CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Hitler was one of the best policians... ever.
Let it be known, that this debate is not one condoning Hitlers shocking part in events following his appointment as chancellor, and claiming of Fuhrer position in Germany. This is purely to debate his political ability in rising to such a prestigious position (at the time).
Personally, I agree with the statement, and find it amazing that Adolf Hitler became the Fuhrer, having been a poor student on the streets of Vienna not so long before.
The way he manipulated other politicans, tactfully exploited economic crisis (following the Wall Street Crash), indoctrinated the public and became a god-like figure head of a nation - I believe it to be quite amazing and fascinating.
Whats more, while the methods are not truly acceptable, he brought nationwide unemployment to a minimum, from a situation where a large majority (around 70%, as commonly claimed) of persons 18-35 were out of work. He made Germany a very powerful nation, in an incredibly short amount of time.
He was a leader that his people seemed to adore - that can't be said for many leaders, politicians (etc) now.
He was a monster, but yes, he was also a great politician. (Politician defined as: a person who is professionally involved in politics, especially as a holder of an elected office; a person who acts in a manipulative and devious way, typically to gain advancement within an organization.)
He had a certain view of his own for his country and his people, and he didn't shy away from it. He stood up for his views and was determined to implement it. He convinced his men that he was right and led his people to take drastic measures to make his vision true. Not many people have the ability to coax such a large number of people into doing things that were so insane and inhumane. But I think that this is one of the most important skills a politician must have to win over his/her people and stay their leader and to represent them. If only Hitler wasn't a barbaric maniac, and if he used his skills (especially his orating skills) for a better cause, such as equality, then he wouldn't have only been one of the most powerful or influential politicians, but also one of the most loved politicians.
I agree with your observations of his political aptitude, but I disagree with your assumptions about the good he could have done. Unfortunately, I think it is a far easier thing to feed upon and manipulate fear of the other than compassion for the same. Furthermore, the political tools that Hitler proved adept at utilizing (i.e. violent, oppressive methods) would not have lent themselves to a quest for equality.
Yes, you're right. But I was referring to how he could convince so many people into doing something. I was referring more to eloquence, vigor, passion and most importantly his oratory skills. If his aim/vision was different, I am sure all his skills could have been put to good use.
I recognize that. I also agree that the aforementioned attributes would have served him well had he applied them in a different direction. I think he could have been a successful and even beloved politician had he done so, but I disagree that he would have been so equitably successful as to have been one of the most loved. That requires a certain degree of recognition which I do not know he would have been able to attain without also utilizing the rest of his skills (e.g., suppression, otherization, etc.).
A good politician doesn't murder 20 million people. A good politician doesn't ruin a country's economy. A good politician doesn't destroy a country. No matter how you look at it, Hitler sucked in every way possible and is rotting in Hell.
He manipulated everyone around him, and made it illegal to disagree with him - or at least it was illegal to Express Your disagreement without losing your head.
With that law he proved that he couldn't support his actions with rational argumente, and that made him a terrible politican.
Most successful politicians do not rely upon rational arguments, particularly when dealing with a largely irrational populace. While Hitler arguably ruled by threat and exercise of force, this itself demands a certain political adeptness that most others do not exhibit.
When you speak of who is the best fisherman, you aren't talking about who is the most virtuous fisherman- you are talking about the one who catches the most fish of the best quality in the shortest time with the least effort.
When you speak of who is the best athlete, you again aren't talking about who is the most virtuous athlete- you are talking about the one who is most successful at the sport.
When you speak of who is the best student, you once again aren't talking about who is the most virtuous student- you are talking about the one who has been most successful at his or her studies.
When discussing how 'good' or 'bad' someone is in terms of a role they fulfill, the metric is their success in said role.
By your logic, a person could be an excellent politician without ever once being elected, or ever once being able to affect meaningful change, simply because he acted in a moral, rational way. This is ridiculous.
I disagree - do you Think teenage pop Stars are better at singing than all the other singers out there simply because they are heard by more people? Because they sell more albums or because everyone wants to take take a picture of them and Interview Them?
I dont, there are tons of Stars that are ten times better, yet not half as successful as Justin bieber or miley
You're also conflating the issue somewhat. Music, these days, is rarely just about music- it has a lot to do with image, stage presence, and how well the target audience identifies with them. Justin Bieber may not be the best singer (though I'll touch on that in a bit), but his image and stage presence are extremely appealing to his target audience, who identify with his work very strongly.
