Instigator / Con
21
1687
rating
301
debates
67.11%
won
Topic

One who is alive today should Kill Baby Hitler if they got the chance. (You are Pro)

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
9
0
Sources points
6
6
Spelling and grammar points
3
3
Conduct points
3
0

With 3 votes and 12 points ahead, the winner is ...

RationalMadman
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Miscellaneous
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Pro
9
1266
rating
119
debates
15.97%
won
Description
~ 0 / 5,000

No information

Round 1
Con
INTRODUCTION/PREFACE

Disclaimer: I reside in a nation that lacks USA's First Amendment and I can be fined and even put in prison if I, even jokingly, take a pro-Hitler anti-Semite view. Actually, I am not entirely sure about how severely I can be punished if I were to Kritik Hitler's existence, role in the entire events of WWII's Germany and/or be anti-Holocaust in my stance here but it could also land me in legal troubles. Please understand that I made this knowing full well I'd be handcuffed in the angles I can take and I'm not asking for pity, just making clear that I am aware of creative angles on the topic that I could have taken but I am not, at all, willing to risk the legal repercussions of that. You're allowed to mock religion but race and/or ethnic groups is very iffy and seems to only be allowed if you are that race/ethnicity yourself. Mocking religions and tearing apart their logic is fully legally permitted but the second I say to literally kill people based solely on their religion, it enters very grey area given how realistic and persuasive the notion of my words leading to actual violence form a reader is/are. Therefore, I am not going to remotely even dabble into anti-Jewish angles in this debate and am not going to deny the Holocaust or anything like that. I will take the other permitted angles and do my best.

Further Disclaimer: I, RM the online persona and the owner of this account, do not endorse the actual slaughter of anyone who isn't a threat (so any non-defensive slaughter) based on race, religion, gender, sexuality and/or IQ and any other such criterion. I am, outside of this debate and also inside it as the law of my land binds me even to the latter, fully against the actions the RESULTED FROM (key to this debate) and maybe even some that were directly done by Adolf Hitler of WWII Germany. DO NOT KILL JEWS UNLESS IN SELF-DEFENCE; PLEASE UNDERSTAND THIS MESSAGE. To be clear, I don't remotely take the stance that you should, in this debate, but I want to ensure even the most insane of readers comprehends my angle here being philosophical, science-fiction-analytical (time travel) and thought-exercise based, not actual propaganda to bring Hitler back to life, although I am entitled to say I want him to be brought back to life (just not back to power).

Let's get some terminology out of the way so I can properly structure my case.

Contention (Contention # = C#)
Arguments in debaters’ Constructive speeches will be in groupings called
contentions. Each contention represents a separate argument for or against the
resolution.

Syllogism: Major Premise (MP), Minor Premise (mP) and (deduced) Conclusion (dC)
Syllogism is a rhetorical device that starts an argument with a reference to something general, and from this it draws a conclusion about something more specific.

Let us try to understand the concept with the help of an example. We start with a general argument “All men are mortal.” We know that John is a man, so John is mortal. It is a deductive approach to reason, and is based on deducing specific conclusions from general facts.

We notice in the above example that syllogism is a three-part set of statements:

  1. a major statement or premise
  2. a minor statement or premise
  3. a conclusion that is deduced
Therefore, “All men are mortal” is a major statement or premise, which stands as a general fact. “John is a man” is minor statement or premise that is specific, and “John is mortal” is the logical conclusion deduced from the two prior statements.


CONTENTIONS

C1: The mechanics of time travel render the endeavour both pointless.

Either you are going back in time and undoing a massively significant part of history that led to your own parents meeting, potentially, and reversing the entire process that led to so many people's existence, pleasure and/or contribution to technology, art,.philosophy or countless other things that make humanity enjoy, thrive and just be all-round fabulous.

Let me put this simpler for you, even if your parents meet, fuck, raise you and meet all the other criteria that go into your DNA ending up being created, the 'you' who went back to kill Hitler, is literally impossible the moment that you kill his baby-self. This will perhaps be countered by 'it's a selfless act for the betterment of the species' but I'll cover that in my C2 most heavily and extend on this all in C3 from another angle.

