The correct answer was Frederick the Great of Prussia. Humble. Turned his weak nation in a strong military power. A tactful military leader. Supported the sciences. Brought great minds to Prussia. Allowed for the success of commoners with a new meritocrat system (Ex. Kant). He was probably gay... Increased trade. Was a pioneer of military technology. Was a revolutionary military theorist. Brought artillery to battle. Etc.
"The correct answer was Frederick the Great of Prussia." Opinion debates don't have correct answers...
Do you really have that little common sense and that much obliviousness to mannerisms in use of the English language?
And was the main inspiration for Hitler to do what he did ;)
That was Nietzsche, not Kant .
Duh, what? We are referring to Frederick the Great here, right? If I've drunkenly stumbled in on a philosophy debate, I swear...
A common school of thought holds Nietzsche's works influenced Hitler into committing the actions he did. I assumed you mistook Kant for Nietzsche. Haven't heard about My Homie Freddie G doin' it though. Under his rule, Prussia saw an unprecedented level of cultural and religious tolerance. - I guess I'm behind on my Hitler theories...
Exactly, which is what Hitler wanted to reach. Freddie G was everything Hitler wanted to be, and he made no effort to hide his love for him. The only art in the infamous bunker was a giant portrait of Freddie G. He forcibly filtered music so only music Freddie G composed or approved of was available to the public. And, perhaps most importantly, Freddie G created what was essentially the greater German Empire, something which Hitler took inspiration form in his pursuit of lebensraum. Not to take anything away from Freddie, but still.
Apparently, he brought FG Slim's coffin down to his bunker. Although, the irony is that Hitler did exactly the opposite of what Heavy G worked for.
George Washington. led the americans to become the great nation that we are.
You're not a great nation... far too many flaws for that. Powerful alone is not great, especially if all that power is mostly used by idiots who only seem to care about more power, and money.
But your nation isn't great? An it's common knowledge that George Washington is the Jesus of American Nationalism.
George Washington is the Jesus of American Nationalism. No...that's Reagan.
Are there statues of Ronald Reagan all over the USA?
Yup. They're called conservatives .
You can't actually call Reagan a conservative by any modern standard. He isn't enough of an authoritarian right-wing extremist for today's conservatives. They're just too stupid to realize how liberal his policies really were.
You can't actually call Reagan a conservative by any modern standard Who said we need an criterion to be modern? :) He isn't enough of an authoritarian right-wing extremist for today's conservatives Today's conservatives? To which are you referring? The media driven mob of anti-intellectuals that argue tradition for tradition alone or on religious grounds, or the philosophically driven Libertarian-minded group rising in the country? Reagan need not be the pure conservative some may wish him to be, but he has added much to what SHOULD be in the conservative platform. They're just too stupid to realize how liberal his policies really were. There is a difference between being truly stupid and falling prey to the whore media, ignorance is in my opinion the better description.
Who said we need an criterion to be modern? :) I did. Modern conservatives worship him and use him as an example of how great their beliefs are completely oblivious to the fact the nothing could be further from the truth. But finding the truth was never a conservative strong suit. Today's conservatives? To which are you referring? Republicans. Social conservatives. Neoconservatives. Paleoconservatives. Etc. Libertarians are not conservatives. They are classical liberals and only conservative in the economic sense. Even then, their Austrian beliefs differ greatly from conservatives. Reagan was no economic conservative. He oft raised taxes, increased government spending to stimulate the economy, increased public sector employment, etc. Any libertarian who knows their stuff or reads Mises.org knows that. Some of his social policies were conservative, but he was much more a centrist by today's standards. There is a difference between being truly stupid and falling prey to the whore media, ignorance is in my opinion the better description. Is there? Gullibility and ignorance may be one factor, but it takes a truly stupid person to continue to believe something after it has been refuted. And if they remain as you say "ignorant," that is WILLFULLY so. Willfully ignorant people I consider very stupid.
