Instigator / Con
1
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Topic
#4391
[WDT] On balance, The German Invasion of Poland (1939) was Justified
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
1
2
After 3 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
PREZ-HILTON
Judges
Barney
53 debates /
1,335 votes
No vote
whiteflame
27 debates /
202 votes
Voted
oromagi
117 debates /
397 votes
Voted
WeaverofFate
4 debates /
10 votes
Voted
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Judges
Contender / Pro
2
1533
rating
18
debates
36.11%
won
Description
On-balance.
Justified: having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason; more preferable than not doing said action."
Round 1
Con
#1
Preamble
As per the description, I will be defending that Germany’s invasion was unnecessary and thus, not justified.
BOP
On-balance. So if I can demonstrate there were no convincing reasons for Germany’s invasion of Poland, then I believe I would win. Conversely, Pro wins if he can prove that it was indeed justifiable.
l. Germany and Poland’s Truce
P1: In 1934, Poland agreed to arrange a peace treaty when Hitler offered. Seeing as there was a mutual agreement of non-aggression, Poland wouldn’t have attacked Germany. So Poland was not a threat.
P2: A violation of a truce in order to get an advantage over a nation that isn’t an enemy is deceptive and one of the biggest betrayals someone can make. This is morally and ethically wrong.
P3: Regardless of the moral and ethical concerns, going back on one’s word when negotiating peace treaties is terrible for Germany’s reputation. Because it ultimately sets the precedent that non-aggression pacts are meaningless and whatever you do to others, you justify other nations doing the same to you. Beyond that, it jeopardizes future foreign affairs because the knowledge that Germany makes bogus peace bargains is enough to deter most would-be allies from agreeing to a truce to avoid being set-up.
“Though France urged Britain to wait, says Tim Bouverie, author of Appeasement: Chamberlain, Hitler, Churchill, and the Road to War, many British politicians feared the implications of not keeping the promise to Poland, and they were done giving Hitler the benefit of the doubt.
“Hitler had proven, by tearing up the Munich agreement and invading Czechoslovakia in March of that year, that he could not be trusted and that he had to be stopped,”
ll. Poland wasn’t a threat
Germany was superior to Poland by means of mobile power and air warfare. Any hypothetical battles between the two countries was guaranteed to be a success for Germany.
In-fact, when the Nazis initially began raiding Poland, the country didn’t retaliate at first to avoid encouraging the violence. And when they finally did bear arms to respond to Germany’s attacks, it was too late.
lll. Hitler’s justification was blatant slander
- As I have demonstrated that the invasion of Poland was far from necessary, one would expect that if the invasion were indeed justified, then there would be no need to rely on propaganda to preserve one’s reputation. Honesty should be sufficient enough.
- Hitler resorted to mudslinging. Lying is a sign that he knows what he is doing is wrong or he wouldn’t feel the need to cover it up, thus demonstrating that his motives are far from altruistic.
“On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland. To justify the action, Nazi propagandists accused Poland of persecuting ethnic Germans living in Poland. They also falsely claimed that Poland was planning, with its allies Great Britain and France, to encircle and dismember Germany. The SS, in collusion with the German military, staged a phony attack on a German radio station. The Germans falsely accused the Poles of this attack. Hitler then used the action to launch a “retaliatory” campaign against Poland.”
“Hitler had attacked Poland because he wanted Germans to live there. He considered the Polish people inferior and only fit as a work force.”
Hitler took the initiative of staging attacks on Germany in order to set up Poland and frame them as the aggressor, so he would have an excuse to attack.
“Operation Himmler, also called Operation Konserve, consisted of a group of 1939 false-flag undertakings planned by Nazi Germany to give the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany.”
This was a bad move, strategically speaking.
- It was this action alone that ultimately got France and Britain to declare war on Germany.
lV. Poland is the catalyst for Hitler’s downfall.
- The invasion of Poland was what started WW2, which Hitler lost.
- The successful violation of the truce gave Adolf a false sense of his ability to double-cross other nations without facing repercussions, which he would ultimately come to regret when he betrayed and attempted to invade the Soviet Union.
Pro
#2
Exordium
The definition of justified has two parts.
1- "having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason"
Notice that this definition does not necessitate a moral reason, but merely a good and legitimate reason.
2- "more preferable than not doing said action."
The 2nd definition means an action should be preferable to inaction. This definition doesn't leave an alternative between invading Poland and some other action, but between invading Poland or taking no action.
Disregard's con's statement that an action being necessary is a factor in determining if it was justifiable. According to the definition provided, an action need not be necessary to be justified.
BOP
Con proving the invasion was not necessary. does nothing to help his case. He needs to prove not invading was better than invading.
Thanos
Earth has finite resources. There is only so much oil, food, trees and copper to go around. Thomas Malthus in the late 18th century observed that the human population could increase at an exponential rate (ex. 2,4,8,16,32) while food production increases at a linear rate (ex. 1,2,3,4,5). [1]
When population exceeds our abilities to create enough resources, 2 possibilities occur. 1st is positive checks, which include (war over resources, famine, or disease due to things like more condensed and close together population (ie. Covid19). The other option Malthus brought up was preventative checks such as encouraging later marriages, making abortions easy to access and promoting and encouraging homosexuality.
Hitler was applying Malthusianism to his policies for Germany, Hitler states;
"The annual increase of population in Germany amounts to almost 900,000souls. The difficulties of providing for this army of new citizens mustgrow from year to year and must finally lead to a catastrophe, unlessways and means are found which will forestall the danger of misery andhunger." [2]
Hitler was very concerned about the Malthusian trap. According to an article on econlib.org [3] Hitler went on to weigh all of the options Malthus presents and then states;
"Of course people will not voluntarily make that accommodation. At thispoint the right of self-preservation comes into effect. And whenattempts to settle the difficulty in an amicable way are rejected theclenched hand must take by force that which was refused to the open handof friendship. If in the past our ancestors had based their politicaldecisions on similar pacifist nonsense as our present generation does,we should not possess more than one-third of the national territory thatwe possess to-day and probably there would be no German nation to worryabout its future in Europe." [2]
Con will probably agree about the right to self preservation. We can see from Malthusianism that Germany was headed for disaster and their right to a good life would soon be taken if Germany wasn't proactive.
Lebensraum
Hitler's plan to deal with the Malthusian disaster, barreling towards Germany. An overall plan to preserve Germans, that involved taking preventative measures as Malthus had suggested. Lebensraum (meaning living space) was the answer to the Malthusian problem of population growth exceeding resource growth. It was a philosophy of conquering Western Europe so Germans could live more spread out with more resources to sustain their population. There is something else to consider about Lebensraum before we move forward, but first a better definition of lebensraum from chat GPT that is lightly edited by me to remove bias.
"The Nazi philosophy of Lebensraum, which means "living space" in German, was a belief held by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party that emphasized the expansion of German territory by acquiring more land in Eastern Europe. The Nazis believed that the Germanic people, needed more living space to grow and flourish, and that acquiring land in Eastern Europe was necessary for their expansionist goals." [1]
Freedom
Hitler wasn't some boring conservative politician who only cared about the economic success of his country. He also was deeply concerned about freedom, but even if he wasn't than expansionist Lebensraum policies, were still good at obtaining those freedoms. It's a well known fact that can be observed in any country and in any period of history. people that live in the country care more about autonomy than those in urban areas whose neighbors actions can be more easily felt on a day by day basis. By expanding the living space of the German people so they weren't crowded in big cities, Hitler could also, whether deliberatively or not expand freedom in Germany.
Do What's Right
Con will not be be able to deny Malthusianism. It is true that Earths resources are limited. It is obviously true that any poor mother with 8 children, knows it will be less of a struggle to feed all of her kids if she had 3 less of them. We all know that the Malthusian trap has already significantly contributed to global warming, covid 19, and famines.
Germany wasn't the only nation to realize this. Western nations know that in order to stay wealthy, they have to take the resources from poor countries and reallocate them to their own wealthy countries. IMF loans are used to get a strangle hold of nations to force policies that increase exports, effectively stealing the resources of people who can barely feed themselves. In the book titled "Stories of an Economic Hitman", the writer who worked to steal resources from small nations explained how the CIA would work covertly to overthrow governments so the United States could put a person in charge who would work to export resources. The west may no longer have slavery, but we export labor to countries where we can exploit the poor and the resources of poor nations for a paycheck of $2 a week.