Syllogism: Time-travel mechanics are futile in the scenario.

MP: Either you're going back in your own actual timeline and eliminating yourself and many others from the future (but 100% yourself) by killing baby-Hitler or it is another timeline you have gone 'back in time' in that simply is, or seems, identical to your own to the point of Hitler's birth and whatever time there is between the birth and you having the chance to kill him.

mP: If something is self-defeating, it is not something that should be done as it is impossible to be successful no matter how idealistic the moral reasoning behind it.

dC: Killing Baby Hitler is not something that should be done.

If challenged on anything in this syllogism by my opponent, I'll be happy to expand but I'm trying to word this as simply as possible and structure it as straightforward as possible to ensure it's clear and concise as possible without being so short that it's lacking essential content.


C2: Not only 'bad' things came from the butterfly effect of Hitler's life and WWII.

From computers (a result of decoding-technology made by the British to oppose Hitler) to a variety of biological and chemical discoveries (made both by the Nazis and their opposing cultures/nations/armies, we have to consider that if we are to blame Hitler for all chain reactions that happened from his birth onwards, we also have to consider him just as responsible for all the beneficial by-products of that birth. Hitler himself barely killed anyone with his own hands, after all. We cannot just relieve him of blame for all the good that came as a butterfly-effect result of his actions and decisions.

If my opponent demands 'what good things' I will go into it, including how he weakened the Rothschilds in a very direct way.


C3: Baby Hitler being held responsible for Adult Hitler's actions is utterly anti-Justice in both theory and application.

The idea that we can raise baby Hitler to be better is supported by so much but what I know will happen is if I were to spew on a rant about how child psychology develops and the power of nurture over nature, my opponent will counter it with mechanistic determinism, saying; it's obvious we fail as clearly Hitler became what he did anyway. This would (and will, even if Pro doesn't say it) dig Pro an inescapable logic-loop which is as follows:

Syllogism: You are blaming something that you cannot blame in order to kill something that you so deep down know you shouldn't kill.

MP: Killing a baby horrific and immoral in and of itself by default, that's just a given and if my opponent supports moral Nihilism, my opponent defeats their own case. Raising a baby to not be the monster it otherwise would have become is definitely a good thing, especially if that baby shows signs of high intelligence and severe creativity; imagine what that can do for our species if it's raised right.

mP: Either Hitler was going to become what he became in our timeline where going back and killing him is pointless as we 100% fail since we already know he survives or we are in a different, but seemingly identical, timeline where baby Hitler can be raised to be something he didn't become in this one.

dC: If we justify killing baby Hitler by Hitler inevitably becoming Hitler no matter how we raise him or inform people of what he becomes, then we are conceding that no matter what we do, he lives and becomes the Hitler we know today and therefore trying to kill him is guaranteed to fail and our blaming of him is futile as it isn't his fault he became what inescapable fate forced him to become. If, however, we are in a timeline where we don't have to kill a baby, who happens to be identical in DNA and circumstance to the baby Hitler of our timeline, then we are obligated to inform people of what we know and what he becomes and if we can stay behind in that timeline perhaps we could even be the babysitters to raise him better and help the world get a brilliant artist rather than a tyrannical maniac.


Pro
Either you are going back in time and undoing a massively significant part of history that led to your own parents meeting, potentially, and reversing the entire process that led to so many people's existence, pleasure and/or contribution to technology, art,.philosophy or countless other things that make humanity enjoy, thrive and just be all-round fabulous.
If you can go back in time and alter the timeline in such a way that your birth is prevented then you would not be able to prevent your existence because the second you prevent your birth you are establishing that you must have existed in order to alter the timeline in such a way in the first place. The only way to rationalize this is to postulate that a new timeline was created by your actions, thus you were still born but created an alternate reality where you were not. If the universe works like this, than altering history is no big deal to a time traveler because every version is equally real and not real ultimately.
Furthermore, altering the timeline is not inherently bad even if this is not the case. For all we know humanity is set on a course for extinction in our current timeline, thus by altering history in significant ways you have an equal chance of dooming us all or saving us all.

