The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Liberials are identical to Nazis when it comes to the issue of abortion

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
mfigurski80 has forfeited round #5.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 573 times Debate No: 100504
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Abortion is clearly a Nazi's idea. How does no one see the similarities between Hitler's discrimination of the Jews and abortion? Both Liberals and Nazis discriminated their target group of people. Both pathetically attempt to justify their evil mass killings by dehumanizing their targets solely because they don't look the same way they do. Nazis brainwashed their population into agreeing with their sick ideals using their control of the media. Liberals use their hold on the media to do the exact same thing. Nazis appeared to be the good guys to the starving, homeless population of Germany. Liberals appear to be the good guys to the general public of the United States! Liberals and Nazis both are against religious arguments because their compassionate, selfless nature goes against their selfish whims. Liberals are Nazis when it comes to abortion! (Well, except in the case of defending the mother's life, I could see someone with wholeheartedly good intentions supporting that)


False. Liberal leaders do not sport nearly the same calibre of mustache as Hitler did. Therefore they are not identical.

Debate Round No. 1


True. I think overall their mustaches* would more resemble Stalin's. I was saying they are like Nazis only for the Abortion/Holocaust comparision.


Good point. But the idea of a genocide and an abortion are very different, as one is forced, actively done on already grown up people, and targeting a specific ethnic/religious group, while abortion simply targets the unborn.

I do agree with Pro on the resemblance of Liberal mustaches. This is particularly true in the case of Mrs Clinton.

But, outside of the debate and my technical, nit picky self, I'd still say Pro is wrong to regard the resolution as true. Here's my thought process, feel free to comment and critique.

The Holocaust may not have been a purely political maneuver on Hitler's part, but it certainly did it's job incredibly well as it served to rally the necessary voting block. In a way, the post-war democracy established in Germany, combined with the post-war tensions, allowed this to happen. This included lots of animosity towards Jews, for whatever reason, and Hitler merely capitalized on this tension to get into power. His voting block constituted the fascist party, and so he focused himself on pleasing them even if doing so meant harming other voting blocks. Because all he needed was their vote. And, who knows, maybe the reach people that financed the campaign disliked Jews too.

Eliminating Jews afterwards was also a good political move. It made sure that Jews couldn't vote against him, in case there were more elections. It wouldn't do to have dissent in your country anyway, even without elections. In a way, it was as if the USA had been killing anyone opposed to the Vietnam war, which would essentially breed a country that loves war.
This is what Hitler did. Political eugenics, and even some real eugenics thrown in too.

The Liberal party is doing something a bit different. Their voting block, as we know, is formed by the city-dwellers, who are generally pro-choice. They made the correct political move by absolutely ignoring the rest of america (admittedly the minority by population), because they knew that that voting block alone could get them into power.
They actually are doing eugenics too, in a sense. The population explosion that poor people should be having is dulled by a LOT, and political eugenics by the fact that they are killing their own potential voting block. Great short-term strategy, but expect the democrats to fall within 30, 40 years.

It would also make sense for Liberals to preform independent political eugenics. Ever notice how many abortions people get? Who pays for all of that? Us? The government? The people who want to get the abortion?

In a sense, all three, but that's a bit too deep for now. All that's important is that, well, planned parenthood is getting a lot of money. And because planned parenthood works with other companies, both as a buyer of materials and seller of body organs, lots of people are making lots of money. And a big portion of that money should, if the correct political move is being played here, be going right back to the dem party, so they can advertise for abortion. Self-sustaining machine, at least for now.

I guess Hitler advertised in this way too. They are a bit similar. Is there any databases with the numbers for raw production of materials by concentration camps?

But keep in mind that all parties are like this. The GOP resists abortion specifically because its voting block hates it, and because the big companies that finance it aren't like the city tech companies. They farm and manufacture. Those companies need the low-skilled wage as low down as it can get, and abortion is preventing them from getting a whole lot of money.
Ever wondered why Trump had to finance his own campaign?

Anyway, Conservatives are pretty brainwashed too, arguably more, on ideas like immigration. The companies don't mind, since they can import workers as "guests" and then pretty much enslave them in any system, and the voting block really cares. NOw that I think about it, it may not even be brainwashing. There's not enough incentive. You can rally a voting block on better things, surely.

Anyhow, there's a lot of things that can be compared to other bad things. This doesn't mean they're wrong, of course. Did you know that, by definition, our two presidential candidates were terrorists, because they spread terror of the other side to achieve political goals?