Hitler saw the Malthusian trap was a problem, so he had to either start slaughtering his own people, exploit the poor from other countries or create more living space for Germans to be able to live with plenty of resources. It takes at minimum 2 acres of land per person to feed them {6]. The higher your population the more land you need, especially when you consider other resources like breathable air, lumber, copper and oil.
Hitler decided to create some Lebensraum for his people, which he had an obligation to do. Remember as per the definition provided for this debate, we are debating whether the action taken or no action is preferable. The impending Malthusian trap was all the reason Germany needed to begin it's expansionism. Other countries were aware of this Malthusian trap and it is why at the time, Great Britain had colonized so many nations they effectively ruled over 30% of the globe. [7]
The difficult truth is that Western nations have a choice between exploiting developing nations, so they starve or sacrificing our quality of living. Your shoes would be expensive without Nike exploiting children for pennies a day, You wouldn't be able to give your wife a diamond without the suffering and exploitation of miners in Africa. We would be spending half of our paycheck on gas, if not for the fact that our governments from time to time take over and exploit oil producing countries like Iraq.
It's ugly, but the alternative is we all live in squalor and suffering numerous Malthusian traps.
Black death
Population reduction and expansion achieve the same thing. more available living space per person. The west or "Global North" as referred to by dirty commies, have answered the Malthusian trap by exploiting the land and resources of poor people in third world countries. Germany chose another method, a similar method to what America chose when they employed the philosophy of "Manifest Destiny". Germany wanted to answer the Malthusian dilemma by expanding into the lesser used portions of Western Europe. It's not Hitler's fault that colonial countries like France and England wanted to have a monopoly on the ability to prevent a Malthusian trap and actively worked to destroy Germany, even after Germany begged for peace just prior to and after the expansion into the portion Poland, where a lot of their own people resided. [8]
W do e have an example of the success having more land to exploit (as opposed to people) has created for a nation, particularly the lower classes of a nation. The working man, basically. The black plague shows what can happen when a society suddenly escapes the Malthusian trap and gets more Lebensraum.
The plague killed 50% of people.[9] Here is a bit of what one publication says about the prosperity of people following the black death ;[10]
"the rural worker indeed demanded and received higher payments in cash (nominal wages) in the plague’s aftermath. Wages in England rose from twelve to twenty—eight percent from the 1340s to the 1350s and twenty to forty percent from the 1340s to the 1360s. Immediate hikes were sometimes more drastic. During the plague year (1348—49) at Fornham All Saints (Suffolk), the lord paid the pre—plague rate of 3d. per acre for more half of the hired reaping but the rest cost 5d., an increase of 67 percent. The reaper, moreover, enjoyed more and larger tips in cash and perquisites in kind to supplement the wage. At Cuxham (Oxfordshire), a plowman making 2s. weekly before the plague demanded 3s. in 1349 and 10s. in 1350"
The alternative of doing something, was doing nothing and allowing the great powers to continue exploiting Germany through the unfair Versailles treaty, while the German people suffered having to burn their massively inflated money to keep warm., and to quite literally starve.
sources in comments
Round 2
Con
#3
“The definition of justified has two parts.1- "having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason"Notice that this definition does not necessitate a moral reason, but merely a good and legitimate reason.2- "more preferable than not doing said action."The 2nd definition means an action should be preferable to inaction. This definition doesn't leave an alternative between invading Poland and some other action, but between invading Poland or taking no action.”
Pro is using his own interpretation of what the word means.
I believe voters should disregard this for two reasons.
- Nothing about the definition disallows arguments appealing to morality.
- Whenever the term ‘justified’ is used in public discourse, it is specifically addressing morality and ethics.
Let’s examine this debate’s version of the word Justified-
- 1- "having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason"
Good- 1. Morally excellent; virtuous; righteous, pious. 2. That which is morally right; righteousness. (Oxford Languages & Dictionary.com)
Legitimate- Fair and reasonable. (Macmillan)
Now the second definition deals with which option is more preferable.
Preferable- More desirable or suitable. (Oxford Languages.)
This leaves us with a fundamental question, more preferable to whom?
More preferable to a psychopathic absurdist like Mein Kampf perhaps. But not more preferable to people of reason, and certainly not more preferable to the rest of the world.
(Since the majority don’t support it, I’ll consider the second part of the definition a win for me. Unless Pro can prove me wrong with statistics.)
We are now left with the first definition, and that is whether Germany had a morally right or fair reason for invading Poland.
Rebuttals
A lot of Pro’s case consists of rambling that goes off topic, but there are a few points for me to respond to.:
“Con will probably agree about the right to self preservation. We can see from Malthusianism that Germany was headed for disaster and their right to a good life would soon be taken if Germany wasn't proactive.LebensraumHitler's plan to deal with the Malthusian disaster, barreling towards Germany. An overall plan to preserve Germans, that involved taking preventative measures as Malthus had suggested. Lebensraum (meaning living space) was the answer to the Malthusian problem of population growth exceeding resource growth. It was a philosophy of conquering Western Europe so Germans could live more spread out with more resources to sustain their population. There is something else to consider about Lebensraum before we move forward, but first a better definition of lebensraum from chat GPT that is lightly edited by me to remove bias.”
I could certainly buy self-preservation as a reason if the disasters weren’t self-inflicted. Hitler was actively sabotaging his own country. Imperialism and the genocide of foreign civilians weren’t the only solution for helping his people.:
- He could’ve made bargains with Japan or Italy to trade food resources.
- Sought out foreign investment.
“FreedomHitler wasn't some boring conservative politician who only cared about the economic success of his country. He also was deeply concerned about freedom, but even if he wasn't than expansionist Lebensraum policies, were still good at obtaining those freedoms. It's a well known fact that can be observed in any country and in any period of history. people that live in the country care more about autonomy than those in urban areas whose neighbors actions can be more easily felt on a day by day basis. By expanding the living space of the German people so they weren't crowded in big cities, Hitler could also, whether deliberatively or not expand freedom in Germany.”
I don’t buy this argument. A man who prioritized freedom would not seek to purge Germans of racial diversity to create a pure race, or deny Jews their right to live freely without incarceration or scrutiny.
Moreover, someone who valued freedom wouldn’t make laws for a country it assumed control over through force.
“"The annual increase of population in Germany amounts to almost 900,000souls. The difficulties of providing for this army of new citizens mustgrow from year to year and must finally lead to a catastrophe, unlessways and means are found which will forestall the danger of misery andhunger." [2]”
The simple fact is Hitler contributed to the famine of his own country when he violated WWl’s contract and overpopulated the military to the point that it was.
Hitler and Germany never claimed Malthusian as a reason, this is an excuse to blindly defend actions that are morally abominable. Hitler never made any claims to this philosophy.
So if Hitler didn’t have this philosophy in mind, what was his real motive for attacking Poland?
There’s two answers.
- His ego was hurt.
- Vengeance.
Hitler had originally tried to get Poland to help him fight Russia. Poland tried to stay out of it, so Hitler became vengeful and invaded Poland as retaliation for telling him no. Then he manufactured reasons based on slander to convince people that Poland was the perpetrator.
- “Hitler became furious after Poland refused to join him in the crusade against the Soviet Union. The offer inclued giving up the “corridor” to the Free City of Gdańsk with an exterritorial hifgway. In exchange for later territorial gains in the East as if Poland was interested. Poland tried to keep equal distance between its former occupiers.”
Pro
#4
Introduction
In debate when you ignore an argument, it's considered dropped. This means that by default, con has accepted the facts, arguments and most importantly the moral framework I have provided,
Con had 72 hours to respond to, research and digest my arguments. Instead he chose to respond within 4 hours of my argument. Don't feel bad for him.
Definition
Con spends R2 arguing that the 1st definition means morally good. Yet he drops my arguments concerning what the ethical framework for the debate should be. Does it matter to argue this point when you have accepted my ethical framework?
The 2nd definition I interpreted to mean that we compare invading Poland to taking zero action. Con dropped this argument, so when he suggests alternative actions to take care of the Malthusian trap, he is off topic and he should be ignored.
Self preservation
"I could certainly buy self-preservation as a reason if the disasters weren’t self-inflicted"
The right to self preservation is not being objected to here, by default he concedes that people and nations have a right to self preservation. The right to self preservation being the good living of individuals and/or nations.
Con is saying self preservation is a right, but it wasn't the motive for Germany. The debate isn't about motives of the individuals, or nations involved. The simple reason being that we cannot see into the hearts of people. Nations also individuals are made up of a collection of motives.