From computers (a result of decoding-technology made by the British to oppose Hitler) to a variety of biological and chemical discoveries (made both by the Nazis and their opposing cultures/nations/armies, we have to consider that if we are to blame Hitler for all chain reactions that happened from his birth onwards, we also have to consider him just as responsible for all the beneficial by-products of that birth. Hitler himself barely killed anyone with his own hands, after all. We cannot just relieve him of blame for all the good that came as a butterfly-effect result of his actions and decisions.
All of those things could happen without Hitler. The computer for example was well on it's way before WW2. The time and the way it arose was influenced by the war but the dominoes for it's existence were in place long before. Mechanical computers, the concept of circuitry and quantum mechanics etc. all existed prior to WW2. In fact very primitive computers existed prior to the computers you mentioned, although they were little more than giant calculators.

If my opponent demands 'what good things' I will go into it, including how he weakened the Rothschilds in a very direct way.
Yes he weakened the Rothschilds a bit then proceeded to murder millions of people and attempt to consume Europe with hardcore fascism.

Killing a baby horrific and immoral in and of itself by default, that's just a given and if my opponent supports moral Nihilism, my opponent defeats their own case. Raising a baby to not be the monster it otherwise would have become is definitely a good thing, especially if that baby shows signs of high intelligence and severe creativity; imagine what that can do for our species if it's raised right.
Realistically, if one was to go back in time why would they just pick one super evil person and stay in the past specifically to raise them to be good? Would it not be more efficient and practical to assassinate a whole list of evil people, or try to bring some sort of revelation or technology to mankind? If I went back in time, I would not go there to babysit one individual when I could be altering history in a calculated and significant way. Yes, killing babies is bad, but no one individual really matters when you are already playing God with human history, all that matters is that you do not fuck the species or allow it to be fucked. If killing Hitler as a baby will prevent WW2 it's worth it.

 Either Hitler was going to become what he became in our timeline where going back and killing him is pointless as we 100% fail since we already know he survives or we are in a different, but seemingly identical, timeline where baby Hitler can be raised to be something he didn't become in this one.
If the timeline can be re-arranged at any time or there is a potentially infinite number of alternate realities than nothing really matters,

If we justify killing baby Hitler by Hitler inevitably becoming Hitler no matter how we raise him or inform people of what he becomes, then we are conceding that no matter what we do, he lives and becomes the Hitler we know today and therefore trying to kill him is guaranteed to fail and our blaming of him is futile as it isn't his fault he became what inescapable fate forced him to become. If, however, we are in a timeline where we don't have to kill a baby, who happens to be identical in DNA and circumstance to the baby Hitler of our timeline, then we are obligated to inform people of what we know and what he becomes and if we can stay behind in that timeline perhaps we could even be the babysitters to raise him better and help the world get a brilliant artist rather than a tyrannical maniac.
"Helllo mr. and misses Hitler, I'm from the future and your son is going to grow up to be an evil murderer so can I like, take him raise him myself using scientific future methodologies? K thx"
Yeah, what could possibly go wrong right?
Unless you want to end up in a 19th century loony bin, you have to go about things much differently. You cannot be openly from the future, all that you do must be done in stealth.

Round 2
Con
Okay this is a bit ridiculous. So, in order to counter me on the pointlessness of the endeavour Pro has 'disagreed' with me by agreeing that the only alternative is that we're not actually in our timeline at all but in a seemingly identical one.

This means Pro concedes the entire debate pretty much.

If that baby Hitler is not in our timeline, you're making a huge assumption that the new timeline is going to go the same way as our one. It's also identical to what I said originally; either you try to kill him and you fail and the timeline really is identical to ours or you kill him, go to prison or rather to an asylum as a raving lunatic diagnosed with schizophrenia screaming "I saved you, you fucking idiots! I saved you form Hitler and killed that baby for good reasons!" and then the asylum doctors inject you with something and you close your eyes, nighty-night. 

