Mein Kampf is the most evil and incoherent book to have ever been written
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 6 votes and with 23 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Is it possible to find another stack of pages filled with more violence, brutality, deceit, falsehoods, and run-on sentences than the "Bible" of Nazi Germany? Count for count, Mein Kampf contains more lies, calls to violence, blatant falsehoods, and incoherency than any other book ever to have been penned by mankind. Or is it possible my opponent can find yet a worse example?
- Chapter I: "[I had] a profound hatred for the Austrian state."
- II: "Gradually, I began to hate Jewish people".
- III: "The longer I stayed in the city, the hotter my hatred burned for [Jewish and Slavic people]".
- VII: "During those nights, hatred grew — hatred for the Jewish people".
- XI: "The dislike of the Jewish people gradually rises until it becomes open hatred."
- XI: "In times of great public distress, we see the hatred and rage against the Jewish people surface."
- XII: "Hatred is more long lasting than mere dislike."
- "They must not try to avoid the hatred"
- "they should embrace that hatred."
- XIII: "national spirit of ... manly defiance, and wrathful hatred"
- Chapter II: "[Reading Jewish newspapers] made the blood rush to my head."
- XI: "The democratic Jewish person, the popular Jewish person, becomes the “Bloody ______ person”"
- I: "my gift for speaking was developing more or less through violent disputes"
- II: "I had to fight my most violent battles ... for months [against Jewish people]"
- V: "The moment there is any hesitation and violence alternates with mercy, the doctrine being overcome will not only recover, but it will gain new value from each following persecution."
- "The only way to achieve success is through a constant and regular use of violence."
- "As in everything else, victory is decided in the attack, not with the defense."
- XII: "The most effective tool for them to use at these times was always terrorism and violence."
- "Terrorism is not overcome by intellect, but by terrorism."
- "I took the floor. Within a few minutes, there was a flood of interruptions from shouts and there were violent episodes in the hall."
- XV: "12,000 or 15,000" Jewish people should have been killed with "poison gas".
- Volume II Chapter VII: "The best defensive weapon is attack."
- "our control troops should have the reputation of being a desperately determined fighting fellowship and we were not a debate club. "
- "Unfortunately, it rained all morning, which made us reasonably afraid that the weather would cause many people to stay at home rather than hurry through rain and snow to a meeting where there might be violence and killings."
- Chapter III: "The Democracy of the West today is a forerunner of Marxism, and without it, Marxism would be unthinkable. It alone gives this plague the surface on which to grow."
- Chapter X: "the true principle that within a big lie, a certain fraction of it is always accepted and believed"
- Chapter XI: "[Jewish people are liars] and this is uniquely proven in the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”".
- Chapter XI: He calls Jesus Christ the "Great Founder" of Christianity, completely ignoring the fact that Jesus was Jewish himself.
- Chapter XI: Hitler says the Protocols prove Jewish people are liars, and the Protocols are proven to be real because Jewish people say they're fake, meaning the Protocols are real because the people saying they're fake are liars, as proven by the Protocols.
- Chapter XII: Hitler says Nazism is "by nature and inner organization anti-parliamentarian", yet Nazism was a political party in parliament. This implies Nazism was anti-Nazism, another strike on the incoherency scoreboard.
- "Terrorism is not overcome by intellect, but by terrorism."
- Evil
- Most
- Greatest in quantity, extent, or degree
- In the case of this debate, most refers to the greatest in degree.
- RESOLUTION: Mein Kampf is the most evil and incoherent book to have ever been written
- In order to win my opponent has multiple things they have to do. First, their BoP is to prove that Mein Kampf is the most evil and incoherent book to have ever been written. Proving simply that it is evil alone is not sufficient, likewise proving it is simply incoherent is not sufficient. However, I as CON only needs to prove either or one of these characteristics in order to win. Even I agree that Mein Kampf is the most evil book but show that it isn't the most incoherent, I will have deconstructed my opponents BoP. Moreover, my opponent states that following in the debate description.
- MY OPPONENTS STATES: Is it possible to find another stack of pages filled with more violence, brutality, deceit, falsehoods, and run-on sentences than the "Bible" of Nazi Germany?
- Challenge accepted. If I can successfully show that there is a book which contains more violence, brutality, deceit, falsehoods or run-on sentences than Mein Kampf, then I will also win this debate. Quite frankly, my opponent has created a huge scope of victory for me, as proving any of these one characteristics will result in a win for me.
- INREPRETED RESOLUTION: Mein Kampf is the most evil, incoherent, violent, brutal, deceit and false book written in history.