Disasters
The disasters Con is referring to is the alleged false flag operations of the Germans prior to the invasion of Poland. his citation is a Wikipedia article which gives the following citation.
"Roger Manvell, Heinrich Fraenkel, Heinrich Himmler: The SS, Gestapo, His Life and Career"
The authors who Wikipedia is citing to claim false fag operations is written y Roger Manvell and Heinrich Fraenkel. Manvell is a film maker and his college degree is in film making. [2] Fraenkel is a screenwriter and a Jew, "persecuted" by Nazis in Poland.[3] Meaning he not only has an axe to grind with Hitler but also likely has some fondness for his home country Poland. Despite the bias and lack of expertise in both men. Judges should dismiss this for many reasons.
What we Know;
- Danzig was a mostly German city with a minority of polish (3%) in 1922.[4]
- Danzig elected a nationalist socialist majority prior to Germany doing it. [5]
- There were family members in Germany and Prussia separated due to Danzig being in the middle and a Polish dominated area.
- Germany offered a peace deal of annexing Danzig and posting a super highway while offering Poland a military defense of it's land.[5]
According to experts
"Hitler regarded a German-Polish agreement as a highly welcome alternative to a German-Polish war. However, no further negotiations for a German-Polish agreement occurred after the British guarantee to Poland because Józef Beck refused to negotiate. Beck ignored repeated German suggestions for further negotiations because Beck knew that Halifax hoped to accomplish the complete destruction of Germany. '........Britain’s anti-German policy was made public with a speech by Neville Chamberlain on March 17, 1939. Halifax discouraged German-Polish negotiations because he was counting on Poland to provide the pretext for a British pre-emptive war against Germany."[6]
England wanted to keep Germany down. They knew Germany was seeking to become a world power again and the resources of the Earth are finite.... Malthusianism. The fact is that Germans despite being the majority of Danzig, were a persecuted minority in Poland, despite my opponent claiming that everything bad alleged to have happened to Germans was a false flag. [5]
Polish atrocities against Germans.
- 8/14/39 Mass arrests of Germans by East Silesia authorities.
- confiscation of German private property and businesses
- Forced Marches
- mutilations [5]
A witness to the oppression of Germans says;
"I traveled up to the Polish corridor where the German authorities permitted me to interview the German refugees ...... The story was the same. Mass arrests and long marches along roads toward the interior of Poland. The railroads were crowded with troop movements. Those who fell by the wayside were shot. The Polish authorities seemed to have gone mad" [7]
Prior to WW2 something known as Bloody Sunday occurred, which was the authorities using kill squads to murder many people for the crime of just being German. Polish citizens of German descent were warned that should war break out they would be systematically slaughtered. This prophecy came true when the Germans started being systematically slaughtered while heading to their Catholic churches[6].
Alternatives
Con's alternatives for Lebensraum;
" Imperialism and the genocide of foreign civilians weren’t the only solution for helping his people.:
This argument for alternatives occurs after he drops my argument and also ignores the definition provided for "justification" . Here is my argument which was ignored;
""more preferable than not doing said action."The 2nd (part) definition means an action should be preferable to inaction. This definition doesn't leave an alternative between invading Poland and some other action, but between invading Poland or taking no action."
Con missed my argument that resources shrink as populations grow faster than the ability to exploit those resources. This leads to the various Malthusian traps I mentioned in R1 (famines, war, pandemics, global warming, species extinctions etc.).
Judges should ignore these alternatives, but in short Hitler's theory of a shrinking economy, inspired by Malthusianism is why these alternatives were not taken.
"Hitler considered the path that German companies had adopted, which had made them dependent on exports, to be a major mistake. In Hitler’s opinion, sales markets would continue to shrink as a result of the industrialization of former agrarian countries. Therefore, focusing on exports would lead to a dead end; only Lebensraum in the East could solve Germany’s problems." [8]
Hitler didn't want to export finite resources to other countries, because they are finite, Like stated in R1. Each person requires 2 acres of land to indefinitely exploit in order to be self sustaining, and that's just for food. Germany's population required more land to avoid the Malthusian trap.
Loans have the same issue. Resources are finite and borrowing money means you have to earn more money with less and less resources to pay it back, not to mention Germany already owed $500 billion dollars for WW1. [9]
" A man who prioritized freedom would not seek to purge Germans of racial diversity"
I didn't make an argument about Hitler's motive being freedom. My argument was simple. The more living space a person has, the less a government infringes on their rights. Here is the part of my argument that was ignored.
"people that live in the country care more about autonomy than those in urban areas whose neighbors actions can be more easily felt on a day by day basis. By expanding the living space of the German people so they weren't crowded in big cities, Hitler could also, whether deliberatively or not expand freedom.”
notice I said deliberately or not, also my argument goes ignored.
Your argument was that Hitler was a racist in response to this. It doesn't disprove either premise and you just speak of his motives. My argument is that it's going to be harder for the government to come down on people who live on a farm 200 miles away from civilization. You dropped it and the judges should be awarding this argument to me. Con needs to address my arguments.
Famine
"The simple fact is Hitler contributed to the famine of his own country when he violated WWl’s contract and overpopulated the military to the point that it was."
The topic is the invasion of Poland, and whether it was justified not about the easily avoidable mistakes made later that contributed to Germany losing the war and suffering. However, Prior to Hitler taking power, 400,000 Germans are reported to have starved to death. [10] The country had runaway inflation. People were burning money to keep warm and you have instances of bread costing trillions of German Marks. [11] After Hitler took over, Germany became very wealthy. Hitler didn't destroy the economy. He saved it. [12]
Malthusian
"Hitler and Germany never claimed Malthusian as a reason"
This isn't about motives being justified. It's about whether the invasion being justified. I quoted Hitler from his autobiography. I explained how his ideology was the same as Malthus, The belief that resources are limited and that bad things happen when we take no action to prevent the Malthusian trap.
Hitler and Malthus can call it any name they want, you can call it Malthusianism and Hitler can call it "a shrinking economy". I outlined what I am calling Malthusianism and explaining that his relevant beliefs coincide with what I mentioned. More important than the beliefs of an individual, are the actions of an individual and whether they are justified.
Conclusion
Con has dropped every argument I have made. By default he's accepted my ethical framework. Most of his arguments are off topic. Here is a reminder of my overall argument.
- people (individuals and collectives) have a right to Self preservation that consists of the right to defend you and your people from death and poverty.
- resources are limited
- Germany had or would have more people than resources at current (1939) rates of growth to sustain the population.
- Expanding into more land would push back or solve the problem of the Malthusian trap.
- Invasion of Poland would accomplish at least some of that expansion.
This is a strong argument, but con is ignoring it and there is no reason to. Because of my ethical framework and argument, it makes just about all of con's R1 arguments obsolete.
sources in comments
Round 3
Con
#5
As I have demonstrated the sheer barbarism of Nazi, Germany. The immoral certainty of Hitler’s brutality is undeniable. But I’ll entertain Pro’s philosophy.
Preferable or not
“I didn't make an argument about Hitler's motive being freedom. My argument was simple. The more living space a person has, the less a government infringes on their rights. Here is the part of my argument that was ignored.”
- It was through Hitler’s intervention that Germany’s economy reached a state of progressive decline.
- In 1930-1937, the unemployment rates were decreasing under the policies of Hjalmar Schalcht. Directly in 1937, Schalcht was replaced by Hitler’s associate, Hermann Goering.
- When Goering takes control, the decrease in unemployment rates quickly begins to reverse and grows to 10%.
- Goering was preparing Germany to fight a war because of the intent to declare a war in the first place and it was this preparation that sabotaged Germany.
This is what led to the economic collapse. So if Pro is declaring Hitler values freedom, that raises a few questions.: Why did the government’s control lead to a decrease of private businesses? And thus lower economic freedom?
Why did Hitler oppress his own citizens and the citizens of Poland?
Now while these plans did put Germany in a worse state, why would it take the hardest, most inconvenient path by invading Poland when there were easier and quicker solutions?:
- Foreign investment, aid, and trading.
- Less funding to the military in order to achieve a more balanced economic budget.
- Stop prioritization of self-sufficiency and work with other countries.
- Drop the 4 Year Plan, so workers can bring in more income.
It would seem that since there were easier alternatives to the issues caused, Hitler was interested in creating more problems than he could solve. Not only was there no need to invade Poland and it was unnecessary, but it appears Pro has no justification for it at all.
