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.
This is a no brainer (I hope at least...) while I may not like him or his policies, Bush was democratically elected (kind of anyway, almost at least.)
Yeah, usually it seems that if you kill one bad guy, another would just take his place, and be just as bad or worse, and it's almost always a society problem, as opposed to an individual.
Hitler was one of those rare cases I think though, that killing him would have really saved millions. I don't think there was another "Hitler" in waiting to fill that vaccuum of power.
Good point about keeping him alive Kuk. I think he's been studied extensively though, and like most people of his ilk it's been determined he suffered all kinds of mental sickness, shizophrenia (sp), parkinson's, plus a drug addiction. Killing him early may have been a mercy to both him and the world.
I think it should be noted that Hitler gained power legitimately as well. I'd probably shoot every moron at the Treaty of Versailles who paved the way for Nazi Germany and radical Islamic terrorism.
But he was not voted in. I'm not going to look this up again right now, it was in another debate though, and I forget his name again, but another guy won, a WWI hero, but he died. Hitlers party did not have even close to a majority, but for some political reasons his party ended up in power.
Er, not very helpful. Point is though, it's not like the majority of Germans were originaly down for the cause. Hitler literally single handedly whipped the people into a frenzy through his speeches.
That's what I mean, I don't think just any other person would have been able to kind of invoke that mass hysteria he seemed to have.
I agree that Hitler wasn't elected and that assassination at an early stage would have saved millions of lives. At the same time I think that in hindsight we should consider how Hitler was able to convince so many people that he was right. And whether or not he was the driving force behind the German war effort or whether he was merely the catalyst that got things moving.
My answer to this is the Treaty of Versailles. I suppose I'm trying to push a theory in a place that probably isn't appropriate, but it seems to me that had the Allies been more reasonable at the end of WWI the German people would have never accepted Adolf Hitler. The truth is, though the majority of the country may not have been part of the Nazi party the Germans wanted a scapegoat for their troubles. They wanted to lash out at the world and they did. They blamed France, England, and of course the Jews. And they worked to recover the prosperity that was lost during and after WWI. Don't take this the wrong way, I lived in Germany for three years and have an enormous respect for the German people, for a number of reasons. That doesn't change the fact that the Germany as a whole was desperate to prove itself as a world power and to recover the economic prosperity that they had enjoyed prior to World War I.
Simply put, I'm not convinced that assassinating Adolf Hitler would have put a stop to the Holocaust once it started, it almost certainly would not have stopped the war; not unless Hitler's death was coupled with a major military victory for the Allies. By the end of the war Hitler was horribly mismanaging the German war effort, possibly out of desperation, or out of insanity and was almost certainly a factor in Allied victories. I believe that if Hitler had been removed from the equation after the United States entered the war, a more competent leader would have stepped into his place and the war effort may have gone differently.
Where were you two weeks ago, when I said exactly what you said about Hitler mismanaging the war toward the end, and getting a flurry of down votes for my repetition of historical fact?
For the record, I think you are absolutely correct. Had a more competent leader taken power after the dye had been cast, had Germany defeated the Russians, and gained all of those resources, I'm not sure even the U.S. at that time could have stopped them had they decided to eventually cross the lake.
I did not consider the plight of the German people. Like I said further up in this debate, almost always there is no single "bad guy," but some underlying problem with a society. That may very well be the case with Hitler as well.
Hitler saved the german economy, prevented the spread of communism, and made many important achievements. Killing bush, however, will save many iraqis and preserve the american economy and kill off a major terrorist. http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2012/10/bush-and-blair-wanted-war-crimes
I'm not 100% sure what set of facts you are working from, but they are not the correct ones I assure you.
Way more Jewish people were killed than died in the Iraq War. When you add everyone killed in WWII Iraq is not even a comparison.
Let me make it clear, I'm debating the lesser of two evils here, (speaking of the war, I'm not for the assassination of Bush. You can't kill someone for being an idiot, if so kill everyone who elected him, not just him... which would be more people than WWII and Iraq War combined by the way)... where was I?
Oh yeah, there's no comparison. It's an evil (though crazy) ass who caused millions upon millions to die, vs. spoiled governor's son way too dumb for his position listening to douchebags like Dick.