RECALL: Incoherent = expressing yourself in a way that is not clear
- p1. The Voynich Manuscript is not understood by historians and not expressed in a way which is clear
- p2. Mein Kampf is understood by historians and expressed in a way which is clear
- p3. The Voynich manuscript is more incoherent than Mein Kampf
- c1. Mein Kampf is not the most incoherent book to have ever been written.
We are informed, on the book’s very first page, when we have our first glimpse of our protagonist (only a child) that “in him broods already a taste for mindless violence.” The violence to come in this book is indeed mindless (for most), and constant and intense. The kid is violent, and so is the gang he joins, whose members are ostensibly collecting the scalps of Apaches, but are really happy to murder anyone and everyone they encounter, and so, of course, is the terrifying and hairless Judge Holden, the only character whose love for bloodshed is intensified by philosophical surety. “War is at last a forcing of the unity of existence,” he says. “War is god.”
"Hogg also reveals a bit about himself and his personal history, painting a picture of his overall persona, which is one of extreme sociopathy, violence, and sexual sadism""During the third rape scene, Denny absconds to the family's kitchen where he decides to pierce his own penis using a nail. Soon Denny's penis begins to bleed, swell and pus, seemingly infected.""The quintet of rapists set out to complete their jobs, which grow in succession from a single woman, a woman and her wheelchair-bound daughter"
- MEIN KAMPF XII: "The most effective tool for them to use at these times was always terrorism and violence."
- WIND UP BIRD: “It is a very special knife, designed for skinning, and it is extraordinarily well made. They can take a man’s skin off the way you’d peel a peach. Beautifully, without a single scratch.”
- MEIN KAMPF II: "[Reading Jewish newspapers] made the blood rush to my head."
- HOGG: "Blood shot out of its ears and itslammed to the ground so hard that one of its forelegs broke under it with a dull snap"
- NOTE: At the time Hogg was written, no one would publish it due to its graphic descriptions of murder, child molestation, incest, coprophilia, coprophagia, urolagnia, anal-oral contact, necrophilia and rape.
- MEIN KAMPF: ""As in everything else, victory is decided in the attack, not with the defence."
- HOGG: "His neck had been broken and his head hung straight down and it flopped over strangely when they let him onto the ground"
- OBSERVATION:
- My opponent does not rebut the interpreted resolution, thus the resolution of the debate Mein Kampf is the most evil, incoherent, violent, brutal, deceit and false book written in history.
The Voynich manuscript cannot be an example of incoherency just because we have yet to decode it. Even my opponent is careful to use the qualifier "possibly" in describing it as "possibly meaningless". In fact, Wikipedia states that "The structure of these words seems to follow phonological or orthographic laws of some sort."
(Incoherent) specifically means unintelligible due to a lack of cohesion, or sticking together.
Incoherent = expressed in an incomprehensible or confusing way; unclear.
- p1. The Voynich Manuscript is expressed in an incomprehensible or confusing way: unclear.
- p2. Mein Kampf is expressed in a a comprehendible way; clear.
- c1. The Voynich Manuscript is more incoherent than Mein Kampf.
This debate is not about the most "perverted" or "disgusting" book,
They stated they would "put the worst that my opponent has provided next to some passages that I have found," yet completely ignored the quote about gassing 15,000 Jewish people to death
III.I TO VOTERS: I urge any readers too, for the duration of this reading this debate, seperate Mein Kampf from the Holocaust. As is stated in the resolution, this debate is simply about the "Nazi bible", its "stacks of pages" and the words within. To remove bias, it would be useful to "forget" that Hitler was the author of this book (even Hiter's name is able to make anything attached seem brutal) and view it with an analytical eye. This debate simply concerns the authors ability to create violent and brutal scenes. Imagine that a low profile author has written this and is asking you the question "is this the most violent book to have ever been written in history?".
"My opponent makes the mistake of conflating the effects that the book has and the literacy within its pages."
My opponent is trying to argue the Voynich Manuscript is incoherent based purely on the fact it's written in an unknown language.
- p1. The Voynich Manuscript is expressed in an incomprehensible or confusing way: unclear.
- p2. Mein Kampf is expressed in a a comprehendible way; clear.
- c1. The Voynich Manuscript is more incoherent than Mein Kampf.
But by "incoherent" I meant "nonsensical", not merely "difficult to understand".
- p1. The Voynich Manuscript is having no meaning; making no sense.
- p2. Mein Kampf is expressed in a which gives it meaning; makes sense.
- c1. The Voynich Manuscript is more nonsensical than Mein Kampf.