- Germany was not overpopulated. Pro is referring to Lebensraum. The Nazis possessed a sense of entitlement that led to a superiority complex where they assumed they could seize the land of Poland from other people because it belonged to them.
“The Nazis did not believe that Germany was overcrowded.
I think the questioner is alluding to the Nazi concept of ‘Lebensraum’ which actually pre-dates the National Socialist movement and has roots in 19th century writings and ideas like those of Ludwig Woltmann.
This in turn has roots in ideas of German racial superiority, that the Germanic race had been selected to dominate the earth and that other races were preventing this. The Germans needed living space not because the country was literally overcrowded, but because those who advanced such ideas were taking ideas of territoriality from the animal kingdom and applying it to human society.”
Other Motives for invading Poland
I will explore later why invading Poland was actually worse than simply not invading.
Here, I will talk about the secondary reasons for Poland’s invasion. But an important thing for judges to remember.
- There were no logical incentives for the attack, besides emotion.
The invasion of Poland was to kill more Jews
Despite Pro critiquing my Wiki source, it should be known that there are other historical sources that confirm Germany staged the attacks by Poland to excuse taking it over.
“Operation Himmler (less often known as Operation Konserve or Operation Canned Goods) was a false flag project planned by Nazi Germany to create the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany, which was subsequently used by Nazi propaganda to justify the invasion of Poland. Operation Himmler was arguably the first act of the Second World War in Europe.[1]” 2
After the successful invasion of Poland, Himmler would organize another operation to make the Jews go extinct.
“In 1941, Himmler assigned General Odilo Globocnik with the implementation of Operation Reinhard. The operation, named after the SS General Reinhard Heydrich, was the constructed plan to systematically murder the Jews of occupied Poland, and later the entirety of European Jewry.”
“The Einsatzgruppen was tasked to initiate and partake in mass murder of Jews, government officials, Roma, and people with disabilities, no matter the age or gender.”
Keep in mind that this means infants and the elderly were being killed for sport because of Hitler’s decision to invade Poland.
Why The Invasion of Poland was bad for Germany AND Poland
P1: Germans didn’t profit, they just made the Polish suffer.
“It was almost impossible for Polish workers to survive, however, on the fixed wages the Germans paid.”
“German policy sought to destroy the Polish nation and culture and exploit Poles for forced labor.”
“Thirty-eight percent of national wealth was destroyed by the war, and 66 percent of the country's industrial facilities were destroyed, laid waste, or looted.”
P2: This led to unintended consequences for Germany.
“In the end, German losses totaled 14,000 dead or missing and 30,000 wounded out of a total of 1,250,000 troops involved in the invasion;”
This led to them losing a significant percentage of their military, making them weaker against future threats that ultimately cost them the war.
P3: The invasion left Germany in a great deal of debt to Poland.
“Germany owes Poland over $850 billion in WW2 reparations: senior lawmaker. WARSAW (Reuters) - Germany could owe Poland more than $850 billion in reparations for damages it incurred during World War Two and the brutal Nazi occupation, a senior ruling party lawmaker said.”
Poland waiving this debt in 1953 could be voided, now that some officials are pushing for Germany to pay.
“Germany is the biggest net donor to the EU budget and some Germans regard its contributions as generous compensation to recipient countries like Poland which suffered under Nazi rule.
In 1953 Poland’s then-communist rulers relinquished all claims to war reparations under pressure from the Soviet Union, which wanted to free East Germany, also a Soviet satellite, from any liabilities. PiS says that agreement is invalid because Poland was unable to negotiate fair compensation.”
Now addressing Pro’s original statement.:
“The 2nd definition I interpreted to mean that we compare invading Poland to taking zero action. Con dropped this argument, so when he suggests alternative actions to take care of the Malthusian trap, he is off topic and he should be ignored.”
Here is why Pro is wrong and why it’s relevant.
- If there were easier solutions that didn’t include genocide of millions or abusing innocent civilians through enslavement and forced labor, then it stands that the invasion of Poland was unjust and unnecessary.
- If Germany didn’t take any of these solutions when they existed and instead chose to go through with his cruelty, then it’s reasonable to conclude that self-preservation was not the priority here.
Motive and intent matters because if self-preservation is not the priority, it is more likely to be disregarded completely. Which it was, as proven by my examples above.
So was the Invasion of Poland justified? I say no.
Back over to you, Pro.
Pro
#6
Pro is continually ignoring my arguments. I am not even sure what to respond to here, because him dropping my arguments means he has accepted Malthusianism as true, he is accepting that the German people have a right to self preservation. He has accepted my interpretation to the relevant parts of the definition of justified. I am not exactly sure how he plans to win, while not defending himself and completely relying on an argument that has no merit once you accept the arguments I have made which got dropped. Here are some responses to con's last round before I reiterate my arguments that have been rudely and completely ignored.
Alternative Solutions
I already made arguments for why his proposed alternatives to invasion would not escape the Malthusian trap. More arguments in the form of rebuttals con has dropped, by the way.
"If there were easier solutions that didn’t include genocide of millions or abusing innocent civilians through enslavement and forced labor, then it stands that the invasion of Poland was unjust and unnecessary."
In my opening argument which con has dropped I already went over the rebuttal for this and he dropped my argument. Here it is as a reminder from R1;
"The 2nd definition means an action should be preferable to inaction. This definition doesn't leave an alternative between invading Poland and some other action, but between invading Poland or taking no action."
That R1 argument still has no rebuttal and it's too late to offer one in the final round. Most importantly if accepted as it should be it makes suggestions for alternative actions pointless because the debate is between action and inaction as the only 2 options.
Motives
Con states;
". So if Pro is declaring Hitler values freedom, that raises a few questions.: Why did the government’s control lead to a decrease of private businesses? And thus lower economic freedom? "
I already responded to his assertion about motives as follows.
"Your argument was that Hitler was a racist in response to this. It doesn't disprove either premise and you just speak of his motives. My argument is that it's going to be harder for the government to come down on people who live on a farm 200 miles away from civilization. You dropped it and the judges should be awarding this argument to me. Con needs to address my arguments. "
and.
"This isn't about motives being justified. It's about whether the invasion being justified"
Motives are unknowable, particularly in politics. We need to look at the actions of individuals and determine whether the action is justified. Con doesn't dispute this as my above statements received no rebuttals. If I see a beautiful woman about to be hit by a train and I shove her out of the way. We would judge the action based on the good it caused not on my hidden motives which could be either altruistic or me doing a good thing in the hopes I will get the woman in bed. Saving the life is justified, regardless of motive. The final round is too late to add new arguments and con failed to address my point about actions being judged as justified, not the motives behind said actions.
Various Points
Con argues that Germany was not overpopulated. I believe my argument was that population was expanding at an exponential rate while resources at best would increase at a linear rate. I remind the judges that I quoted Hitler on the population increasing below;
"The annual increase of population in Germany amounts to almost 900,000souls. The difficulties of providing for this army of new citizens mustgrow from year to year and must finally lead to a catastrophe, unlessways and means are found which will forestall the danger of misery andhunger."
I also mentioned my Malthusian argument and the shrinking pool of resources below;
"When population exceeds our abilities to create enough resources, 2 possibilities occur. 1st is positive checks, which include (war over resources, famine, or disease due to things like more condensed and close together population (ie. Covid19). The other option Malthus brought up was preventative checks such as encouraging later marriages, making abortions easy to access and promoting and encouraging homosexuality."
Hitler's response to various positive checks are listed again as follows;
"Of course people will not voluntarily make that accommodation. At thispoint the right of self-preservation comes into effect. And whenattempts to settle the difficulty in an amicable way are rejected theclenched hand must take by force that which was refused to the open handof friendship"
The next statement is by con at the beginning of the round who seems to not know I made these arguments;
"Germany was not overpopulated. Pro is referring to Lebensraum. The Nazis possessed a sense of entitlement that led to a superiority complex where they assumed they could seize the land of Poland from other people because it belonged to them."
Once again con is making the mistake of mentioning motives that are irrelevant to judging if an action is justifiable and dismissing the fact that internal motives particularly across so many people in decision making positions is ultimately unknowable. He also ignores the black death portion of my R1 argument that shows what happens when populations suddenly have more land per square feet and keeps mentioning death tolls which actually support my case, not his.
