Instigator / Pro
0
1456
rating
6
debates
16.67%
won
Topic
#3311
The Holocaust was not about race
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
0
2
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
Benjamin
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 8,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
2
1760
rating
91
debates
76.92%
won
Description
Please argue in the spirit of which the debate was intended, and I will do the same.
Full resolution. "HItler's main motivation for the holocaust was most likely not because of his racism"
While I won't overtly forbid kritics on this topic, let's avoid ones where we don't address the topic at hand, such as arguing the holocaust did not happen, because it would harm the spirit of this debate.
Round 1
Pro
#1
resolution."Hitler's main motivation for the holocaust was most likely notbecause of his racism"
Keep theresolution in mind.
Constructive Dilemma
A constructivedilemma according to Wikipedia is
“a valid ruleof inference of propositional logic. It is the inference that, if Pimplies Q and R implies S and either P or R is true, then either Q orS has to be true. In sum, if two conditionals are true and at leastone of their antecedents is, then at least one of their consequentsmust be. “
Example;
premise 1 = IfHitler was driven by racism than we should see racismin his private life. We donot see that.
Premise 2 = IfHitler was not driven by racism, we should see instances in hisprivate life where he was friends with, and friendly with Jews, when he didn’t have to be.
Thereis overwhelming evidence that Hitler loved Jewishpeople in his private life. There is zero evidence Hitler was racist in his private life.
Real Hitler
The esolutionmentions the importance of motive. Hitler’s motive was not racism. I don’t have toprove that Hitler was not racist. I only have to prove, that hismain motive was not.
Politicians are full of shit. When you aredealing with a dictator, they have 2 goals. One goal is to stay inpower, the second goal is their mission for the country. If Hitler’sgoal was to stay in power and expand the German state, than we can’ttrust any statement he makes that are convenient to meeting those twoaims.
Hitler's goal waspower' If con wants to argue that Hitler was an upright honest guy and wouldnever lie that is on him, but history tells us, that Hitler thoughtlying was a useful tool.
Mein Kampf, is not an accurate portrayal of whoHitler is. At least one WW2 scholar believes Mein Kampf is bullshit.
The author says Hitler was positioning himself as the savior ofGermany.
“The Hitler ofthis episode belies the common misconception that he was a primitive,raging, and nihilistic dark elemental force. Rather, he was a manwith an emerging deep understanding of how political processes,systems, and the public sphere worked. His study of propagandatechniques while serving in World War I had provided him with anappreciation for political narratives that would help him plot hisway to power.”“Hisautobiography-in-disguise repeatedly uses biblical language, arguingthat the book should “become the new bible of today as well as the‘Book of the German People.’” It also directly compares Hitlerto Jesus, likening the purported moment of his politicization inPasewalk to Jesus’s resurrection:“This man, destined to eternal night, who during this hourendured crucifixion on pitiless Calvary, who suffered in body andsoul; one of the most wretched from among this crowd of brokenheroes: this man’s eyes shall be opened! Calm shall be restored tohis convulsed features. In the ecstasy that is only granted to thedying seer, his dead eyes shall be filled with new light, newsplendor, new life!”
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people willeventually come to believe it.”
This is Hitler’s political philosophy.He believed a big enough lie could be persuasive.
If Hitler is lying to people in his rise to power than we have to find his motives in his personal life. That isthe only remaining truth we can find about Hitler’s inner workingsand by extension his primary motives.
Hitler’s Love of Jews
So did Hitler actually hate the Jews or were they just aconvenient scapegoat for the economic, and social problems inGermany? I think they were a scapegoat, but perhaps Con will say Jewsare the reason for Germany’s decline.
Hitler had at least 10 Jewish Generals and 10,000 Jewish soldiersfighting for his regime. . If he really viewed the Jews as anything other than a convenientscape goat, why did he allow members to reach high levels in hismilitary and have top secret clearances. Why did Hitler trust 10Jewish Generals with classified information if he was actually aracist?
Hitler had becomefriends with a young Jewish girl and her mother when he was in power.
This friendship iwas ended when the Nazi party intervened, because it was bad for his image. What a lot of people don’tunderstand about people in positions of power even dictators.Even evil ones. They aren’t 100% in control. Anybody who has a beenin a position of power will agree. They remain in power and capturepower by pleasing many subsets of people. Why did Itler becomebesties with this Jewish girl and her mother, even autographingphotos for them and inviting them to lots of events? I encourageeveryone to look at the pictures to see how happy Hitler is with thisyoung Jewish girl.