I did I do not accept your criterion. There should be no distinction between "modern" and "old" conservatives, either they hold values consistent with those that existed at the formation of the nation or they do not. Calling a blue kettle black doesn't change the kettle, despite what you're referring to as "conservatives" may want to think. nothing could be further from the truth I agree that his influence on the conservative platform is exaggerated to an astonishing degree, he did however benefit the conservative platform by attempting to re-institute a few notions forgotten then and now by the platform. Republicans Republicans and their fake philosophy sprouted by Glenn Beck and the like are not conservatives. Social restrictions and pro-war stances are not the positions that one reaches using the philosophical foundations of the nation. Libertarians are not conservatives. That is up to each individual Libertarian to call. I would never call myself a conservative because of my Objectivist views, but I know plenty of others that would. They are classical liberals and only conservative in the economic sense. Economics is inseparable from any other imaginable branch of social behavior. It's the application of philosophy to transactions. Libertarians hold the non-aggression principle as the highest value of society, leading to holding free-market and other coercive-free views. That is the framework that built the nation, however clouded it may of become. but it takes a truly stupid person to continue to believe something after it has been refuted. The view may be stupid, but that doesn't have to reflect the individual. Just like the average religious person is not stupid because of a certain view they may hold.
Lao Tzu. He lead by example and in my books that already puts him leaps and bounds above the people most commonly thought of as "great leaders". "To lead people, walk beside them... As for the best leaders, the people do not notice their existence. The next best, the people honor and praise. The next, the people fear; and the next, the people hate. When the best leader's work is done the people say, 'We did it ourselves'." —Lao Tzu
Lord Horatio Nelson has to be the greatest leader in my opinion. He may not be as well known as George Washington or any of the others listed above but he gave his life in service for his country, he did his duty to defend his people (not to mention the leadership from Cuthbert Collingwood) and without his victory (no pun intended) at the Battle of Trafalgar on 21st Oct 1805, then we Brits would most likely be flying Spanish or French flags.
The Battle of Trafalger was one of the deciding battles on which European nation would dominate the globe. It's a good thing we Brits won it.
Ashoka the Great! He was a great military leader that united India, and after he had united India militarily, he became a great leader of peace. He's one of the few leaders, maybe even the only one, who have been able to make the transition from being a great leader in time of war to being a great leader in time of peace.
Okay, I guess George Washington was another such leader.
Also, Cyrus the Great of Persia did both at the same time. He was continually annexing new city-states to Persia, and he led them so well that new city states were happy to be conquered by him. At least, that's the story.
George Washington! He brought America out of the tyranny of Britain!
Napoleon Bonaparte in my opinion. The man single handedly almost conquerd all of Europe. He raised chaos everywhere. It takes a special type of person to go from firing cannons to becoming the Emperor of France.
Mahatma Gandhi. He actually tried to live by the words he spoke making him greater than all other leaders.
Supporting Evidence:
Gandhi
(en.wikipedia.org)
286 days ago
Harry Potter led an army to defeat Voldemort, has anyone else done that?
Yes, because anything written by J.K.Rowling belongs in the "History" section of a bookshop.
Harry Potter was written in the past and it is therefore a piece of history. Not real history, but such was not specified in the title.
That is ridiculous logic. The debate was clearly talking about real history and you just thought you'ld try be a smart ass and say something stupid.
"The greatest leader in history" This does not differentiate between fiction and non-fiction. Therefore it was not ridiculous logic.
If the debate creator wanted to include fictional leaders then he would have stated it, otherwise we have to accept that the debate is discussing real leaders.
Hannibal Smith, he was no sucka, and could formulate a plan, that could, by modifying a vehicle, thwart the evil doings of small town bullies anywhere, with never a fatality no matter how many bullets they randomly shot in the air, barrel of oil that exploded or vehicle that got upturned by strategically placed ramp. I don't think Napoleon et al could consistently come up with novel ways to drug B.A Baracus and get his ass on a flying vehicle, man was no fool. Evidence of perfect plan execution below that led to the downfall of communism.
Augusts Caesar? Adolf Hitler? Barrack Obama? Damn, all these leaders suck!
Augusts Caesar Augustus not Augusts. Great leader Adolf Hitler One of the greatest leaders of all time Barrack Obama Barack, not Barrack. Great Orator, decent leader.
Barack, not Barrack. Great Orator, decent leader. Not without the help of his great teleprompters!
Adolf Hitler One of the greatest leaders of all time Not really, although he brought a destroyed nation people like to forget that he destroyed it again.