Hindsight
Con is continually bringing up hindsight arguments, which is wrong for a few reasons. For example we know it's stupid to go to the casino to gamble every dollar of your life savings on a roll of the dice. Winning the roll of the dice and becoming a millionaire wouldn't change the fact you made a statistically stupid decision. It also looked like Germany was going to win the war for a while. perhaps if you replay the scenario 100 times than Hitler wins 65 of those times through minor alterations of decisions. If Hitler stopped at invading Poland and never advanced an inch, perhaps he would have won. So perhaps it wasn't the invasion of Poland that caused him to lose. Some say his decision to invade Russia was his downfall. None of that matters, we are looking at merely the act of invading Poland and whether the invasion is justified. I have argued it is and prevented evidence. My opponent has ignored the evidence, covered his ears and chants no over and over. The invasion of Poland needs to be looked at in a vacuum.
"Motive and intent matters because if self-preservation is not the priority, it is more likely to be disregarded completely"
Con, I explained why motive doesn't matter. Screaming yes it does without making an argument doesn't help. Self preservation matters because I argued for it and you dropped the argument. Hitler stated self preservation was the top priority and I see no reason not to take his word, particularly when Mein Kompf appears to be the blue print he followed in the war, when he was in a position where he looked like he would never have an ounce of power. I know as president of this site, I have to play politics. The COC I put forward I had to not give my reasons for putting it in place but I had to give the reasons the community could get behind, the reasons various mods could get behind. Leading an entire country is going to mean your own personal opinions like the long term self preservation of your people is going to take a back seat when convincing generals to invade the German portion of Poland. What will take a front seat is Hitler arguing to his generals about an immediate threat or him arguing to his people in a way that appeals to their more blood thirsty impulses.
Conclusion
My argument stands on stilts with plenty of weak points that could be attacked if only con wasn't completely ignoring it in favor of pushing his own narrative of Hitler being blood thirsty, which helps my case which has been about keeping a thin population coverage to maximize resources. Malthusianism has always been about making tough decisions now so that way your descendants aren't tortured by starvation, global warming, oil shortages, pandemics and the extinction of several plant and animal species we rely on for environmental harmony. The choice Malthus gives us is to take on some hardship now or a lot of hardship tomorrow. Western countries have pushed back those tough times by exploiting third world countries now. Making that tough decision export suffering so we can live in the lap of luxury. Hitler was making the tough decision to make a lot of living space for Germans so they didn't have to rely on exporting those hardships in the future. He also engaged in population reduction techniques, but that's not what this debate is about.
I will reiterate what I said at the end of the last round, which was ignored and it is too late to bring up in the final round;
"Con has dropped every argument I have made. By default he's accepted my ethical framework. Most of his arguments are off topic. Here is a reminder of my overall argument.
Round 4
Con
#7
Thank you, Pro!
It’s important to know that each of Pro’s arguments I did respond to.
- “people (individuals and collectives) have a right to Self preservation that consists of the right to defend you and your people from death and poverty.” I pointed out that the damages were self-inflicted and had easier alternatives that didn’t involve enslaving or killing off another nation. Extend.
- “resources are limited” The resources were being depleted by Germany’s own actions. If they had dropped the 4 year plan, a lot would return to normal. You don’t get to trash your own food and then rob your neighbor so you don’t starve.
- “Germany had or would have more people than resources at current (1939) rates of growth to sustain the population.” Because it prioritized self-sufficiency and cut itself off from the assistance of other countries.
- “Expanding into more land would push back or solve the problem of the Malthusian trap.” It’s also a waste, considering it was not necessary and would have been the harder option compared to the easier choices.
- “Invasion of Poland would accomplish at least some of that expansion." Did it though? I recall specifically mentioning that Germany suffered more losses.
Extend all of these arguments. Now as demonstrated by my earlier arguments, the Malthusian/Lebensraum was nothing more than a ruse. Yes, Germany had problems but these were greatly exaggerated. And they were fixable by simply ceasing a few operations instead of unjustly attacking a nation. Germany was not overpopulated. My quotes above illustrate that the excuses of self-preservation were based on imperialism, not survival.
Pro claimed my source about the staged attacks by Poland was false, so I provided an additional source, substantiating the historical accuracy of Germany falsifying reasons to attack Poland. Pro doesn’t address this again, so I’ll consider it dropped.
“Motives are unknowable, particularly in politics. We need to look at the actions of individuals and determine whether the action is justified. Con doesn't dispute this as my above statements received no rebuttals. If I see a beautiful woman about to be hit by a train and I shove her out of the way. We would judge the action based on the good it caused not on my hidden motives which could be either altruistic or me doing a good thing in the hopes I will get the woman in bed. Saving the life is justified, regardless of motive. The final round is too late to add new arguments and con failed to address my point about actions being judged as justified, not the motives behind said actions.”
That’s not true, Pro. First, we look at the means & the opportunity, each of which we have evidence for. This leads us to Hitler’s motive.
Means
- Forming a truce with Poland under false pretenses.
- Enacting the 4 Year Plan, so Germany is prepared for war.
- Making sure Germany’s self-sufficient and then allying with the Soviet Union.
- Staging attacks on itself and then framing Poland as the perpetrator.
Opportunity
- Germany knows France & England won’t protect Poland, so it finally attacks.
- With the help of the Soviet Union, it completely invades Poland.
Motive
In conclusion, it was always a part of Hitler’s plan to invade Poland, even when Germany was already in a stable state and not in need of “self-preservation.”
Debate Conclusion
I have cemented my case on three fronts.
- The Moral Argument.
- The Necessity Argument.
- The Philosophical Argument.
Pro says I cannot bring any new arguments into this round and I respond by declaring that none of these are new arguments.
They are all extensions of everything I already said. Either repeated, rephrased, or clarified. I thank Pro for his participation in this debate.
Vote Con.
Pro
#8
Con is confused, his ego is bruised he claims to address every argument,
but responds before he can let my ideals ferment.
Everything he posts in his final round
My sexy looking ass already shot down.
•in his con's first point he mentions that, Germany had alternatives
But him ignoring my point that alternatives is not something the definition gives.
As a reminder here is my quote, presented as fact and bot merely to dote;
"The 2nd definition means an action should be preferable to inaction. This definition doesn't leave an alternative between invading Poland and some other action, but between invading Poland or taking no action."
The judges may not like that the definition was interpreted that way,
but con drops that argument and he should be made to pay.
He responds to my point about Earth's resources being limited,
By adopting the silly presupposition that actions such as trade can make them unlimited.
This completely misses the Malthusian point that I made,
Which is that Earth's resources are finite and the options were weighed.
It was a choice between letting your children starve later or the risk of your own early grave.
He completely ignored my point that populations grow exponentially
And that resources grow linearly.
I explained why a malthusian trap is inevitable,
And con responds with some rainbow in the sky libertarian bull.
Con responds that expansion was pointless because of the death of some men,
But misses the point that death creates less people than land.
Con's final argument is trying to decipher Germany's motive.
Yet he refuses to shoot down the argument I give....
About why motives don't matter, but decisions do my Nig!!!!!
You didn't respond to my quote and this mistake is big;
"This isn't about motives being justified. It's about whether the invasion being justified. "
Elaborated on with;
"Motives are unknowable, particularly in politics. We need to look at the actions of individuals and determine whether the action is justified. Con doesn't dispute this as my above statements received no rebuttals. If I see a beautiful woman about to be hit by a train and I shove her out of the way. We would judge the action based on the good it caused not on my hidden motives which could be either altruistic or me doing a good thing in the hopes I will get the woman in bed. Saving the life is justified, regardless of motive. The final round is too late to add new arguments and con failed to address my point about actions being judged as justified, not the motives behind said actions."
Conclusion
Con drops all my arguments which is drastic when I create the moral framework.
His arguments are mostly irrelevant once you adopt my world view *smirk*.
I will end this round like I ended the last.
For you to look at my unrefuted arguments vote pro and laugh;
"Con has dropped every argument I have made. By default he's accepted my ethical framework. Most of his arguments are off topic. Here is a reminder of my overall argument.people (individuals and collectives) have a right to Self preservation that consists of the right to defend you and your people from death and poverty.resources are limitedGermany had or would have more people than resources at current (1939) rates of growth to sustain the population.Expanding into more land would push back or solve the problem of the Malthusian trap.Invasion of Poland would accomplish at least some of that expansion."