Hitler had a familydoctor when he was growing up that was Jewish. The doctor’s namewas Edourd Bloch. He ordered Nazis to guard the entire family andnever harm them.
In Hitler'spersonal life, he tends to love every single Jew hemeets and there are no reported problems with any of them. It lookslike premise 2 works out to be true.
Jewish middlemen
According to historians;
“During the late 1920s and early 1930s, Germany was experiencinggreat economic and social hardship. ......defeated inthe First World War, and had been forced to pay huge reparations tothe Allies. As a result, Germany suffered terrible inflation and massunemployment”
A lot of white peoplewere suffering at this time and by contrast their were a large numberof Jews doing well.
“In the early twentieth century, a dense corporate network wascreated among thelarge German corporations ("Germany Inc."). About 16% ofthe members of thiscorporate network were of Jewish background. At the center of thenetwork (biglinkers) about 25% were Jewish. The percentage of Jews in thegeneral populationwas less than 1% in 1914”
Jews were disproportionately represented as bankers, doctorsand had control of a lot of the German media.
Thomas Sowell has studied a lot on the topic of race and explainswhat happens with middleman races. Middleman minorities rise toeconomic success by being willing to put in herculian efforts. Theyoften start in a new country as peddlers and over generations becomeshop owners and their kids becoming highly educated hardworkingsuccess stories as well. They have experienced mass expulsions andviolence, and are often hated by their own country men for reasonspertaining to jealousy. Sowell says;
“The economic necessity of maintaining a separate culture hasmeant not only social separation but also resentments of thatseparation by the surrounding community—resentments that couldeasily be whipped up to political hostility or outright violence bysuitably talented demagogues. “
What I have demonstrated here, is that Hitler had a very rifeopportunity to become that demagogue, and not having a scapegoat,would mean considerably less opportunity to provide a villain for themasses to fight against.
Selectorate Theory
Selectorate theory explains why leaders take the actions they do,particularly autocratic leaders such as Adolph Hitler. Thetheory has been tested by looking at regimes from the last 100 years. These leaders have first andforemost a desire to stay in power, as these types of leaders areusually executed if they fail to remain in power. Selctorate theoryexplains that Hitler’s main motivation was to stay in power.
“Since survival in office depends upon maintaining the supportof thewinning coalition, leaders pick the policies that their supportersprefer”
Here we have the reason for Jewish extermination. The Nazis wantedit, his party leadership wanted it, and if he did not make favorablepolicies for the people keeping him in power, they would remove him, execute him.
Con
#2
RESOLUTION: The Holocaust was not about race
POSITION: CON
The idea that the human species is divided into distinct groups on the basis of inherited physical and behavioral differences. The term race has also been applied to linguistic groups (the “Arab race” or the “Latin race”), to religious groups (the “Jewish race”), and even to political, national, or ethnic groups with few or no physical traits that distinguish them from their neighbours (the “Irish race,” the “French race,” the “Spanish race,” the “Slavic race,” the “Chinese race”, etc.). Prompted by advances in other fields, particularly anthropology and history, scholars began to examine race as a social and cultural, rather than biological, phenomenon and have determined that race is a social invention of relatively recent origin.
The systematic state-sponsored killing of six million Jewish men, women, and children and millions of others by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during World War II. Germany fought two wars simultaneously: World War II and the racial war against the Jews. The Allies fought only the World War. The word Holocaust is derived from the Greek holokauston, a translation of the Hebrew word ʿolah, meaning a burnt sacrifice offered whole to God. This word was chosen because in the ultimate manifestation of the Nazi killing program—the extermination camps—the bodies of the victims were consumed whole in crematoria and open fires.
Nazi racial ideology characterized the Jews as Untermenschen (German: “subhumans”). The Nazis portrayed the Jews as a race and not as a religious group. Religious anti-Semitism could be resolved by conversion, political anti-Semitism by expulsion. Ultimately, the logic of Nazi racial anti-Semitism led to annihilation. Hitler opposed Jews for the values they brought into the world. Social justice and compassionate assistance to the weak stood in the way of what he perceived as the natural order, in which the powerful exercise unrestrained power. In Hitler’s view, such restraint on the exercise of power would inevitably lead to the weakening, even the defeat, of the master race.
