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?
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.