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-_r6dww3Ecfw_GifxdL4-8f_W7fedWRygMIFAgMufAc/edit
Let me know if you guys have questions.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
RfD:
https://youtu.be/Hp0RyLshuFY
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HzusalBg42UUqmkBiJlf-FB5_Y7rbh2WAJpKqu0UzOU/edit?usp=sharing
All good!
Hate to say it, but I've let myself get overwhelmed with stuff, and haven't properly reviewed the remaining rounds.
One problem I'm having is when I find a point particularly interesting, I do word searches to try to follow it; which is leading me to finding a lot of stuff from both sides just dropped. While I'm leaning towards con, it's not by a lot, so might just be my bias on the topic (as opposed to a slam dunk victory).
All that said, this deserves to be a HoF contender.
"Earlier he concluded that their are only 4 ethical frameworks"
There are hundreds of ethical frameworks.
The reason why oromagi thinks there are only 5 is because he googled "list of ethical frameworks" and the first result was those 5 he mentioned. If he bothered to search further, he would have found hundreds of them.
Dude isn't logical. Earlier he concluded that their are only 4 ethical frameworks just because you can divide ethical frameworks into four general categories.
There are 5 generally recognized frameworks that experienced argument relies on when debating public policy.
If I debated him for example and mentioned ethical egoism as an ethical position, he would legit be confused
I suppose you could call egoism an ethical framework but psychologists more regularly refer to such a framework as sociopathy, and no logical thinker would be persuaded. As Spock would say, "Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
bump
Do you have a decision on who won?
Dude isn't logical. Earlier he concluded that their are only 4 ethical frameworks just because you can divide ethical frameworks into four general categories.
If I debated him for example and mentioned ethical egoism as an ethical position, he would legit be confused
No, I just found your logic fun to play with, thats all. No need to get offended.
Unsuprisingly, BK flunks out on 3rd grade math
"A justified action should always be better than not doing the justified action but that in no way suggests that a justified action should always be better than nothing"
Well, this sounds like fun logic.
"Justified action > No justified action" = always true.
"Justified action > nothing" = sometimes false
"Nothing =/= No justified action" = true
So one of these two must be true:
1) Justified action = nothing
2) Nothing > Justified action
I assume you are going for 1), because the 2) is awkward.
Thx for voting!
Ok, got through R2.
nulla. necessary
Con asserts if an action is unnecessary it is unjustified.
Pro defends the pre-agreed definition, defusing a minor attempt at moving the goal posts. That said, pro was shooting himself in the foot as he immediately moves on to an argument that it indeed was necessary due to resource scarcity.
Con accuses pro of moving the goalposts, insisting justified means ethics and morals... Probably going to be more back and forth on this, personally I'd have argued it was done for bad illegitimate reasons making them not justified.
Pro says con dropped that it should be action vs no action (I think con's R1 intuitively argues for no action against Poland).
l. Germany and Poland’s Truce
ll. Poland wasn’t a threat
Nuff said.
Pro counters that Poland was goating Germany into it so that England could invade. Plus Bloody Sunday (which my reading indicates happened after Germany invaded, but no assurance on will catch that).
lll. Hitler’s justification was blatant slander
False flag etc.
Pro defends that the source is biased by being victims of the Nazis, so should be dismissed...
lV. Poland is the catalyst for Hitler’s downfall.
Nuff Said.
Pro counters that Poland was goating Germany into it so that England could invade.
V. Thanos
OMFG, well played!
Con calls this off topic.
VI. Lebensraum
Germans desired more living space.
Con defends that there were other means to attain food.
Pro says we can't really know what's in their hearts, and that he pre-refuted most means other than warfare.
VII. Freedom
More land equals more freedom...
Con makes an appeal to the genocide against native Germans, and that valuing freedom is impossible if not valuing freedom for other countries.
VIII. Do What's Right
This was really mislabeled, but good appeal to whataboutism while bolstering earlier points.
Con lands a great and simple retort "Hitler and Germany never claimed Malthusian as a reason"
IX. Black death
Mostly more of the above, before at last asserting at the very end the damage of the Versailles treaty (which should have been a cornerstone of the arguments, as one way or another they had to get out from under that; just look at how well off they are today... Which wouldn't actually make the reasons at the time good but con might not have caught that distinction).
Pro is able to leverage this again with the 500 billion dollar debt, limiting their options.
And I am not interested in debating you on this. I was pointing out that you didn't vote in a tabula rasa fashion
False. I have a long track record of voting against my bias.
and therefore you voted incorrectly. Feel free to disagree with me.
It's just sour grapes from one of the less mature assholes on this site. I have no problem voting for you in a debate.
You are trying to attack my arguments, which is pointless.
False. You disrespected the debate rules and I penalized you for it. If the rules said no forfeits, I have and would rule against the first forfeiter every time irregardless of the quality of argument. Not every voter works that way but I'm a stickler for the rules when judging. As I said, your argument was irrational but I liked your energy. I'm not required to find a stupid argument more persuasive just because it was presented with greater confidence then a reasonable argument wanting more evidence.
I will likely be reviewing your other votes to see if you just in general vote incorrectly
Terrific. Elect a President to be an Ombudsman and in a matter of weeks he's playing Gestapo for the right-wing element on this site. You'll find that my votes are consistently challenged and consistently allowed to stand (2 votes have been removed out of 371 votes. How many votes of YOURS have been removed over your many, many multi-accounts Mr. President?
There are two parts to the definition
This part
having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason;
I agreed with the first portion, but it also adds the second part of the definition as well, which follows.
more preferable than not doing said action."
And I am not interested in debating you on this. I was pointing out that you didn't vote in a tabula rasa fashion and therefore you voted incorrectly. Feel free to disagree with me.
You are trying to attack my arguments, which is pointless. I don't even agree with my arguments, meanwhile I am talking about your decisions on how to judge a debate. I will likely be reviewing your other votes to see if you just in general vote incorrectly or if you merely decided to make up some bullshit justification to vote against me, that way I can for my own benefit know which of the two following possibilities exist with you.
Possibility 1- you consistently are just a terrible voter
Possibility 2- you just voted terrible because of a bad motive
You know I didn't like RM, but instead of voting like shit on his debates, I awarded him the win like 75% of the time.
"There are five generally recognized ethical frameworks in philosophy: utilitarian, human rights, common good, fairness, and virtue. Self-determination is not an ethical framework and you don't seem to know much about ethical framework" Can you copy and paste where con made this argument?
CON never asserted an ethical framework, he just ignored your phony claims of having presented one.
"more preferable than not doing said action." Also please copy and paste where con objects to this interpretation of the definition in round 2.
I can't believe you missed it . First argument in Round 2 and essentially the essence of CON's victory:
You asserted: This definition doesn't leave an alternative between invading Poland and some other action, but between invading Poland or taking no action.”"
CON objects:
######################
"Pro is using his own interpretation of what the word means. I believe voters should disregard this for two reasons.
Nothing about the definition disallows arguments appealing to morality.
Whenever the term ‘justified’ is used in public discourse, it is specifically addressing morality and ethics.
Let’s examine this debate’s version of the word
Justified-
1- "having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason"
Good- 1. Morally excellent; virtuous; righteous, pious. 2. That which is morally right; righteousness. (Oxford Languages & Dictionary.com)
Legitimate- Fair and reasonable. (Macmillan)
Now the second definition deals with which option is more preferable.
Preferable- More desirable or suitable. (Oxford Languages.)
This leaves us with a fundamental question, more preferable to whom?
More preferable to a psychopathic absurdist like Mein Kampf perhaps. But not more preferable to people of reason, and certainly not more preferable to the rest of the world.
(Since the majority don’t support it, I’ll consider the second part of the definition a win for me. Unless Pro can prove me wrong with statistics.)
We are now left with the first definition, and that is whether Germany had a morally right or fair reason for invading Poland.
##########################
This voter, persuaded by CON's common sense reliance on the widely accepted, Oxford dictionary definition of JUSTIFIED and NOT the Wylted special definition of JUSTIFIED, agrees with CON when he asks us to disregard your definition. DIsregarding your specially customized definiton, your lone argument collapses as not meeting any ordinary understanding of the word JUSTIFIED. Moreover, by acceptance of this debate, you agreed to CON's Oxford definition of JUSTIFIED as the standard you must prove, then you immediately broke your agreement and moved the goalposts by re-defining JUSTIFIED to meet your personal need.
Justified: having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason; more preferable than not doing said action."
The above was in the description and stated action preferable to inaction (aka not doing action).