Adolf Hitler One of the greatest leaders of all time I feel this is actually a myth, though I'm not sure why it was created. For a start, all the "good" Hitler did was completely undone within 10 years of its creation, for obvious reasons. And a lot of the "good" he did wasn't really that... good. One may argue that he rescued Germany's economy. But he did it by massively centralising it on war and rapid expansion, and basically meant that if it weren't for WW2, the German economy would have completely imploded. Perhaps it's just me, but I feel a leader who's economic policies are contingent upon death and destruction, can't be called "great". The cultural policies he enacted were oppressive and tyrannical. Mass censorship, religious persecution, political imprisonment, etc. For chrissakes, he banned jazz because it was too black. Tbh, I struggle to think of many good things he did which are useful today. Autobahn... er... I guess we wouldn't have Dad's Army without Hitler.
"One may argue that he rescued Germany's economy. But he did it by massively centralising it on war and rapid expansion, and basically meant that if it weren't for WW2, the German economy would have completely imploded." There are many cases where he fiddled with statistics. He reduced unemploymeny not by creating jobs but by redefining who counted as unemployed.
but he increased the military by thousands and needed hundreds to wrok in factories, this requires many people
He also claimed that unemployed women, Jews, homosexuals (etc.) do not count as unemployed. Causing the level of unemployment in his statistics to shoot down.
"I feel this is actually a myth, though I'm not sure why it was created. For a start, all the "good" Hitler did was completely undone within 10 years of its creation, for obvious reasons. It was undone by the allies who drove it to ruin." And a lot of the "good" he did wasn't really that... good. One may argue that he rescued Germany's economy. But he did it by massively centralising it on war and rapid expansion, he went to war to prove Germans were the Aryan race, he thought war proved superiority and he wanted to show how gifted his people were. he also wanted to win back the territory that was rightfully Germany's but was stolen during WWI. some policies were a result of the Treaty of Versailles which was highly unfair. it was also partly revenge, partly proof of german superiority. "The cultural policies he enacted were oppressive and tyrannical. Mass censorship, religious persecution," he was into family values. he was against smoking, drugs, extramarital sex, homosexuality, drinking, cursing, etc. so censorship was the only available option. he persecuted Jews for ruining his life and he thought they destroyed Germany's economy. "I struggle to think of many good things he did which are useful today" Nuclear technology. weapons technology. technology made as a result of the war. he made america a superpower because it needed to keep up with superior Nazi strength. the Volkswagen. the rebuilt German industry. the rebuilt German economy. communism didn't spread through out east Europe. he reduced the population so it isn't too big. the AK-47 was built as a result. and much more. not to mention the top secret Nazi stuff,industries, buildings, etc the allies destroyed. read about hitler and nazi germany or go back to school.
I suggest that this discussion is continued over on your argument I just disputed. I will rebut your argument, but don't bother responding on this little thread It was undone by the allies who drove it to ruin. The allies never would have done that if not for Hitler's foreign policy. he went to war to prove Germans were the Aryan race, he thought war proved superiority and he wanted to show how gifted his people were. And (as I really hope you'll agree here) he was wrong. he also wanted to win back the territory that was rightfully Germany's but was stolen during WWI Germany stole it in the first place. some policies were a result of the Treaty of Versailles which was highly unfair. Agreed. he was into family values Warped, occultist family values. he was against smoking, drugs, extramarital sex, homosexuality, drinking, cursing, etc. I disagree that they are bad things. he persecuted Jews for ruining his life and he thought they destroyed Germany's economy. Again, he was wrong here. Nuclear technology Marie and Pierre Curie. . weapons technology. technology made as a result of the war. Eh, I will admit the ME262s and Konigs were pretty awesome, but really this wasn't exclusively German, Russia and America also had awesome tech. he made america a superpower because it needed to keep up with superior Nazi strength. Not his intention. the Volkswagen I agree. the rebuilt German industry. the rebuilt German economy. Which was doomed to destruction. communism didn't spread through out east Europe. Communism is not inherently bad. And it did anyway. he reduced the population so it isn't too big. By ethnic cleansing. read about hitler and nazi germany or go back to school. I scored 100% on every test we did on Nazi Germany (bar one on women, I didn't give a shit and only got 92 or something).