Marriage and sexual relations between Jews and citizens of “German or kindred blood” were prohibited. Only “racial” Germans were entitled to civil and political rights. Jews were reduced to subjects of the state. The Nürnberg Laws formally divided Germans and Jews. The definition of a Jew was primarily based not on the identity an individual affirmed or the religion he or she practiced but on his or her ancestry. Responding with alarm to Hitler’s rise, the Jewish community sought to defend their rights as Germans. For those Jews who felt themselves fully German and who had patriotically fought in World War I, the Nazification of German society was especially painful.
On the evening of November 9, 1938, carefully orchestrated anti-Jewish violence “erupted” throughout the Reich, which since March had included Austria. Over the next 48 hours rioters burned or damaged more than 1,000 synagogues and ransacked and broke the windows of more than 7,500 businesses. Some 30,000 Jewish men between the ages of 16 and 60 were arrested and sent to concentration camps. Police stood by as the violence—often the action of neighbours, not strangers—occurred. Firemen were present not to protect the synagogues but to ensure that the flames did not spread to adjacent “Aryan” property. The Nazis would continue to confiscate Jewish property in a program called “Aryanization.” Göring concluded the November meeting with a note of irony: “I would not like to be a Jew in Germany!”
The Holocaust is an event central to our understanding of western civilization, the nation state, modern bureaucratic society, and human nature. It was the premeditated mass murder of millions of innocent civilians. Driven by a racist ideology that regarded Jews as “parasitic vermin” worthy only of eradication, the Nazis implemented genocide on an unprecedented scale. They slated all of Europe's Jews for destruction: the sick and the healthy, the rich and the poor, the religiously orthodox and converts to Christianity, the aged and the young, even infants. About two out of every three Jews living in Europe before the war were killed in the Holocaust. The Germans and their collaborators were relentless in hunting down and killing Jews in the areas of Europe that they controlled.
CONCLUSION: The word hollocaust means the third reich's targeting of specific racial groups like the jews for persecution, segregation and mass extermination.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Refutations of PRO's case:
1. Hitler loved some Jews, but definately hated the Jewish race
PRO is mistaken in claiming that Hitler was secretly pro-jewish or that his motivation for the hollocaust was something else than racism. Let PRO's own sources speak:
“Thousands of men of Jewish descent and hundreds of what the Nazis called ‘full Jews’ served in the military with Hitler’s knowledge. The Nazis allowed these men to serve but at the same time exterminated their families,” Rigg said. [10 Jewish Generals]"Hitler was very often photographed with children for propaganda purposes. The shocking thing about this piece is it seems he had a genuine affinity for the young girl. It is thought that when he discovered Rosa had the same birthday, he invited Rosa and her mother Karoline up to the house - where these photographs were taken.Not long afterwards, it was discovered that Karoline's mother had been Jewish, making Rosa Jewish in the eyes of the Nazi state. [Jewish girl ]Whenever we hear the name Adolph Hitler, the first thing that comes to mind is his anti-semitic views that led to the genocide of millions of Jewish people in Europe. He was a dictator, a madman, and a mass murderer. When the Nazis started occupying other nations in Europe and persecuting the Jews, one Jewish physician, together with his family, was spared from the horrors of the Holocaust. Adolf Hitler was their protector... Adolf was only eighteen-years-old then, and his family was part of the impoverished class. Consequently, they could not afford expensive medical treatments for his mother. Despite that, Dr. Bloch was very understanding. He usually charged less, sometimes even not charging his usual fee. And because of this, Adolf swore his “everlasting gratitude” to the Jewish doctor who helped them in their difficult times. [Edourd Bloch]
Hitler was a human being like anyone else. When he got to know someone personally and formed an emotional bond with them, he could not get himself to hate them. All this shows is that Hitlers racism was irrational and unsupported by actual experience. Last time I checked, all racism falls into this category of nonsense.
2. The selectorate theory fails to support PRO's case
Hitler was an outspoken anti-semite whose radical views and rhetoric promted prominent leaders of the third reich to organize conentration camps and the genocide of Jews and other racial groups. PRO claims he was forced to do this by his party, or that at the very least his understanding of politics informed him about "the necesity" of providing a scapegoat to the people. While true that anti-semitism was not something unique to Hitler, no evidence supports the notion that Hitler privately loved the Jews and only orchestrated their genocide in an attempt to appease his own cult. I urge PRO to reconsider his argument.
