Instigator / Pro
7
1810
rating
49
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#2397

Present proof that Adolf Hitler was a "racist"

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
0
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

Barney
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
6,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
2
1483
rating
327
debates
40.21%
won
Description

This was inspired by the denial of Trump being racist:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2376-present-proof-that-donald-j-trump-is-a-racist

By such a standard, likewise Hitler would be incapable of racism.

DEFINITIONS
Merriam-Webster defines the following:
Race is “any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry”
Racism is “a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race” also: “behavior or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief”
Racialism is synonymous with racism, merely abridging it to “a theory that race determines human traits and capacities”
Racist is another form of the word racism, allowing for adjective use but may still be presented as a noun.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

I went back and checked, and I could just copy-paste my RFD from Con's last debate and have it apply just as well here. I can't fault either side for consistency, but Con, if you're losing your debates with tactics like these, you might want to change things up a bit. This just makes it look like you don't care.

However, as this is a debate that finished without forfeits and as I'd like to provide some feedback, I'll endeavor to provide a unique RFD.

Pro largely sets up a pretty simple argument, building his case on some pretty simple standards for what makes a racist, how rhetoric reflects racist tendencies, and how the defenses of racism simply don't hold up. It's a straightforward case with obvious links that require direct attacks. Without directly addressing those links, Pro's argument automatically wins this debate, because his burden of proof is simply show that there is evidence that Adolf Hitler was racist. Everything else, including distractions about Donald Trump.

Con's response is largely to pose questions. Those questions introduce some doubt, but they only weakly mitigate Pro's arguments, even if I buy the points Con is making outright. They are still supporting Pro's case, and Con doesn't give me reason to believe that they do not rise to the level of proof. Instead, he seems more focused on presenting doubt that there's anything wrong with these actions. I could buy that someone is racist and that there's nothing wrong with that, so I don't understand why this line of argument does anything for Con's side. The rest is largely about questioning guilt by association (which only tells me that he might not be a racist, not that he isn't), lack of other evidence (which only works if you address the evidence you've been presented with, which Con ignores), and trying to call attention to vagaries in Pro's points (none of which are integral to Pro's arguments, and all of which seem more focused on semantics than actual analysis). Con's case, once again, lacks any substance and fails to introduce any substantial doubts in Pro's arguments. All he accomplishes is showing that there are some potential problems, but since most of his doubts are introduced as questions and the remainder fail to fully mitigate or turn arguments from Pro, they don't do anything to shift the debate in his favor.

Arguments go to Pro, along with sources, as Pro was the only one to present them and Con leaves them all unaddressed.

Just two other things I need to say:

Con, if you don't understand points as clear as the ones made in this debate and that's why you need to ask questions, then you really need to take the time to understand what the debate is about. Debates are not discussions, and introducing niggling doubts is not powerful in any context. Know what you have to do to succeed and go along that path. Understand your opponent's arguments or not, you won't get anywhere giving these kinds of responses in any debate.

And finally... "Mr. Hitler"... really?