he also wanted to win back the territory that was rightfully Germany's but was stolen during WWI Germany stole it in the first place. no Prussia was German and so were other smaller pieces that went to the soviet union, Poland, and Czech republic. he was against smoking, drugs, extramarital sex, homosexuality, drinking, cursing, etc. I disagree that they are bad things. Why are they good? smoking ruins lungs, mouths, and the heart. drugs ruined people lives and careers. look at former superstars like Lindsey lohan. e.s. and homos aren't bad i agree. drinking, makes you make bad decisions, kills brain cells, and made Alois Hitler (his dad) beat Adolf. cursing is improper, rude and bad but not that bad. he was into family values Warped, occultism family values. many of his family values apply today. he even set up animal rights he made America a superpower because it needed to keep up with superior Nazi strength. Not his intention. but its something good Hitler did (indirectly) that is good today. communism didn't spread through out east Europe. Communism is not inherently bad. And it did anyway. but he delayed it and did the WWI allies bidding. he reduced the population so it isn't too big. By ethnic cleansing. it was bad but at least the earth isn't as crowded. read about Hitler and Nazi Germany or go back to school. I scored 100% on every test we did on Nazi Germany (bar one on women, I didn't give a shit and only got 92 or something). there's no way to prove your grades though and if you did get 100%, you should have a better idea of the good things Hitler did.
Like I said, everything I needed to say was said in the other argument on this page.
Its Hitler. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler . He saved Germany from economic depression. he made a way to quickly get across the nation and an affordable, efficient car to drive. he understood the problems of the average German and solved most of them.he went against the Treaty of Versailles, well aware of the consequences, just to help Germany. he was dedicated to his nation and had a gift with words he is well known for his speeches and persuaded many people when speaking.he was brave and daring. he made jobs and rebuilt industry. he got war-torn, impoverished Germany and built it into a powerful nation until the allies destroyed it yet again. he was an individual with radical ideas and views which paralleled most people, yet he still tried to become fuhrer. he created nuclear technology well before the u.s. which merely stole his ideas. when Germany was losing he knew he had failed her, so he punished himself with suicide. he didn't run away or surrender to become another "November criminal". he did so much for Germany. he -one man-turned Germany to its former glory and to its height! the allies found Berlin a city of marble, and left it a city of brick.
I think you left out a few pretty important details. Is it really great leadership if you built a powerful nation based on a foundation of racism and discrimination?
america the great nation did so. remember slavery? racist cops? corruption? Iraq war? the fact that it as now very hard to get into the nation. THE NATIVE AMERICAN DEATHS? AFRICAN PERSECUTION? Julius Caeser killed thousands to expand rome. he was also racist to non-Romans. Ancient China was very hostlie towards outsiders. etc notice they are great civilizations and great leaders
america the great nation did so. I never argued America is a great nation, its far from it. remember slavery? This is different. Hitler wanted all Jews dead. Most other countries in the world agreed that this was an atrocity at the time. During the time of slavery, it was not universally considered wrong. I'm not defending it, I'm just saying this comparison isn't too accurate. racist cops? Cops do not run a country the way Hitler did. corruption? Kind of generic. Iraq war? What? The Iraq war was not because of race. It was because of acts committed by a group of people. the fact that it as now very hard to get into the nation. Its not that hard. Actually may be too easy. THE NATIVE AMERICAN DEATHS? Again, American leadership did not call for the deaths of Native Americans. AFRICAN PERSECUTION? Can't deny that, I guess.
america the great nation did so. I never argued America is a great nation, its far from it. true. i thought you were gonna be a patriot. Iraq war? What? The Iraq war was not because of race. It was because of acts committed by a group of people. like bush, Hitler wanted to expand. lither wanted to prove Germans were "Aryans" and he attacked countries without provocation to seize the economic assets. same as Iraq. bush wanted the oil, so he made AL Qaeda to attack the twin towers, framed Iraq, lied about the WMD's and killed innocent people. kinda like Hitler. THE NATIVE AMERICAN DEATHS? Again, American leadership did not call for the deaths of Native Americans. it did for expansion but this IS about Hitler not America's flaws
like bush, Hitler wanted to expand. Bush didn't want to expand... bush wanted the oil This was not the main reason for war. so he made AL Qaeda to attack the twin towers, framed Iraq, lied about the WMD's and killed innocent people. What do you mean he made them attack the twin towers? How?
bush wanted the oil This was not the main reason for war. yes it was. iraq has oil. usa needs oil. oil is valuable. usa wanted money and to control the currency in which oil is paid in. http://tonydan.hubpages.com/hub/Three-Reasons-We-Invaded-Iraq so he made AL Qaeda to attack the twin towers, framed Iraq, lied about the WMD's and killed innocent people. What do you mean he made them attack the twin towers? How? i dont know the whole story. usa trained people to be AL Qaeda to start a war in iraq an to control it. bush ordered them to attack the twin towers, they obeyed and boom. iraqi oil is now american oil. plus in the news, al qaeda captured middle eastern towns. this was a covert way for usa to conquer iraq. how can terrorists kill so many military personal? also, there was no terrorism in the middle east prior to the war.