3. Jewish power is irrelevant
PRO tries to de-racify Hitlers hate towards the Jews by supporting his view of their position in German society. He claims the Jewish people were too powerfull and successfull - thus their genocide was not based on race. Invalid as this argument sounds, it does not even get PRO's point across. Racism is racism even if supported by evidence. Hitlers reasons for exterminating the Jewish race could be unpecable, and the hollocaust would still be about race. PRO's appeal to Jewish power in German society does in no way invalidate the fact that the Hollocaust was targeted at an racial, not economic, group. Jews were killed regardless of wealth.
CONCLUSION: The hollocaust was about race. The resolution holds.
To deny this fact is to rewrite history.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Resolution
It is every debaters job to read the description of a debate, to understand exactly what they are signing up for. It is normal practice on this site to title the debate something a bit relevant to the resolution of the debate, while providing the actual resolution in the debate description.
The description of the debate states the following;
full resolution. "HItler's main motivation for the holocaust was most likely not because of his racism"
Con, spent the entirety of round 1 arguing against the headline on the debate, as opposed to the resolution of the debate. His mistake, not mine. Voters can for the most part, ignore almost the entirety of con's R1 arguments, as they are irrelevant.
Constructive Dilemma
I suggested a formal argument for framing this debate in round one. Con did not object to this framing of the debate. If you remember, in round one I showed two premises, and how constructive dilemmas work, is that each of the premises is attached to a conclusion that has to be true, if the premise is true. Here are my premises as a reminder.
premise 1 = If Hitler was driven by racism than we should see racism in his private life. We do not see that.
Premise 2 = If Hitler was not driven by racism, we should see instances in his private life where he was friends with, and friendly with Jews, when he didn’t have to be.
Con chose to split his round 1, into rebuttals and his affirmative case. I didn't forced him to make rebuttals in round one, he volunteered to. Con drops my argument, that the debate should be looked at through the lens of the constructive argument above.
That means , the judges should also look at the debate through the lens of the constructive dilemma mentioned above. If my evidence for premise 2, exceeds his evidence of premise one, I should win this debate. We are already in a situation, where he should lose this debate, because he offered no evidence to support premise 1.
Con's affirmative Case
Con's affirmative case, consists of definitions, and a mild argument towards the title of the debate as opposed to the resolution. It can be dismissed out of hand. I'd also advise him in the future to not waste times, providing definitions everyone agrees on.
- Real Hitler
I'll start by saying that con did not reject my constructive argument as the lens to view this debate through. This means, con accepts my premise that how Hitler treated Jewish people in his personal life, is how we should judge whether he was anti-semitic or not.
"PRO is mistaken in claiming that Hitler was secretly pro-jewish or that his motivation for the hollocaust was something else than racism. Let PRO's own sources speak"
Those sources were used to show how Hitler treated Jewish people, when he was absent of political pressure to treat them poorly. The personal opinion's of the writers, that Hitler was a bad person, is irrelevant to what I used the sources for,
Con, did not disagree with me that, Hitler treated Jewish people great in his personal life. In fact he admits as much, when he says;
"Hitler was a human being like anyone else. When he got to know someone personally and formed an emotional bond with them, he could not get himself to hate them."
Con, basically concedes my entire argument, failing to object to the constructive dilemma argument, and agreeing with me in this section, that Hitler was cool with Jewish people in his personal life.
- Selectorate Theory
A reminder is needed, that I argued selectorate theory shows a dictator's main motivation is to stay in power, this is followed by his other ambitions. Con drops my argument, that Hitler's main motivations once in power, were to remain in power.
"no evidence supports the notion that Hitler privately loved the Jews and only orchestrated their genocide in an attempt to appease his own cult."
The section one argument, actually proves he did, as well as you admitting such in your closing statement in that section. He most clearly did try to appease the powerful people in the S.S. as well as German civilian supporters. Selectorate theory itself, which con dropped as an accurate model to understand Hitler's behavior, suggests most actions by the autocrat, are for purposes of retaining power, due to the fact autocrats are usually executed when removed.
Heinrich Himmler https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/heinrich-himmler-holocaust was the person who came up with the holocaust ideal. He was in charge of Hitler's personal body guards, a top player in the Nazi Party, founder of Hitler's version of the CIA and inventor of the Nazi concentration camp system.