Thanks for reading anyway.
Debate Round No. 2


Interesting. When I made my argument, I was just pointing out the similarities of the two. I never considered deeply thinking about it and intensely studying the details. Maybe I should've just said abortion is similar instead of identical to Nazi ideologies. Personally, you may be thinking this through a little too seriously (I really don't think that's a bad thing, I do that sometimes too) Judging by your arguments, I'm assuming we're both against abortion?


Reminds me of when Gary was talking about taxes. One of the reporters asked really technical questions, and Gary expressed how he 'didn't want to get into the weeds here'. Ugh, where is that video? Can't find it now.

But yeah, I'm vehemently against abortion. But I'm also againt Reductio Ad Hitlerum, which is the new internet term I never knew existed until moments ago, meaning that one compares Hitler to something as to make it bad.
So now I'm going to use it everywhere to make more people dislike it. :)

Also, really interesting point: you violated Godwin's Law. So I win the debate.

Godwin's law is the theory that basically says: "as a web discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison to Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
This can be used diagnostically: whenever a discussion compares someone else to Hitler, that discussion is too long, and whoever did it has no sense of proportion. The discussion/debate should be ended in favor of the more rational person. Therefore, I win from post one?

Yeah, I overthink stuff when I'm bored.

Anyway, next time don't make debates this long. I'm going to have to fill all that space with legitimate thought on stuff.

Debate Round No. 3


Ok, first off, with your "Godwin's law", do you know if it refers to topics where Hitler and the Nazis is the original subject of the conversation? Because It would be ridiculous If a conversation went like this:

Guy A: Gee, Adolf Hitler was a mean guy.
Guy A: Uhh.... Wacko
Plus, I'm not just comparing abortion to the Nazis to show abortion is evil!!! I'm actually comparing the similarities between the two! Like I've said in my first post: First, between the Nazi's attempt to justify their murder by dehumanizing their target, and Liberals claiming that unborn children aren't human (which of course they are) as one of their main justifications for their malicious deeds. Second, how Hitler used his wave of propaganda and control of the media to spread his ideals around, likewise Liberals use their almost complete control of the media to broadcast their ideas into the general population. Third, the Nazi's targeted killing of a specific population, With pro-abortionists also targeting a specific population. Personally, I think you ramble on more than I do.
Overall, I just find the "Godwin's law" thing just ridiculous.


Godwin's Law refers to all internet conversations, and it's awesome if you're on the right side of it.

Your example is a bit propaganda-ish. You make person B call it in a way that violates the Law of Exclamation, while simultaneously making sure that person A is innocent under Quirk's Exception. Realistically, conversations probably look like this:

A: Trump is Hitler. He's trying to kill all the Muslims and start another Holocaust.
B: Godwin's Law
A: What? Lmao, that thing is fake, get your jokes out of here.

Did I mention that trying to discredit Godwin's Law is a good sign of it's breakage?

Anyway, as you can see, A actually attempts to prove the comparison and/or utilize the reference. Because he tried to follow through with it, he wouldn't be held under Quirk's Exception. And B called it without violating any other internet laws.
I'd like to recognize that our own exchange was more similar to my example than yours.

Anyway, thanks for disagreeing with me. It reinvigorates the debate on a different topic.
Debate Round No. 4


Your argument seems extremely weak when the best point you can make is referring to some internet law and not any actual evidence. I researched Godwin's law and found some quite interesting things about it. First, Godwin himself says "If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness to history, then go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump. Or other politicians. Second, Godwin's law is not a real law, just a saying and/or a tradition, one I do not follow at all, along with your other so-called "internet laws." I'm trying to have a meaningful debate where the opponent makes a far better argument than some silly internet tradition!
Your internet laws are not internet laws, in the meaningful discussion I am trying to have, I want to be presented with actual counterarguments, not excuses for not debating through "internet laws! Debates do not end when internet laws are violated, debates end (at least they should end by MY laws) when one person has either won over the audience, the majority of the audience, or the opponent. If you want to take the coward's way out by proclaiming "Godwin's law" instead of having an actual debate, then be my guest! I have never in my life debated or even heard of these nonsensical internet laws! They seem good for a fun game "Gee, let's see how long we can debate without violating any internet laws", but when it comes to real debating, then I want a real debater with real reasons for their argument.
If that is your sole argument, then I believe we are indeed finished, and by my laws (which say that these internet laws aren't worth nil when it comes to debating) , I will proclaim myself the winner, since you appear to have no better argument.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by MakeDebatingGreatAgain 3 years ago
That's why we call them "Feminatzis"!
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.