This I can't deny, but I never said more iraqis died, so that is irrelevent. Also, the death toll for WWII has to be a lot. It was a world war, though iraq was the strong picking on a weak country for oil.
you can't kill someone for being an idiot
True, but this debate is asking who would you kill I was only coneying my opinion. If you diasgree with the topic, then leave. And killingg the people who voted for him would be cruel, unnecesarry, and against democracy you communist.
there is no comparison
Agreed. Hitler was person of the year, he rebuilt the german economy, converted war torn germany to military and economic superpower, brought peace and order, improved german citizens lives, was responsible for research and many influences on american achievements (I.e. rocket technology), was loved by all germans, pretty much founded modern technology, and much more. Bush merely got oil for his company, ruined the economy, and was hated by many. You are right, there is no comparison. You also made an argument based on 1 small fact and make Das Furher sound better than bush.
Give me 5 things we will gain by killing off hitler, how society would improve without nazi research, and 5 reasons hitler was bad. Then give me 5 reasons bush was better than hitler and 5 achievements and how society improved under bush. If you manage to support your sorry, crappy, unsupported excuse for a counter argument, I will lay down my argument.
Number of deaths is more than ample evidence. In order for it to be more beneficial to society for millions and millions to die instead of a hundred thousand or so, you must believe that humans are not important to society. This is incorrect as humans are what society is made up.
Uh, I don't know, but I forgot to take into account the low voter turnout in the U.S.
Around 50 some million voted for Bush (less than who voted for Gore btw, Iraq never had to happen, nor this recession, if we had a popular vote) and 60 some million died in WWII. My assumption was incorrect. More people died in WWII and in Iraq combined than who voted for Bush.
However, Iraq is still a very small number in comparison.
You dumbass! You came to a debate not knowing how to respond or not knowing something! You are always supposed to be prepared! The fact that you didn't know how many people died in WWII and iraq compared to gthe votes bush received makes it harder to agree with such a bad debater.
iraq didn't have to happen
Exactly, bush wanted it to happen and look what happened! WWII had to happen. The treaty of versailles was rude and insulting to the german people, they lost much of their initial land, and the german economy almost imploaded. The allies were the cause of world war 2, but hitler was influenced to start it via domino effect.
No you shouldn't have said uh, I don't know exactly. You should've done research for your side to be able to prove and defend your arguments. You should always do research, then plan your argument, then argue.
What are you talking about? I have no idea what you're trying to say tiger. Show me a quote of mine in bold then make a counter point. You've utterly lost me.
Well, if you have given me the choice of Hitler or Bush, it would be Hitler of course!
Im sure all of you know of the atrocities that Hitler has caused with his wars and the Holocaust, so I wont discuss the obvious reasons I would like to have assassinated him
But although I am a liberal, democrat, I have respect for Bush. I think its depressing that people disagree with him when they do not have sufficient knowledge to hate him (they are simply jumping the anti-bush bandwagon). Sure I disagree with Bush's questionable policies, but c'mon... killl him?!
Isnt that what Hitler did? Kill those that dont agree with him?
People are bound to disagree, but the presidential office is a very dangerous, and difficult job, so we as citizens have to respect that
I posted an earlier debate that simply asked if you would be willing to go back and assassinate Hitler. The winning side (so far) has said no, that they wouldn't, primarily because Hitler didn't create the environment that allowed him to become so powerful.
In this debate, I'd have to choose Hitler, only because I believe that history will be kinder to President Bush than the press has been. Does that make me an optimist or naive?
I sure understand what you mean but I was always sorry we couldn't get him alive! Imagine psychoanalyzing him? All the people others would like to kill, I'd much rather have alive to talk to and get into their heads.
Bush is too dumb to assassinate...and we can't kill a mental midget...can we?
Hitler. If for no other reason, admitting you want to assassinate Bush could technically be interpreted as threatening the life of a sitting president, which is an experience with consequences I wouldn't necessarily want on my resume.
I would kill Adolf Hitler because he was just being selfish and trying to break up the world he wanted to rule the world. George Bush was just killing our people I understand about 911 but Hitler mostly killed people around the world.
Listen, hitler was not selfish! He cared about germany more than anything. He worked hard and did what he did for Germany and the people. he never wanted to rule the world. He fought wwii in retaliation since the selfish french and english declared war on him. Read about hitlers achievments and find 1 thing that didn't help the germans that he did. Bush also killed people without cause- unless greed and oil are a cause. He ruined the economy, persecuted iraqis, and seized their oil! Hitler had a reason, hitler helped people.