Himmler wanted a holocaust and could have easily made Hitler disappear if he wasn't appeased. After all, he was easily as equally powerful as Hitler, and more importantly in charge of Hitler's private security with tons of opportunity to pull off an assassination. Nobody would have done a damn thing about it, if Himmler executed Hitler either. They would have just made him the new fuhrer. As a reminder of what con is supposed to be arguing against here;
Selectorate theory explains why leaders take the actions they do,particularly autocratic leaders such as Adolph Hitler. The theory has been tested by looking at regimes from the last 100 years. These leaders have first and foremost a desire to stay in power, as these types of leaders are usually executed if they fail to remain in power. Selctorate theory explains that Hitler’s main motivation was to stay in power.“Since survival in office depends upon maintaining the support of thewinning coalition, leaders pick the policies that their supporters prefer”
3. Jewish power
"PRO tries to de-racify Hitlers hate towards the Jews by supporting his view of their position in German society. He claims the Jewish people were too powerfull and successfull - thus their genocide was not based on race."
This is in fact, not what I argued at all. What I argued, was an explanation for why their was so much anti-semitism for Hitler to take advantage of. I brought up Thomas Sowell's middleman race theory and quoted him as saying
"The economic necessity of maintaining a separate culture has meant not only social separation but also resentments of that separation by the surrounding community—resentments that could easily be whipped up to political hostility or outright violence by suitably talented demagogues. “
I went on to explain, that anti-semitism was rampant in Germany, even prior to Hitler being present on the national stage, so it makes sense to form a right wing coalition by claiming to be an anti-semite , while doing things to also draw in former military, frustrated the army had been basically castrated.
Con needs to make sure he is taking the time to understand my arguments, so he can stay on topic and debate competently.
Conclusion
Con drops my constructive dilemma argument.
Con drops my argument that selectorate theory is a good way to understand Hitler's motivations.
Con drops that Hitler was nice to Jews in his personal life.
Con drops my argument that Hitler was an opportunist willing to jump on an already very widespread antisemitesm that was present in the German people.
The arguments con does not drop he straw mans. The entirety of con's arguments were also against the title of the debate, and not the resolution. I ask the judges to do the right thing and vote pro.
I also would like to remind con, that round one was the place for an affirmative case, and that he may not present one in round 2.
Con
#4
Framework rebuttal
The "constructive dilemma" is not a framework, but a logical fallacy - a false dichotomy. There is no evidence from PRO to show that racists are unable to make exceptions to their hatred. No justification was put forth for why Hitler would have to hate every single Jew he ever met in order to be called a racist genocidal tyrant. "Hitlers racism" is not refering to Hitlers personal life, but to his extremist worldview and the attrocities he incited. Even if PRO is right about Hitlers personal love of Jews that doesn't provide adequate support for his resolution. PRO has to prove that Hitler always secretly disagreed with his own party despite being the most passionate outspoken anti-semite. He must show us beyond a reasonable doubt that the alpha male of Nazism was actually not sincere.
PRO has the sole BoP as his precious description doesn't asign any burden on me. He has to prove that Hitlers racist genocide was not caused by his racism. Good luck.
FACT: HITLERS IDEOLOGICAL MOTIVATION WAS RACIST
Take notice of the fact that Hitlers racism was part of a grander ideology called Nazism. His policies and grand goals of "Lebensraum" and "pure blood" he created himself and then convinced others of by using his powerfull charisma, not the other way around [1]. I do not deny that Hitler was a man of his time but I state as a fact that Hitler was the de facto father of the Nazi party and its philosophy. Reject that fact, and the party ideology would still be aligned with his personal worldview.
Hitler had a racist world view. Hitler believed that Jews were particularly destructive to the German ‘Aryan’ race, and did not have any place in Nazi Germany. [2]
Racism was an integral part of Hitlers worldview and political philosophy [3], such that, without his racism, he could not hold any of his other extreme ideas. He did not merely affirm the conventional anti-semtism of his time, but he demonised the jews and baked the goal of their total abscencen into the nature of his party [ibid]. He came up with and executed his own plans of racial purity and expansion into racially inferior regions of europe, namely Poland. These were his own ideas.