- p1. The Voynich Manuscript is expressed in an incomprehensible or confusing way: unclear.
- p2. Mein Kampf is expressed in a a comprehendible way; clear.
- c1. The Voynich Manuscript is more incoherent than Mein Kampf.
This is incorrect. In Mein Kampf, the author literarally expresses a desire that "15,000" Jewish people were to have been gassed to death......I do believe that asking voters to "forget" who wrote Mein Kampf becomes counter-productive the more it is insisted upon.
- MEIN KAMPF XII: "The most effective tool for them to use at these times was always terrorism and violence."
- WIND UP BIRD: “It is a very special knife, designed for skinning, and it is extraordinarily well made. They can take a man’s skin off the way you’d peel a peach. Beautifully, without a single scratch.”
- MEIN KAMPF II: "[Reading Jewish newspapers] made the blood rush to my head."
- HOGG: "Blood shot out of its ears and itslammed to the ground so hard that one of its forelegs broke under it with a dull snap"
- NOTE: At the time Hogg was written, no one would publish it due to its graphic descriptions of murder, child molestation, incest, coprophilia, coprophagia, urolagnia, anal-oral contact, necrophilia and rape.
- MEIN KAMPF: ""As in everything else, victory is decided in the attack, not with the defence."
- HOGG: "His neck had been broken and his head hung straight down and it flopped over strangely when they let him onto the ground"
p1. The Voynich Manuscript is having no meaning; making no sense.p2. Mein Kampf is expressed in a which gives it meaning; makes sense.c1. The Voynich Manuscript is more nonsensical than Mein Kampf.
This debate purely concerns the book, not its violent results.
If you, the voter, accept the weak definition of "incoherent" that my opponent put forward earlier ("unclear"), then you can skip the rest of this debate and just cast a vote in their favor.
- My opponent does not have a rebuttal for my syllogism.
- The choice is now on voters.
the quote about killing 15,000 people still remains unaddressed.
Firstly; this ended in a concession - so con gets the points.
I’ll cover the remainder more briefly for the purposes of information: The main argument revolves around semantics ; specifically the nature of evil and incoherence in the resolution.
I hate these type of arguments; as It gives the impression that the argument purposefully deviates from what one side intends, and as such is a bad faith lawyering to win a debate - however as the resolution seems unclear; I’d give con the benefit of the doubt. Indeed pro kinda shot himself in the foot with the resolution
Concession
Argument - Pro said this "What can I say? I agree with everything my opponent just said. As much as I would like to take a last stand and fight to the bitter end (these tend to encourage more interesting RFDs than just "full concession"), my opponent has exploited my failure to use precise definitions from the start., and I can't come up with any further arguments that wouldn't scream of absolute desperation. I find myself in a hole from which I cannot escape, and I must concede the win to Con.". Therefore if Pro believes he has lost the argument then he has lost the argument. - Con
Sources - Con provided sources throughout, and even provided quotes to save voters from requiring to read outside material. Example here "II.II Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian is crowned the most violent work of literacy fiction. The following is the review left by Emily Temple
We are informed, on the book’s very first page, when we have our first glimpse of our protagonist (only a child) that “in him broods already a taste for mindless violence.” The violence to come in this book is indeed mindless (for most), and constant and intense. The kid is violent, and so is the gang he joins, whose members are ostensibly collecting the scalps of Apaches, but are really happy to murder anyone and everyone they encounter, and so, of course, is the terrifying and hairless Judge Holden, the only character whose love for bloodshed is intensified by philosophical surety. “War is at last a forcing of the unity of existence,” he says. “War is god.”. Also the sources were not objected to by Pro - Con
S & G - Neither stands out as being under the influence of alcohol whilst typing. - tie
Conduct - Admitting defeat needs to be rewarded - Pro
Con's use of the Voynich Manuscript to show one clause of the resolution false, was highly effective. Hypothetically comprehensible was an argument against it that easily could have hurt Mein Kampf even more, so things ultimately ended on a concession.
That this debate ended with a concession by Pro could end the matter of voting at that, alone. However, in the guise of offering suggestion for future debate, I'll offer the following:
Argument: Pro's Resolution is fraught with danger for/by Pro's avoidance of defining his primary terms in the Description, leaving definitions to Con, who provided valid dictionary definitions [Cambridge]. Pro dug a deeper hole by waiting to R4 to offer insight to what Pro meant by a definition of "incoherent" that is nothing close to the Cambridge definition. By then, it's a failed argument. Further, Con successfully argued the difficulty of the Resolution because it structured a difficult hill for Pro to climb by forcing Pro to justify "evil" and "incoherent," which pro ultimately admitted was beyond Pro to accomplish. Pro kept a running battle trying to overcome incoherence as a term meant to support pro's BoP, but it was never achieved. Points to Con.