The 'goal' of an entertainer (generally speaking) is primarily to entertain others, and secondarily to earn money. Those may not be the only priorities, and they may not always be in that order, but those two are all but ubiquitous, and are generally in that order. A successful entertainer is, therefore, one who has entertained as many people as possible as much as possible, and earned a significant amount of money doing so.
Bieber has this in spades- he is an extremely successful entertainer with a huge fanbase.
But, even if we're only looking at the actual singing- it's still a question of subjective opinion. How 'good' a singer is depends entirely on the opinion of the audience. If a huge body of the population believes that pop artist X is the best musician ever, why does your opinion outweigh that of the others? The only remotely objective way to measure a subjective phenomenon is an aggregate of subjective opinions. What objective measure would you propose to call Singer Y 'better' than Justin Bieber? More specifically, what objective measure would you propose that would label Singer Y as being ten times as good as Justin Bieber despite a lack of success?
I think how good a singer sings is not entirley up to the audience anymore than any other subject, or what you ant to call it is. You could also say that athletes are also dependent on the audiences opinion. People like different atheltes, and say ''they are the best''. Usually we leave it up to professionals in the area, for an athlete it could for example be a judge in the Olympics. Same with actors, bosses, doctors, laywers and I could go on - their all dependent on what the audience thinks.
So if my analogy is bad, so is yours.
I'll give you the fisherman, but if your athlete were to enter the Olympics, would he be judged by his succes? Would he be judged by how many prices he's won in his life? No, he's being judged solely on his perfomance, and that is the only thing that will give him the price.
If a student graduates with straight A's, would you go ''Damn, he's successful'' ?
I wouldn't. But whatever - my point is I don't think you measure how good someone is based solely on their success, you are twisting it around - people don't become successful before they become good, and that is why you can't measure how good you are by success.
You're right- but the success of a singer is entirely dependent on the audience. Even if you dislike an athlete, you can't contest the fact that he or she came in first, although you could spread allegations that he or she cheated in some way.
When comparing athletes from different sports, or performing different functions/positions within the same sport, it's subjective when you say they are the best. When comparing athletes playing the same position (where applicable) in the same sport, the better athlete is generally pretty clear despite naysayers.
An Olympic athlete is judged by his success- in the olympic event he or she is taking part in. The Olympics represent a high level. That said- even getting into the Olympics in the first place requires some recognition of the individuals success. An Olympic sprinter isn't a random Joe pulled off of the street- he or she is a champion sprinter who has defeated more or less all of the competition within his or her own nation.
If a student graduates with straight A's, you might not go 'damn he's successful,' because high school isn't considered a particularly prestigious accomplishment. You would consider him more successful than someone who skirted by with C's though, generally speaking. And that student earning straight A's also has a leg up on the C student both for scholarships and acceptance to schools.
I see your point, but I contest with my own point that level of success would seem to be the only objective measurement of how 'good' someone is. If you believe there is another way, I'm all ears.
You're right- but the success of a singer is entirely dependent on the audience. Even if you dislike an athlete, you can't contest the fact that he or she came in first, although you could spread allegations that he or she cheated in me way.
What about shows like American Idol and x-factor? You can't contest the fact that they came in first either.
he or she is a champion sprinter who has defeated more or less all of the competition within his or her own nation.
That's ture - but how did he get into those contests? In the end it is talent that makes you succesful.
If a student graduates with straight A's, you might not go 'damn he's successful,' because high school isn't considered a particularly prestigious accomplishment.
Who said anything about high school? Maybe you did and I didn't notice, but if you don't think a high school student with straight A is a prestigious accomplishment then maybe a .. harvard student or whatever.
I see your point too, but I have not changed my mind. I still belive Hitler was a bad politician, even though he was very successful.. at first.
What about shows like American Idol and x-factor? You can't contest the fact that they came in first either.
Exactly my point. These shows are typically a combination of judge rulings and audience voting. The ones who come in first, the ones who are successful on the show, are the ones who are ranked the highest in the aggregated subjective opinion of the audience and/or judges. Nothing inconsistent about that.
That's ture - but how did he get into those contests? In the end it is talent that makes you succesful.
Talent represents an aptitude for a particular type of learning- can be physical or mental. Talent alone does not make someone successful- it simply gives them a head start vs those who are less talented. Talent reduces the amount of effort needed to reach the same level, but it does not replace effort at all.
Who said anything about high school? Maybe you did and I didn't notice, but if you don't think a high school student with straight A is a prestigious accomplishment then maybe a .. harvard student or whatever.
I would generally be considered impressed by someone who graduated from an Ivy League School with honors. I would be particularly impressed by someone who graduated from an Ivy League School summa cum laude. I would certainly call these individuals successful students.