Selectorate theory
PRO has provided no evidence that Hitler didn't believe in his own extremist ideology, or that it was just a mask to fool the public. He acted on his words and did in fact try to cleanse the german blood and create lebensraum, even when the resources could have been put to the war effort to safeguard his position as fuhrer. Can PRO explain this with his selectorate theory? No, because Hitler was not a populist, he was a radicalist who, as far as we know, was very sincere in his political racism.
Puppet of the Nazi party?
PRO's argument that Hitler was motivated by group pressure into racism and genocide is not only unsupported, it contradicts the facts. If Hitler was a paranoid puppet of the nazi party he would not have dared to "show love" to jews in his personal life. The mere fact that Hitler defied his party's anti-semetic policy on multiple occations is a sign of his dominance and non-comformity. Hitler was the big boss, the alpha male, the unquestioned fuhrer of the third reich.
The reputation of the Nazi police and the secret police lead by Himmler was such that no-one wished to cause offence. People kept their thoughts to themselves unless they wished to invite trouble. In this sense, Nazi Germany was a nation run on fear of the government. Hitler had created a one party state within months of being appointed chancellor. His only remaining problem from his point of view was loyalty within his own party ranks. In June 1934, he overcame this with the Night of the Long Knives. [4].
Hitler was surrounded by loyal subordinates and literally created a cult around himself. Not only that, he was a fearless man both in the trenches and the government - reckless in fact [5]. Hitler loving Jews but still allowing their genocide out of fear makes no sense and can only be described as grasping for straws. Where is the evidence that Hitler feared a coup? Where is the evidence that Hitler was never a true nazi, that he only preteneded to be one? PRO's position is absurd.
Heinrich Himmler
PRO's own source tells us that "In August 1923, Himmler joined the Nazi Party. Idolizing the party’s leader, Adolph Hitler, Himmler quit his job and devoted his career to the party... (after the invasion of Poland) Hitler appointed Himmler as the Reich Commissar for the Strengthening of the German Ethnic Stock. Himmler’s atrocities did not stop in the Soviet Union. Within the history of World War II, Himmler is best known for his role in the implementation of the Nazi concentration camp system and the Holocaust." [PRO's source]. Himmler was both loyal to Hitler and appointed by him to execute the evils already set in motion. PRO cannot point to Himmler and claim "this man is the mastermind, Hitler loved Jews, but Himmler scared him into allowing the Hollocaust" -- the fact is, Hitler and Himmler had the same mind.
Useless round 1?
Unlike what PRO will have you believe, I did not use my R1 for irrelevant "definitions". I cited the encyclopedia britannica and the hollocaust encyclopedia to show how the Hollocaust was a genocide caused and motivated specifically by the racist Nazi ideology that Hitler conceived and injected into his nationalistic party. Recall:
Nazi racial ideology characterized the Jews as Untermenschen (German: “subhumans”). The Nazis portrayed the Jews as a race and not as a religious group. Hitler opposed Jews for the values they brought into the world. Social justice and compassionate assistance to the weak stood in the way of what he perceived as the natural order, in which the powerful exercise unrestrained power. In Hitler’s view, such restraint on the exercise of power would inevitably lead to the weakening, even the defeat, of the master race. [BRITANNICAt]
PRO claims that I (1) dropped his case and (2) made irrelevant points. This is not true. I did not drop his argument or fail to create a constructive case. The very facts of the Hollocaust refutes my opponent's case. The genocide was motivated by Hitlers ideology and executed by his loyal party against what he viewed as racial "impurities" and "rats". PRO's entire argument falls flat unless he can prove beyond reasonable certainty that Hitler absolutely hated the Hollocaust. If he was a damned racist like history tells us, then his political ideology and racism are essentially the same thing, meaning his political racism did indeed motivate the hollocaust.
PRO has made no attempt at challenging this fact. Actually, he admitted in round one that Hitler was a racist.
The grander scheme of Ethnic cleansing
Hitler had planned to eradicate all Jews from Europe, but also to ethnically cleanse easier Europe [6]. He wanted the aryan master race to replace inferior subhumans and create lebensraum, or living space. The ultimate end goal that he based his actions on, was to create a racially pure thousand-year-empire. His master plan was based on and motivated by racism. That is why he invaded Poland and later the Soviet Union. That is why western europe didn't experience genocide, because Hitler had an entire hierarchy of races and decided who deserved to die and who didn't.