Bush was just stupid and a push over. Hitler was powerful, wrong and was able to enforce it and come close to winning. No doubt I'd choose Hitler to assassinate.
How was hitler "far more evil?" I don't know where you got this jewish propganda from, but he wasn't evil. He rebuilt the german economy, enforced family values, made groups for people to feel like they belong, was very kind and charismatic, helped the german people, undid the damage the allies had done and removed their corruption (e.g. treaty of varsailles) from germania, and loved his people with all his heart. Kindness, compassion, pity, helping, saving, hero, patriot, family man, intllegent, do these sound like the qualities of an evil doer?
Bush was a terrorist. He declared war on iraq for his own selfish reasons, attacked, mistreated, and disrespected muslims. He ruined the peace and order saddam maintained and helped out the groups he liked. He caused the distability in the middle east and had a DUI. He aslo hated allah. He didn't not believe in him, he hated him. Does that sound less evil than hitler?
According to new evidemce I found, the concentration camps weren't cruel or for murder. http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/maidanek.htm http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/maidanek.htm [http://ihr.org/leaflets/libcamps.shtml] (http://ihr.org/leaflets/libcamps.shtml) this explains how the concentration camps stuff was propoganda and lies. It explains htilers plan to remove, not kill the jews, from europe and how the camps were quite fair. They were the equivilent- if not better- than us concentration camps during wwii.
I did not forget. I argued supporting hitler, so it would be irrelevent to include that. No leader is perfect. The jews for some reason kept ruining his life (I.e. failing to save his mom, insulting his art, rejecting him from an art school, etc. Coincidence?) Plus they controlled the economy and failed to save the german economy, forcing him to become an orphan, ruining his beloved economy. He was into family values and therefor killed homos and criminals.
No, I support hitler and admire, I don't support several of there ideas. I support homosexuality, I respect jews as strong people, I don't hate blacks, and a few other stuff. I just like hitler and support him because he did a lot of great things for germany, whereas the jewish controlled media and the allies demonized him just for challenging their authority.
According to evidence I found, the holocaust didn't happen. It was exaggerated and never on the nazi agenda. Basically holocaust denail excuses. The deaths of jews were from starvation and disease caused by bombings on railroads by the allies preventing delivery of supplies. The camps were quite fair. http://ihr.org/leaflets/libcamps.shtmlhttp://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/maidanek.htm
This is the evidence I found. Read it all please though it is quite long.
No, I support hitler and admire, I don't support several of there ideas. I support homosexuality, I respect jews as strong people, I don't hate blacks, and a few other stuff. I just like hitler and support him because he did a lot of great things for germany, whereas the jewish controlled media and the allies demonized him just for challenging their authority.
When did I say that? The jews pretty much ruined his life and the treaty of versailles was very unfair, this filled him with anger and hate. So hee persecuted them. No one knows why exactly he hated jews, but if we did, we may find it is justified or fair pherhaps. But we don't know.
Well he was a good man and did a lot of good for Germany. He also heavily influenced society. Since history is written by the victors, the allies demonetized him. Why not Stalin, America, Rome, or Egypt? Or even themselves, as the allies committed several war crimes.
Tough question I mean its not like america demolished 2 cities with the use of atomic weapons or that the american rounded up people they disliked in internment camps. Or the british bombed civilian targets. Hitler didn't kill 6 million. The gas chambers were disinfecting gasses. The nazi brutallity was a few messed up guys who were later punished. The human ovens were cremation ovens, they thought jews were subhumans. So with that thought, would you waste time burying a subhuman scum? The starvation was the result of allied bombings. They destroyed railroads and prevented delivery of medicine and food. The "aryan" supermen kept food while the "sub-humans" starved.
Bush started a war that killed about 108,000 people, while Hitler started a war that killed between 55 to 70 million people. That is a huge differences.
Adolf Hitler because I'm Jewish. Wait, no, niether. I'm told to learn from what happened and morn for those who lost their lives but not to dwell on the past nor wish it never happened. (And George W. Bush is just and idiot so I really don't care if he dies before his election time or not)
Adolf Hitler has had too great an influence on society. George W. Bush, on the other hand, hasn't been around long enough to completely change the world.
