Instigator / Pro
16
1500
rating
13
debates
42.31%
won
Topic
#3031

Mein Kampf is the most evil and incoherent book to have ever been written

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
18
Better sources
6
12
Better legibility
5
6
Better conduct
5
3

After 6 votes and with 23 points ahead, the winner is...

Bones
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
39
1763
rating
29
debates
98.28%
won
Description

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?

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:

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

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:

Concession

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:

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

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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

Concession