Hitler"calling out an individual for the actions of a group is stereotyping.
*Con"s previous point that the Nazi"s were Hitler"s own party, so the culpability still remains with Hitler stands here because the actions of this group are actually dictated by Hitler.

3.Pro admits using one source, but claims Con is doing the same with the US Holocaust Museum website.
*This isn"t true. I was able to easily find many of Con"s sources because they were linked, while the only real linked source Pro had been using was extremely biased and it was really obvious, besides I pointed out that Pro saying this this is a tu quoque fallacy and it doesn"t negate the fact that Pro is over-relying on that one source.

4.Pro claims Con didn"t source "hitler refused to end war" and "hitler expanded war as often as he could"
*This is untrue. Con sourced these.

5.Pro claims Con"s mention of other candidates for the prize is ad hominem because it appeals to reader"s emotions, Hitler is more worthy than these candidates.
*This is crucial too. The nobel prize is for a superlative of peace keeping, that is to say, the best nominee for peace keeping, and if Con can show just one person who deserved it more than hitler than the resolution is rejected. Pro never addresses the candidate argument, because he is too busy clinging to the false ad-hominem.

6.Pro agrees with Con"s history but gaining land and hating jews isn"t as bad as Poland"s atrocities on the Germans, invasion was necessary"Britain and france could not be talked to thanks to treaty restrictions.
*Con refutes this round 4 #10 that the actions of others do not negate Hitler"s actions, peaceful or otherwise.

7.Hitler tried for peace, it could not be achieved, they had to fight back or have more german casualties.
*Con refuted this earlier, but it should be reinforced that fighting back, justified or not, is not peaceful, and how are concentrations camps used to reduce german casualties? It seems non sequitur.

8.Pro claims Con never questioned the sources Pro has used on proposing peace simply for peace, not for hitler"s gain.
*This is true, Con did not directly contest the source, but Con mentions the inaccessibility and verification elsewhere of such, and upon my searches as well, Con is correct on this too.

9.Dunkirk = hitler is peaceful
*Con refuted this deal with a good source.

Con Round 4:
1.Hitler expanded war, killed non-combatants, and engaged in genocide.
*Con demonstrated this.

2.Pro contradicts himself, Hitler is anti-jew, but not against jews.
*Con wins this point though it"s somewhat irrelevant to the resolution.

3.Jews who fought for Finland wanted to conceal their jewery, and made it clear that they disagreed with Germany
*Con"s source shows such.

4.6,000,000 jews is a disproportionate number of minorities.
*Con"s source shows such.

5.Gays were incarcerated/executed.
*Con"s source shows such.

6.Pro concedes confiscation of jew stuff, and dropped people fleeing the country because of this and using this money for war.
*Con"s correct, Pro dropped this.

7.Poland"s actions don"t warrant concentration camps, and targeting jews =/= targeting Poland.
*Pro never refuted this either"Pro just kept saying that retaliation itself was justified.

8.Pro"s clean water source only shows fluoridation not access to clean water.
*I checked on Pro"s source and this is the case.

9.Auschwitz had many typhus deaths, disproportionate to the death rate for typhus 5/100,000 in 1940"s because of lice jumping from person to person in close quarters
*Con"s source shows such.

10.Pro can"t justify allied war crimes for german war crimes, hitler does not deserve a prize whether others have committed war crimes or not.
*This idea was not ever addressed by Pro, even though it was brought up early.

11.Hitler"s response to Poland is beyond self-defense
*Same as #10

12.Germany initiated british and French conflict, this is not peaceful
*Pro"s refute that Britain and France were treaty-confined did not negate this

13.#11-12 are war-furthering
*I see it that way too.

14.As sole dictator, all acts committed under his regime are his culpability, hitler spoke out and supported these acts.
*This seems reasonable to me.

15.Delaying attacks doesn"t qualify for peace prize.
*Another crucial point"qualifying for the prize just wasn"t met by hitler.

Given Con"s supportive credible sources, Pro"s inability to demonstrate peace conferences in Dunkirk and the USSR deal, Pro"s refusal to acknowledge other candidates that appear more fit for the prize, Con"s insurmountable evidence that Hitler"s actions/decisions lead to millions and millions of deaths and billions of dollars in destruction, Con negated Pro"s claim of Hitler"s reduction of armies, and Con showed that if anything causing a world war like hitler did is not supporting fraternity between nations.
For all of these reasons I vote Con.