The additional counter I can bring now is that you're not undoing anything right... You realise that? You're not saving a single Jew, disabled person or anything at all. You're also destroying the computer being invented and all the other 'good' that came from Hitler's reign including the discovery of a couple of mental disorders; the most prominent being Asperger's Syndrome (high functioning Autism).
Pro
Assuming all that is true, and by postulating that there may be an infinite number of timelines that all are equally real I am conceding to you...

Neither of us can win this debate, because if that is true then nothing really matters. Kill him, don't kill him, there are infinite baby Hitlers out there being killed or not killed at all times for all we know.

But the thing is, neither of us believe in time travel, and both of us understand the stupidity of this shit. There is no objective "should" and "shouldn't" either way so this debate is pointless.
Round 3
Con
It is you, Pro, who has to assert that we should kill him not me, Con, who is here to assert that we should save him from being killed or that killing him is necessarily wrong.

If killing him is a neutral thing, I win. That is the price you pay for accepting this debate. I didn't challenge you to it or goad you into it, I left it there for anyone and didn't trick anyone either by flipping the sides (Con being the instigator is not default) since I said explicitly '(You Are Pro)' as it is against my debating ethics to ever goad someone into being on a side they don't want or in a situation in the debate that they didn't fully deserve to be in by their own decisions and wilful assertion of things on the side they wanted to be on in the first place.

You chose to accept this, assuming you'd have an easy ride and probably scored me lower on 'true genius' on your quiz that I took and gave me 'pseudo-genius' because I chose things like not killing baby hitler.

You are conceding but trying to turn this into a tie because you realised that actually it is severely deep thinking and logical processing that ends up as the 'don't kill Hitler' answer, NOT the 'necessary evil, let's kill that baby' answer.

You are the one who has to explain why we should ignore all the good things, from scientific discoveries to hampering the corrupt Rothschild family that Hitler ended up having as results of his actions and yet pay full attention to all the other snowball effects of his actions that we deem 'negative' in a moral sense.
Pro
t is you, Pro, who has to assert that we should kill him not me, Con, who is here to assert that we should save him from being killed or that killing him is necessarily wrong.

If killing him is a neutral thing, I win.
Only if you can prove that we should save him from being killed or that killing him is necessarily wrong. See what I mean, there is no answer to this, because there is no "should and shouldn't" or "right and wrong" in any objective sense. Also the burden of proof is equal, I am here to assert "should" and you are here to assert "shouldn't" as you yourself said.
So let's turn this into a thought experiment, let's say I am holding a gun to baby Hitler's head, and I believe that I "should" kill him because "should" to me means whatever I think it does. How would you convince me that I "shouldn't" ?

Round 4
Con
So let's turn this into a thought experiment, let's say I am holding a gun to baby Hitler's head, and I believe that I "should" kill him because "should" to me means whatever I think it does. How would you convince me that I "shouldn't" ?
This would require me the know the "why" but until then if absolutely use both my entire Round 1 and my knowledge of psychiatry and how to pretend to agree we the parts of the schizophrenic's delusions in order to tame them and bring them to a calmer state of mind where they put the gun down. Then I'd betray you and report you to the police for attempted murder of a baby unless I had reason not to.

You would get off on insanity most likely and end up similar to what I suggested in Round 2 except this time you didn't kill the baby so maybe not quite the same.

there is no answer to this, because there is no "should and shouldn't" or "right and wrong" in any objective sense.
Then you are admitting that the claim made in the resolution is either false or completely impossible to objectively prove and yet I gave objective arguments against it that you surrendered to.


Also the burden of proof is equal, I am here to assert "should" and you are here to assert "shouldn't" as you yourself said.
I have two options, you have one. This is why BoP rests on Pro.

I can both/either say we shouldn't kill Hitler and/or that there's enough doubt the mean it's impossible to conclude that we should; rendering the resolution false by default. As an atheist, you should know that when there's no every sense of a positive claim, defaulting to the negative is logically sound 

You must assert that we should and provide proof of there being a means to determine "should". You have the bigger BoP but you also have the mainstream side of things, making this a fair debate that you got annihilated on because you didn't realise that there's be logging Cal, unemotional, counterattacks to this mainstream ethics professor thought experiment where the conclusion is usually we should kill the baby as a necessary evil of utilitarian good.




Pro
Forfeited