Hitler delivered on his extreme promises
Hitlers policies and leadership decisions matches up with his ideological promises [7]. That is strange, because his usual practise was making promises to then break them (Emergency powers, Tsjekkoslovakia, Poland, Soviet Union, etc). Hitler was a chronically reckless liar, he always did what he actually wanted to do regardless of promises and duty. Had Hitler not been motivated by his own racism he would have abandoned his racist agenda as soon as he gained absolute power. He did purge all his enemies at the Night of long Knives, so if he really loved Jews as PRO claims, he would have gotten rid of the racist elements in his party and ruled like a standard facist. Instead, he was utterly sincere in his racist ideology, and he did fullfill his promises of advancing towards racial purity. In other words, Hitler didn't just pretend, he really was motivated by racism in the form of anger, pride and hatred - not towards individual Jews, but towards entire people groups. I urge PRO to conceive of less nonsensical straws to grasp at.
SUMMARY:
- Hitler was motivated by his self-made ideology, in which racism was a central pillar.
- Hitler was not motivated by fear of his party, he rarely feared anything. He shared the same motivation as his party, ideological racism.
- Hitler sparing some Jews for personal reasons doesn't show that he loved the jewish race
- Actions speak louder than words, and in Hitlers case, they both tell the same story: Hitler would get no rest before the world was reshaped in accordance with his own passionate racist ideals
CONCLUSION: Hitler was mainly motivated by racism.
PRO'S resolution and title are both evidently true beyond reasonable doubt. Any claim about Hitler lying in words and in action is a meaningless conspiracy theory.
Good luck, PRO.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
this debate literally was a resolution dispute.
One side stuck by the debate's description rewriting the resolution as "Hitler's main motivation for the holocaust was most likely notbecause of his racism" while the other side insisted the resolution really was the debate title "The Holocaust was not about race".
In my eyes, both the respective sides (Pro and Con) won their chosen resolution, so now I need to strongly consider how to go about deciding which the resolution was before breaking down the argument-lines.
Well... It was simple. This is an official Tournament debate that Pro WROTE intentionally with the title that it has. So, if I buy into the idea that Hitler had power-lust as his primary motive, it means absolutely nothing if the Holocaust was about race. Benjamin won because in reality Pro's arguments were a series of concessions arguing a different resolution that conceded that it was about race in part for sure (a large part at that, as Benjamin elaborates on, extensively).
Removing your vote so that you have the option to recast it, as you clearly had a typo in the point selection.
Reason:
Con wins primarily, by virtue of their better argument.
But one must also take into account Pro's lazy use of the space key.........Pimplies Q for example.
And their ultimate forfeiture.
That is not at all protocol.
Thanks, good job analyzing the debate. I think you made some mistakes but we can't always separate bias from our analysis and I can tell you tried real hard. Thanks
I wrote the resolution in the description. The title of the debate is not the resolution and anyone who accepts a debate is required to read the descruption
Just delete your vote and make a new one. If you can’t delete it anymore, ask a site moderator to.
Sorry again. Didn't apologize to the right person.
Sorry...Forgot to tick the Con button.
Fair enough
right now I'm only looking at the tournament debates
Are you willing to vote for biological women and psychology as well?
For me it's a clear win for Ben.
Even if arguments are tied, ben wins by far on grammar/spelling and Ben takes conduct because of forfeit
I'll vote in a bit
Only one round was forfeited, so I'm not calling this one an FF
This has becomes ridiculous to read, to be honest. I have no clue how to even vote on a debate like this as they both have a legitimate reason to say their resolution is the real one.
Con and Pro have two very different ideas about what the debate is so both are winning their current resolution at the moment.
That is not the resolution of the debate. UT is the title
Glad we both agree on that topic
I'll take a pass on that one.
Debate me on men peeing sitting down
It's click bait, the voting period is only one week so people need an excuse to click on it.
I think this debate was poorly named. The debate title and your resolution seem like two very different statements to me.
I just realized when I copy and pasted from libre office, this site erased some spaces and words are cobbled together. Sorry
I am working on it, currently trying to fit a 20k character argument into a 8k debate format.
thanks
I'll keep an eye on this and make sure to advertise this when its time to vote.
benjamin has determined he wants to do this debate for the february tournament listed here. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7273-february-debate-tournament
Please only accept if you are Benjamin
Here is a thread to talk about the topic, so the comment section for a debate can be strictly about what is going on with the debate. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7286-whoopi-goldberg-is-right-about-the-holocaust