Sources: Pro offered one legitimate source: Mein Kampf, itself, whereas Con's sources were varied and completely effective in supporting Con arguments, such as nothing more complicated than the coherent definition of incoherent. Points to Con.
Legibility: Tie
Conduct: Point to Pro for recognizing ,finally, that Con's position was unassailable.
Concession
Thank you for reconsidering. I appreciate you letting me know, but I am okay with leaving the votes how they are since of course I have no illusion about winning a debate wherein I admitted defeat.
I have revaluated my vote based upon your complaint and I may have awarded Bones the source point by accident. If you wish for me to revote minus the source point then please contact a Mod and ask them to remove my current vote. However it will make not much difference. You are still 100% guaranteed to lose this debate and due to your concession my next vote will still be awarding the argument to Bones.
I am confused as to your explanation for awarding my opponent source points, since numerically I provided far more quotes and I'm not aware of any argument I made that required anyone to actually open Mein Kampf. But, I am grateful for the RFD and the conduct point. Thanks for voting!
You're welcome. Good luck in future debates.
Thanks for voting, especially to fauxlaw for the RFD.
In retrospect, yes definitely.
A think that a better resolution for the debate would have been "Mein Kampf has had the most negative impact on society in history".
I will try to do better this time.
Could you actually rebut everything I argue? I feel like this is getting repetitive
Thanks! If you ever succeed please let me know, so I can partake in the festivities 😁
Good luck on this debate. I wish I could resurrect hitler, so I could brutally (slowly if possible), and systematically murd€r him.
I find it funny that misanthropic people never seem to consider themselves to be one of those kinds of people that need to be "winnowed out". For those kind of people, if all other distinguishing qualities fail, I get the feeling sandals with socks would suffice as a good reason for population control.
I would also appreciate if you were to cast a vote on the debate Puachu keeps pushing. If you have the time.
He was GENETICALLY immune to racism? 😂
"Such hatred could be directed against people who wear socks under sandals, and it would still be nearly as awful."
Don't tell them I'm wearing socks under sandals ... I totally am not!
By the way, me and Pilot would be honored if you could cast a quick vote on our debate here:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2854-holocaust-denial-should-be-outlawed-in-the-usa?open_tab=comments&comments_page=2&comment_number=45
I was looking at your profile and I saw you are undefeated for almost a hundred debates (seems to defy statistics), so your vote in particular would mean a lot. I know you probably got a notification already, but perhaps it went unnoticed.
Thanks haha, but it was a joke, I guess it fell flat.
I used to know a guy in Antifa who was convinced Hitler's mistake was which race is evil... He loved paraphrasing Hitler... But he was immune to criticism, since he claimed to be too genetically superior to be capable of racism. 🙄
To me the problem with such ideologies will never be in the minutia of which group or groups are targeted for death. Such hatred could be directed against people who wear socks under sandals, and it would still be nearly as awful.
Anyways, glad to see con is not defending Mein Kampf, but strictly targeting the other half of the resolution.
No problemo, you have two weeks.
Thanks for the response, I shall do my best to rebut them as soon as I finish the therapy sessions I just signed up for. And the psych-eval after that.
Never read Mein Kampf, but I gotta say I found Might is Right by Ragnar Redbeard 'pretty terrible.
You will find that I have a very usual tactic up my sleeves.
So it’s basically a track meet(I don’t know if you get that reference); the top 6 Mein kamf quotes vs the top 6 quotes of another book? Because I imagine neither you nor your opponent will use random quotes.
CTRL + F is a powerful thing 😉 I don't think we need to count literally each one, because based on the quantity and quality of the first ones presented, the voters can get a reasonable picture of the whole thing.
“ Mein Kampf contains more lies, calls to violence, blatant falsehoods, and incoherency than any other book ever to have been penned by mankind.”
Me being a numbers guy, I would count the number of lies, calls to violence, blatant falsehoods, and incoherency in the book versus another book. But I don’t think this debate has enough characters for that.
All good.
Actually, don't worry about it. Forget I said anything. This is not an issue to me. Keep the debate as it is.
It doesn't let me edit the description since you've accepted, but I will be sure to begin my opening argument by agreeing to your terms.
If you establish the BoP as the following in the description.
PRO: Mein Kampf is the most evil and incoherent book to have ever been written
CON: Mein Kampf is not the most evil and incoherent book to have ever been written
I will consider.