As I explained in my vote, not doing said action =/= inaction. A justified action should always be better than not doing the justified action but that in no way suggests that a justified action should always be better than nothing (i.e. the heart of your arguement).
Tabula rasa means blank slate. You should be essentially acting like a naive alien from outer space when judging debates. I will do a walk through of my next few debate judgements to show you.
Yeah, Tabula Rasa is a noun not an adjective the way you used it in a sentence.
I like, even prefer arguments that contradict and challenge the established judgements of history (see my takes on the Treaty of Versailles, WIlliam Wallace, Cold War definitons of Socialism, R.E. Lee's and George Washington's generalship, etc) but such a re-interpretation has to have good reasoning and evidence behind it. Your childish argument was that Hitler was justified to go to war because his people might be hungry some day- literally a justification for war by any nation at any time in history and therefore useless in explaining Hitler's terrible choice. Tablula Rasa means I come to judge without any pre-existing bias (which is always true of my votes), not that I come without any pre-existing opinion (which is impossible, I have an opinion about everything). You had a burden to prove that the decision to invade Poland was objectively better, wiser, appropriate to the situation than not invading Poland. Instead, you only argued that Hitler had an excuse in Malthusianism and pretended that met your burden by pretending to misunderstand the definiton of JUSTIFIED. That's not the way to win a debate. At least, CON played by the rules set out and showed that Hitler's decision was predetermined, not based on the existing circumstances of isolation provoked by Hitler's government.
Ultimately, your arguement depended on a successful kritik of CON's definiton of JUSTIFIED. You didn't challenge CON's usage (for example, CON didn't cite a standard dictionary support for his usage) and you didn't find any evidence supporting your crazy, unsupportable redefintion of the word JUSTIFIED to mean any act that's better than doing nothing. And then you didn't even bother to prove that invasion was better than starvation, you only cited the generic, ever-present potential threat of over-population as entirely sufficient. Sorry, but that's a weak-ass kritik by any standard and your argument deserves to lose against just about any dull recitiation of fact.
"There are five generally recognized ethical frameworks in philosophy: utilitarian, human rights, common good, fairness, and virtue. Self-determination is not an ethical framework and you don't seem to know much about ethical framework"
Can you copy and paste where con made this argument?
Also let me copy and paste the relevant portion of the definition for you
"more preferable than not doing said action."
Also please copy and paste where con objects to this interpretation of the definition in round 2.
It's in the definition of the debate provided in the description and restated in round 1. Even if my interpretation is ridiculous, it is up to con to point that out, not you.
False. You reneged on the terms of the debate by badly misinterpreting the defintion of JUSTIFIED. You agreed to abide by ONE rule offered by the instigator, broke it instantly and then piled your entire argument on to that faulty misinterpretation. A debater can only point out cheating by his opponent, he doesn't need to nor should he give the cheater power by making the argument all about the cheat. CON pointed out that you abused the defintion and I think that's undeniable.
As far as ethical framework is concerned we have the right to self determination as defined by me and expanded on every round because it went unchallenged, among many other things
Wrong. There are five generally recognized ethical frameworks in philosophy: utilitarian, human rights, common good, fairness, and virtue. Self-determination is not an ethical framework and you don't seem to know much about ethical frameworks. That's fine- I don't usually rely on them myself. However, you wasted a lot of time in this debate beating up your opponent for not accepting your ethical framework when it is clear then and now that you don't have a grasp on ethical frameworks. CON was having enough trouble stating his argument without explaining you blunders to you.
Justified: having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason; more preferable than not doing said action."
The above was in the description and stated action preferable to inaction (aka not doing action)
Tabula rasa means blank slate. You should be essentially acting like a naive alien from outer space when judging debates. I will do a walk through of my next few debate judgements to show you
"Was your re-interpretation of the concept of JUSTIFICATION, strategy or just lack of interest in dictionary defintions?"
It's in the definition of the debate provided in the description and restated in round 1. Even if my interpretation is ridiculous, it is up to con to point that out, not you.
As far as ethical framework is concerned we have the right to self determination as defined by me and expanded on every round because it went unchallenged, among many other things
Whatever happened to the guy from the other debate I booped?
Did he ever find another contender?
"Just don't vote on any of my debates until you properly learn how to use tabula rasa. Look at literally any vote by Barney or whiteflame."
Mr. President- please go sit on a swastika made of razor blades. You have no authority to tell me when and how I may vote and my voting record on this website stands head, shoulders, cock, and boot above your excrebable, biased, oft removed, flaccid stabs at voting. How many times has Barney or Whiteflame had to scoop up the poop you call your unbiased judgement? Dozens? Hundreds?
BTW, look up the definition of TABULA RASA and JUSTIFIED. You will learn you are using those words incorrectly.
Was your re-interpretation of the concept of JUSTIFICATION, strategy or just lack of interest in dictionary defintions?
Can you please state what ethical framework you were using?
I am maybe going to make a few votes and give a tutorial on how to properly judge later.
Just don't vote on any of my debates until you properly learn how to use tabula rasa. Look at literally any vote by Barney or whiteflame.
I was reading the vote straight through until I realized it wasn't tabula rasa and then I started skipping around. I believe that con's use of quora was criticized and if this was a 7 point debate, he would have awarded me sources but there is literally no mention that one of my sources was "some guy on storm front I think"
Too bad you didn't bother to read my vote. You would have learned that both of your "beliefs" are groundless. I gave the advantage in SOURCES to CON, specifically I gave CON's performance a B- and your performance in SOURCES a D-. I specifically noted the low energy lameness of citing "some guy."
"I think in a 7 point debate he may have tied it, if we take his words seriously. I would have received grammar and sources while con won on arguments, LOL"
As anybody who reads my vote will discover, I would have awarded arguments and sources to CON and no advantage to either for GRAMMAR or CONDUCT.
You can still vote in the comments so we get a full score for the tourney, ill leave it open until the end of the voting period with the other debate.
Winning a debate by defending Hitler, against a 1688-rated competitor, with a final round in the form of rap, with a Jewish judge, might just be the most weirdly impressive thing I've seen on this site.
I was reading the vote straight through until I realized it wasn't tabula rasa and then I started skipping around. I believe that con's use of quora was criticized and if this was a 7 point debate, he would have awarded me sources but there is literally no mention that one of my sources was "some guy on storm front I think"
I think in a 7 point debate he may have tied it, if we take his words seriously. I would have received grammar and sources while con won on arguments, LOL
Oromagi's vote is not tabula rasa . The fact he brings up cons use of quora is proof of that.
This is a choose winner debate, but if it wasn't you would never ever award source points unless a side makes an argument for why they deserve source points and you would even judge their argument in a tabula rasa style.
Thanks for the votes, oro and everyone else!
The standard to be met is JUSTIFIED according to the definition agreed before the debate.
"having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason; more preferable than not doing said action."
that is,
doing x is > not doing x
PRO badly fails to comprehend this straightforward definition and misinterprets the 2nd clause to mean: " an action should be preferable to inaction." but that's just flat out false.
That is,
doing x is > doing nothing
that's quite blinkered and quite distant from the semantic heart of justice. Done right, a good justification exists before the result is known. A police shooting can be justified before shooting, SHOULD always be justified before shooting , even if the result is the death of an innocent. Of course, it would have been better to do nothing but that fact has little bearing on whether the shooting was justified. There are many justified acts that are not better than doing nothing.
A failure to comprehend the inherent nature of JUSTIFICATION loses PRO this debate.
PRO falsely suggests that CON has a burden to show that German inaction would have been an improvement on the worst event in human history. Literally, google "worst event in human history" and the very effect caused by Hitler's decision to invade Poland pops up as the very first answer. SInce nobody has yet to prove that any event even CAN be worse than WWII, we may with sound reasons assume that any possible result from a German failure to attack Poland would have, at the very least,ALWAYS been an improvement upon the subsequent catastrophe.
CON argues that Germany's invasion of Poland was unnecessary and dihonest. CON makes several points:
1. Germany and Poland had a truce. Breaking this truce was morally and ethically wrong, and it also damaged Germany's reputation in the international community.
2. Poland was not a military threat to Germany, as Germany had superior military capabilities.
3. Hitler's justification for the invasion was propaganda, and he staged attacks on Germany to frame Poland as the aggressor.