I see your point too, but I have not changed my mind. I still belive Hitler was a bad politician, even though he was very successful.. at first.
Fair enough. Can we split the difference and agree, then, that in terms of political capability/skill, Hitler was a good politician- but in terms of policy, forethought, morality, and leadership he was a bad one?
I also think it is worth mentioning, that in order to become successful, all you need is enough money. If you want to be a successful politician, just hire a killer campaign. And if you don't believe that people can be successful bad politicians, just look at the danish parlament. It's fucked up, all because people voted for the wrong person, they voted for a BAD politican, who is very successful, since she is the president.
Of course, you're right. President Ross Perot comes to mind. Crazy how he managed to buy the 92 and 96 elections like that, isn't it?
Money gives you an advantage over the competition, and it helps you get your image out there- but you still need to be a good politician to gain votes. I think you're misunderstanding what politics is, and conflating 'politician' with 'leader.' Someone can be quite skilled at politics, while still making a pigs ear of the nation. Hitler was an excellent politician, but he was a poor LEADER, and as such he led his country and people to ruin.
You are making a semantic argument rather than substantive dispute, and a poor one at that.
My understanding of which assets constitute a good politician derive from utility, or in other words whatever enables the politician to be effective in their role. Yours appear to be grounded in rather useless standards that have no bearing whatsoever upon the ability of the politician to be a politician.
I juxtaposed our arguments to demonstrate the flagrant absurdity of yours. You have yet to actually defend your stance for defining a good politician independent of their aptitude at politics. If you cannot be bothered to read my arguments in full or defend your own assertions, I cannot be bothered to persist in this farce.
I have defended my ''stance'' in my previous argument. If you truly think that a good politican is a succesful one, doesn't that mean Obama is the best politican in America, since he is at the top of his profession?
I have defended my ''stance'' in my previous argument.
I do not think that you have. You asserted a framework in which your stance would be true, but you have not proven the legitimacy of that framework (which undermines the validity of your stance).
If you truly think that a good politican is a succesful one, doesn't that mean Obama is the best politican in America, since he is at the top of his profession?
That would depend upon how restrictive one wants to be in distinguishing "good" from "best". Proportionately speaking, if one were to use solely this criteria (top of the profession) to establish who is the "best" politician you would still be setting aside a minority from the majority. That being said, I would not personally limit any definition of success to a single variable; I would argue that success is measured in most fields not just by attaining a position of power but by wielding that power effectively and commonly towards some end.
Ridiculous, I think.
More ridiculous than not caring whether the politician succeeds in actually doing anything, or even being a politician?
That would depend upon how restrictive one wants to be in distinguishing "good" from "best".
If something is good, that means it can be better, and if it can be better, that means it's better than something else - ergo it's the best.
Good is an adjective, adjective come in three forms. If something is good, then there's bound to be something that is best.
More ridiculous than not caring whether the politician succeeds in actually doing anything, or even being a politician?
I didn't say I didn't care - I said I define a good politicans one who can convince people that what he stands for is what is the best for his country, one who can support his beliefs, morals and ethics with rational arguments that are relevant for the time and place we live in.
I didn't say it didn't matter whether the politicaian is successful or not, but his success doesn't make him good, it just makes him popular.
Frequently, yes, but not always. Why?
Because I have to use a dictionary to understand the fancy words you use.
If something is good, that means it can be better, and if it can be better, that means it's better than something else - ergo it's the best. Good is an adjective, adjective come in three forms. If something is good, then there's bound to be something that is best.
I do know that. In the context of this debate, however, we are not discussing a singular best but a group of bests ("one of the best"). This necessarily leaves some grey area with respect to how selective we are in determining how many politicians can be "one of the best".
I didn't say I didn't care - I said I define a good politicans one who can convince people that what he stands for is what is the best for his country, one who can support his beliefs, morals and ethics with rational arguments that are relevant for the time and place we live in.
I actually agree with you until you start talking about them needing to use rational arguments. My express point is that I do not think rational arguments are the way that good politicians (or any politician for that matter) convince people that what they stand for is the best for the country or that their beliefs/morals/ethics ought to be supported. Most people are not rational, and making a rational appeal will not convince them. The truly rational thing to do in that light, then, is not to advance a rational argument but to advance an effective argument.
I didn't say it didn't matter whether the politicaian is successful or not, but his success doesn't make him good, it just makes him popular.
I would argue that some degree of popularity is necessary to persuade people to support you and your cause. An unpopular politician is a politically impotent one.
Because I have to use a dictionary to understand the fancy words you use.