You honestley believe that bullshit Yes terrorism is caused by the us Unconventional and proxy warfare there are a couple of top secret plans and information hidden from the public. Look at the SEALS. america wants to be the best by any means neccesary. Either that or I may just be a conspiracy theorist. Also, the iraq and afghanistan wars were unprovoked.
Also, why haven't the us soldiers withdrawn entirely from iraq after killing osama? Was that not the "main reason" to invade iraq? Tell me your opinion then. Why are we in iraq? Why have we not withdrawn? Why have we kill so many civilians and raided mossks? What did we gain if not oil? If the reason was terrorism, why are we not helping poorer african countries like sierra leone and other one with no governments and high crime rates the way we did iraq?
Yes. What precludes a terrible, terrible person who used his leadership to do terrible things from being a great leader?
He saved Germany from economic depression But did it in such a way that necessitated a horrific war to keep the German economy from imploding. The entire economy became massively centralized around the military, and as a result, war was needed to stop the economy collapsing. Any leader who bases his economic policies around Jingoism and death cannot be great. he made a way to quickly get across the nation and an affordable, efficient car to drive Agreed. he understood the problems of the average German and solved most of them. No he didn't, he only understood the problems of the "pure" German, and caused problems for those that didn't match his warped criteria. he went against the Treaty of Versailles, well aware of the consequences, just to help Germany. And as a result, destroyed Germany. he was dedicated to his nation and had a gift with words he is well known for his speeches and persuaded many people when speaking.he was brave and daring. This I can't deny. he made jobs and rebuilt industry See my first point regarding the economy. he got war-torn, impoverished Germany and built it into a powerful nation until the allies destroyed it yet again. The destruction of Germany was Hitler's fault. he created nuclear technology well before the u.s. which merely stole his ideas. Nuclear technology is generally credited to Marie and Pierre Curie, making it a polish invention, I believe. If you're referring to bombs, then the Manhattan project was developed pretty much independently from Germany, with a little help from Einstein.
nice argument. he got war-torn, impoverished Germany and built it into a powerful nation until the allies destroyed it yet again. The destruction of Germany was Hitler's fault. No. he was to stubborn to surrender and the allies came in. the damage from battles are kinda okay. but the Berlin wall and the way the allies ruled Germany caused many problem he went against the Treaty of Versailles, well aware of the consequences, just to help Germany. And as a result, destroyed Germany. he couldn't stay in office watching Germans suffer. he had to do SOMETHING. if the treaty was more fair and didnt cripple germany, he might not have disobeyed it.
By the way, if you want to bold a quote to make it easier to read, put two asterisks around each side to make it so. So 88Hello88 would make "Hello" appear bold if the 8s were asterisks. he got war-torn, impoverished Germany and built it into a powerful nation until the allies destroyed it yet again. The allies destroyed it because Hitler was intent on mass expansion, ethnic cleansing, and war crime. No. he was to stubborn to surrender and the allies came in. the damage from battles are kinda okay. but the Berlin wall and the way the allies ruled Germany caused many problem I don't dispute this, but that isn't really relevant. he went against the Treaty of Versailles, well aware of the consequences, just to help Germany. He was not unique in this school of thought though. The spartacists were one that spring to mind. he couldn't stay in office watching Germans suffer. he had to do SOMETHING. if the treaty was more fair and didnt cripple germany, he might not have disobeyed it. I doubt a man as... well Hitler-like as Hitler would not have done what he did if Versailles was more lenient. He wanted complete assimilation of all Germans into one mass empire where no impurities would be tolerated. Versailles was merely an excuse, I feel.
nice man. you've got me beat. hes still a good leader though. he went to war and won until japan attacked USA and it entered the war. to bring an impoverished nation to military superiority for a couple years is a sign of great leadership
Genghis Khan, united his people, which had never been done before, took down a common enemy and created the biggest empire created by one man in history, brilliant warleader.
|