4. The invasion of Poland was the catalyst World War II, which Germany ultimately lost.
Overall, CON's argument is that Germany's invasion of Poland was unnecessary, strategically unwise, and morally wrong. While CON provides some evidence to support these claims, including quotes from historians and information about false-flag attacks staged by the Germans to justify the invasion, history's judgement of Germany's invasion of Poland is very substantially and eloquently documented and Pro's effort in backing his claims felt flimsy next to weight of available evidence.
PRO argues that Hitler was motivated by the concept of Malthusianism, which proposes that the human population will eventually outgrow the availability of resources. PRO reasons that Hitler saw the Malthusian trap as a significant problem that would lead to disaster if Germany was not proactive. The solution, according to the argument, was to create Lebensraum, which means living space in German, for Germans by acquiring more land in Eastern Europe. This expansion of living space, according to the argument, was necessary to prevent the catastrophe of overpopulation and the subsequent scarcity of resources. The argument concludes that that Hitler's policies to create Lebensraum were necessary to preserve the German people's way of life.
CON correctly counters that PRO's interpretation of the term JUSTIFIED is misguided, that whenever JUSTIFIED is used in public discourse, it specifically addresses morality and ethics. This voter disagrees, actions can also be justified by a wide range of values, but critically, this voter agrees that PRO's interpretation of JUSTIFIED as any action that improves on inaction is wrong and contrary to the agreed terms of this debate. CON further challenges PRO's argument that Germany's invasion of Poland was justified on the grounds of self-preservation and freedom, as Hitler's actions were self-inflicted, that Hitler's commitment to human freedom was insincere (to risk offense by understatement), and most importantly that there were alternative solutions to prevent the Malthusian disaster. Finally, CON suggests that Hitler's invasion of Poland was motivated by his ego and vengeance, rather than any legitimate reason, and the pretext for the invasion was based on slander. Unfortunately for CON, he does almost nothing to support any of these claims when, as said before, the abundance of literature supporting any of these arguments surpasses the wish of an historical scholar. Quorum is never a legitimate source for historic analysis and CON astonishingy offers no other sources.
Although PRO loses this debate by monkeying with the established terms, CON loses authority as a credible thinker on the subject of causes of WWII here by merely, lazily, declaiming that PRO is wrong without giving us any of the voluminous evidence that shows PRO is wrong.
PRO faslsely claims CON ignored his single Round1 argument but PRO is referring to his nonsense re-interpretation of the term JUSTIFIED and not PRO's actual argument or CON's refutation, which was quite direct: "Hitler and Germany never claimed Malthusian as a reason," even if it is true that CON's support was weak. PRO dishonestly claims that this means that CON has accepted PRO's ethical framework but in fact, CON was the only one to have mentioned ethics in ROUND1 and PRO won't lay out PRO's own ethical argument until later in R2. PRO fails to identify which ethical framework applies and of the five this voter is familiar with, none reasonably apply to PRO's "fear of hunger justifies any violence " framework. PRO repeats that the invasion of Poland was more preferable than taking no action. PRO offers no evidence to support this claim. PRO argues that the motive for Germany's invasion of Poland is not important but then suggests that Germans were motivated by vengeance (reinforcing CON) including statistics about Danzig and claims of Polish atrocities against Germans. PRO argues that the resources of the Earth are finite and that populations grow faster than the ability to exploit those resources, leading to Malthusian traps. SInce both conditions have always been true, PRO essentially claims that any nation is justified by hunger to violence at any time. PRO never argues that Germany was unique in this justificatioin or that Poland was not just a justified by the reasons in any persecution of ethnic Germans. PRO hypocritically condemns the British and French Empire's colonial exploitations while tauting the necessity of Geman colonial exploitation.
In R3, CON merely repeats his arguments when he has been given good opportunity to expand on them. Most economists point out that Germany's prospects were in fact, excellent if only the Nazis hadn't obscured the national vision with black colored glasses. Unlike the French and Austro-Hungarian Empires, Germany emerged from WWI with its Industrial Economy intact. Russia and the Ottoman collapsed without achieving a true Industrial economy. Most of Continental Europe from the Rhine River east to Asia needed to industrialize and had food aplenty to trade for factory made goods, cars, airplanes, refrigerators, radios and Germany was the closest, cheapest, Industrial economy massively connected by rail and roadway. England had India, France had North Africa but Eastern Europe was worth many times either nation in GDP and the people didn't need to coerced to trade their agricultural wealth for modern convenience. If Germany had forsworn war and merely recognized an America-sized trade advantage lying for thousand of mile east and south of them, Germany would have been the nuclear Superpower competing with the US in the second half of the 20th century, not the USSR. CON is absolutely correct that Germany had an alternative in trade but his failure provide evidence empties the argument. Likewise, the German people had many better alternatives in government to their chosen dictatorship by an ultra-violent, mentally ill failed artist, fairly tried and fairly convicted for treason and failed coup. Hitler's proven contempt for a free Germany should have disqualified him from any German leadership but Germany forgave Hitler his incompetance and willingly surrendered their rights to him for the opportunity to dispose of the Jews. This anti-semitism, too, is part of Germany's blindness to economic oppotrunity- the notion of working with Jews and and Slavs and Poles and Serbs and Turks was just not part of the German notion of utopia. CON has the truth of it but doesn't seem to know who to enliven his truth with facts. PRO has no facts but his lively conduct should have won him this debate if only he hadn't failed to abide by the rules of the debate.
CON gets his act together in R4- a too succinct but well made case. Above all, CON argues that Hitler planned to invade Poland in Mein Kampf, 14 years before the decsion to invade Poland. The German people read Mein Kampf and understood that Hitler planned to invade Poland. Hitler didn't choose to invade Poland, rather Gemany chose to empower Hitler who had long since promised to invade Poland. This single fact, agreed as true by both sides, disproves PRO's case well enough
PRO claims again that CON dropped arguments but this is bullshit. CON answered PRO far more directly than the reverse. PRO keeps trying to change the subject.
PRO claims the judges may not like that the definition was interpreted that way, but con drops that argument and he should be made to pay. Bullshit. Whether I like PRO's definiton or not has nothing to do with the fact that PRO agreed to abide by exactly one defined rule and that was the definition of JUSTIFICATION. Deliberately or no, PRO very badly misinterprets that 2nd clause and since PRO's re-definition is excluded by the rules, CON has no obligation to treat an obv illegitimate re-definiton as legit. Arguments non-sequitur to the central claim need not be addressed by the opposition and incur no penalty for ingoring such distractions. PRO only made one pretty weak argument and now relies heavily on crying fouls. PRO says CON can't make arguments in the final round but that was never in the rules. The single rule CON did ask for agreement on, PRO totally ignored.
CON's sources were B-. Quorum is no kind of source and the first three rounds needed way more sourcing. PRO's sources were D- Chat GPT, Random post, PRO sticks his whole case upon his blinkered definition of JUSTIFICATION but never thinks to provide one objective source that backs up his definition. CON should have switched to PRO's method of recording sources and used all the extra space for argument.
grammar was good. Best grammar and style from Wylted I have ever seen, in fact. Lancelot might want to take some style pointers away from this debate.
Conduct was OK.
Interesting subject. I'd like to see more impressive arguments on either side.
Thanks for the vote!
No problem.
your speculation of my strategy at the end. Is mostly correct. Thanks for your vote
I’m in the middle of being stood up for plans today, so I should be able to get to it shortly.
Thank you guys for agreeing to be judges in the tourney.
Voting deadline is in 22 hours if you’re still interested, but I suppose you could still submit a late vote but it might have to be in the comments.
I know of him well enough to know he isn't a Nazi, so it really shows how disingenuous the left is and how they are creating actual Nazis because people are becoming more immune to that accusation after hearing it so much and thrown at everybody
Trump notoriously caught scrutiny that time he had dinner with Nick Fuentes for not realizing the guy is a Nazi.
It’s worse than you think.
He HATES getting cucked, but takes it anyway because he loves his girl.
I know enough about sneako to know he is a bitch. He is into watching men fuck his girl and he fronts like some sort of hard ass. It's a grift he is doing after he saw the success of Andrew Tate
Just read your question about Nick Fuentes. He seems like a bit of an edge lord from the maybe 2 interviews I have seen with him. He certainly didn't come across as a white nationalist or any of the other things he is accused of being.
I appreciate your rap skills
thabk you, I will be listening to the video for feedback when I get. To work
Voted!
https://youtu.be/1zY1orxW8Aw
I appreciate you trying even if you do come in after the bell.