Ah, I see. For the record, I do not use those words because they are "fancy" or because they make me feel superior in any way. This is genuinely just how my brain functions.
I do know that. In the context of this debate, however, we are not discussing a singular best but a group of bests ("one of the best"). This necessarily leaves some grey area with respect to how selective we are in determining how many politicians can be "one of the best".
Yeah, but if you use success as your measuring metric, doesn't that mean whoever is the most successful is the best? And that would leave the president in a country, and since America is probably .. I don't know what exactly, but they kinda are the country that has the most influnece on the rest of the world, then it would leave Obama to be the most successful politican. I think there are far better politicans than Obama.
Ah, I see. For the record, I do not use those words because they are "fancy" or because they make me feel superior in any way. This is genuinely just how my brain functions.
That's okay, english is not my first language, but it's nice to expand your vocabulary :) There is just no one else on this site who uses words I need to look up, so I was just wondering if you talk this way too.
Yeah, but if you use success as your measuring metric, doesn't that mean whoever is the most successful is the best? And that would leave the president in a country, and since America is probably .. I don't know what exactly, but they kinda are the country that has the most influnece on the rest of the world, then it would leave Obama to be the most successful politican. I think there are far better politicans than Obama.
This would be true if I defined success as being in the top of your field, but I do not and never have in the context of this debate. My definition of success pertains to efficacy in a position of power.
That's okay, english is not my first language, but it's nice to expand your vocabulary :) There is just no one else on this site who uses words I need to look up, so I was just wondering if you talk this way too.
Ha, yes, most Americans do not speak English the way I do. I tend to use a larger vocabulary, do not use contractions much, and am fairly formal in my speech. It gets read as stuck-up and pretentious quite often, unfortunately. It is refreshing to have someone be alright with it! You speak English very well, by the way; how long have you been studying/practicing? (If that is okay to ask.)
Of course; credit where credit is due. I am beyond jealous that you start learning another language that early in your country. We are only just starting to do that here in the U.S., and only in some schools. It is so much harder to try learning by the time you are 14 years old (which is when I first had access to classes), and I do not have the aptitude for languages to start with. I can function in Spanish, but would not have hazarded to call myself fluent even when I was at my peak in practice.
A non-english speaking country is more or less forced to learn english, if they want to be taken seriously. A person who doesn't know how to speak english will have some practical problems at work, because the chances of you working with a person who doesn't know danish is pretty big. The chances however to work with a person who can't speak english is not that big.
That makes some sense. At the same time, Spanish has actually been pretty important in the U.S. for a while due to immigration here; yet we are only just now starting to instruct youth in the language. While it is not necessary, it is certainly quite useful.
That is true, but it also makes sense, that the people who immigrate into another country are the one's who should learn the language, and not the other way around.
But speaking several languages, even just a little, is always good.
I agree, and I think by and large immigrants usually tend to if they're able and especially when there are language learning programs in place to support their learning. That said, Spanish is increasingly important in the U.S. not only due to immigration but because our immediate geographic neighbors predominantly speak Spanish (Mexico, Latin America, etc.) and English with a little French (Canada). In light of that, a lot of employers are looking for bilingual workers which puts my age bracket at a distinct disadvantage compared to the generation immediately below us, some of which is now being taught Spanish at a younger age.
And all that aside, I just really wish I had personally been able to learn another language (any one, really) at an earlier age.
He was the worst politician ever. A good politician doesn't lead his country to war and devastation. He was a good actor, but a populist politician and a psychopath individual.
I recognize that you did not say it, but it follows from what you said. Had the Allied Powers lost the war, then it would have been their nations lying in destruction and not Germany; pursuant to your own observation this would have rendered the Allied leaders among the worst politicians in history.
A number of the Allied nations were not under any immediate threat. Further, for a number there were alternatives other than military engagement. As far as the supposed distinction between politics and the military, it is nothing more than an unfounded supposition. The two are intermixed, as evidenced by your original mingling of the two in your original post.
I do not see this exchange going anywhere particularly interesting, and accordingly I will likely not make further reply.
He manipulated everyone around him, and made it illegal to disagree with him - or at least it was illegal to Express Your disagreement without losing your head.
With that law he proved that he couldn't support his actions with rational argumente, and that made him a terrible politican.
He was the worst politic an that i ever seen before. H e played with many people of life . How could he be good politic an it is disappointing to hear that. On my opinion Hitler is just monster or some kind of crazy person.
the rise and fall of Adolf Hitler .... another antichrist indeed ... http://dadmansabode.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1595#p1595 .... 60 - 100 million dead over 30 years of war ... a drop in the bucket for the final antichrist to come
