I'm on trial/What is the problem you see with me?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 6 votes and with 28 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Here you air your disputes involving the debates I been in with you or with anyone. The topics, the premises, debates that you've seen me in, let's discuss them. Hopefully everybody gets a chance, gets a turn at this as I plan to do several of these trials/confrontations.
Now this is still in the spirit of contest. As you try to prove your points valid, I will render my points to refute and or correct yours.
So in regards to the way I argue or why I made a particular point, said a particular thing, came up with a particular topic, even personal views, here's the opportunity to challenge it all in this challenge. You can question, challenge a challenge, etc.
For clarity or questions, Please send a message or comment prior to accepting debate.
- Some proponents and influencers within organized Holocaust denial seek to rehabilitate the Nazi regime, hoping to open the ideology of national socialism to new, broader audiences.
- Holocaust denial delegitimizes the suffering of Jews, and exacerbates intergenerational traumas by denying Holocaust history, and codifies antisemitic propaganda under the guise of academic research.
- Deniers promote conspiracy theories about Jewish-controlled governments and media by attempting to undermine a history of horrific suffering. Their denials provide a foundation for much of the antisemitism permeating the radical right.
- Deniers misrepresent anti-hate campaigns and legislation as evidence that Jews control the mainstream media.
“Good genes, what's wrong with that?”
Forced eugenics is a form of genocide. As identified by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, genocide includes [3]:
- Killing members of the group
- Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
- Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
- Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
- Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/2397-present-proof-that-adolf-hitler-was-a-racist?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=37
- https://www.ushmm.org/genocide-prevention/learn-about-genocide-and-other-mass-atrocities/what-is-genocide
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/2397-present-proof-that-adolf-hitler-was-a-racist?argument_number=2
I. Holocaust Denial:
The harms of holocaust denial have not been challenged. Extend.
“Your proof of that *****in your own words****** is what?”
I don’t need my own words, when I have literally your own words, denying the holocaust [1]:
“I yet stand not convinced of any purported evidence.”
“You have to prove I've denied anything”
See above.
“As far as I'm concerned, you haven't proven anything”
Another denial of the mountain of previously cited evidence [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8].
“I'm not seeing proof of any denial”
See above.
II. Eugenics Denial:
Pro has not offered any defense of his positive view on eugenics taken to the extreme of genocide. Instead, he merely complains that I have sources. Extend.
III. “Mr. Hitler”
Pro being unable to defend the previous two, has asked me to “come up with something else.” While I am not one for Gish Galloping away into the sunset, his defense of the apparently poor misunderstood “Mr. Hitler” ties in closely with the theme I’m exploring for this morality trail.
Pro has come to the defense of “Mr. Hitler” against there being anything wrong with and/or racist about genocide [9]:
“I didn't get much if any arguments on proving Mr. Hitler was a "racist".” [sic]
Conclusion:
"Mr. Hitler" alone should carry this debate.
Sources:
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/2397-present-proof-that-adolf-hitler-was-a-racist?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=37
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/2397-present-proof-that-adolf-hitler-was-a-racist?argument_number=1
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Rise_of_evil
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nazi_analogies
- https://twitter.com/stevesilberman/status/1307784059167227904
- https://www.history.com/topics/germany/eugenics#section_4
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...#Origin
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_paragraph
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/2397-present-proof-that-adolf-hitler-was-a-racist?argument_number=2
To any voter, if the above are indeed problems, I should win this debate.
Firstly to clarify - I've seen mentions of character assasination
Character Assasination: "the malicious and unjustified harming of a person's good reputation." Oxford Languages
Pro does not seem to maliciously harm Mall's "good" reputation, nor is the "harm" unjustified. Everything claimed by pro is backed up by a source demonstrating what they say as truth (some multiple sources) Therefore there is no character assassination on Pro's (Contender's) part.
To the actual debate:
It starts off with a pretty clear cut R1, Malls waives to wait for the criticisms, and Pro (Ragnar) provides a list of such. In R2 Mall either dismisses each claim without justification, or attempts to cite a lack of evidence for each claim. Pro comes back with the fact that they did indeed provide sources, and provides even more sources. R3, is essentially the same Rhetoric from Con, and it does as much convincing as it did the first round, and Pro simply lists off their contentions with some admittable questionable critiques of Mall.
R4 and R5 are simply back and forth with no rebuttals on Mall's part.
Therefore I give the arguments to Pro.
Con fails provide to any sources, while Pro provides a multitude, therefore Pro also get's points on sources.
While it is true that Pro does not character assassinate Con, they do provide some criticism that would be considered rude, but Con also continuously ignored sources provided in the text they cited. For those reasons, I will leave conduct in the middle, as it is more up to perspective/opinion who's was better.
Pro was the only side to use sources and successfully provided several things that he finds Pro does wrong, the most severe being Holocaust denial and sympathising with Nazi propaganda.
I do not think this is truly accurate, I think Mall (Con) is playing devil's advocate in many of his debates. That said, Con keeps asking 'but why' to anything Pro raises with the entire last 2 Round of debate dedicated to Con essentially surrendering but with a tone of fervored resistance and as such he didn't overtly concede.
Pro is fairly merciless to Con and basically 'character assassinates' him to a degree where I think he's not even considering that Mall didn't really mean he supported something just because he happened to host a debate asking someone to prove that Hitler was racist. Con clearly is frustrated and struggled to defend himself but I'm unclear as to whether or not Con understand that he consented to have his character attacked in this debate by its very title and structure... I leave the Conduct points tied but it leans towards Con.
con spent most of the debate NOT debating pros arguments
that's poor conduct
I don't want to repeat myself from my previous RFDs too much, so I'll keep this short. Pro presents a case. Con largely does nothing to assail that case, aside from questioning the validity of points Pro made. He doesn't give us an alternate lens through which to view those points, nor does he provide information that runs contrary to the points that Pro made. Apart from that, the entire basis for the debate is so vague that it's unclear what the burden of proof even was, providing Pro with any number of avenues to win this debate and, in the absence of challenge, providing Con with little opportunity to challenge him. Con put himself on trial, and lost.
Mall didn't even rebute Ragnar's points.
Plus he was awfully rude.
In future, I do suggest having a tiny bit more detail, such as just naming a contention: Like "Mall defends 'Mr. Hitler', with sources showing that 'Mr. Hitler' was a bad person, this was a valid problem to have against him."
Thank you all for the quality votes!
Minor typo: I wrote pro instead of con when referring to my opponent. Contextually this shouldn't be an issue.
"Your proof of that *****in your own words****** is what?"
I have no idea why but this made me chuckle a little bit. You could've started your round with polite and cordial words but instead you chose to shout at him. LOL
Note: I left this debate alone for five days before accepting.
I don't know how to make this any clearer. You pick whatever you think I do is wrong and build a case for it and I attempt to refute it.
but u can respond
like a roast?
Good luck.
Well , this is an opportunity to make your critique as according to what the description says. I think many of you have points to make about the debates I have . We can confront these things with a direct interaction. Your inquiries are directed at me. We communicate, I'm allowed to make a counter point. It's like moving what's said in the comments to the debate rounds. Moving the fight from outside to the ring.
explain please?
mall be like : o no oromagi's gonna destroy me