Resolved: Hitler deserved a nobel peace prize

I thank Whiteflame for his rebuttals and for a thoroughly enjoyable debate. I will now begin with my counter-rebuttals Nobel Peace Prize Requirements I thought that this was self explanatorily explained through my arguments but I will restate them again (not new arguments): Hitler met requirement 2: “Abolition or reduction of standing armies” Hitler met requirement 3: “Holding and promoting peace conferences” Since Hitler only needs to meet two of these as stated by my opponent I will now demonstrate how he meets these two Nobel Peace Prize Requirements with arguments that have previously been used in my second round arguments. Hitler meets requirement 2 since he was the cause of the reduction of armies at Dunkirk (I will address my opponent’s individual rebuttal to this later). He also delayed his attack on Russia (as described in C2 of my R2 argument). This is also an evident reduction of standing armies. Hitler meets requirement 3 simply due to two key events. He held and promoted peace conferences with the British and gave Britain many benefits within this offer. Again, the second event is Dunkirk as quoted in C2: “he permitted the British to escape at Dunkirk to encourage Britain to make peace” The key words here being ‘make peace’. This is an evident promotion of peace and a symbol of peace given out by Hitler. Holocaust “[Hitler] was not the one responsible for instigating or implementing the creation of the death camps. Responsibility for this tragedy must be shared with the other members of his government; Himmler in particular was particularly influential in the racial policy of the Third Reich.” [1] As you can evidently see, the idea of the concentration camps was not Hitler’s fault or even his creation. Even if you are unconvinced by this, my counter rebuttals provide strong evidence against the arguments in regards to the atrocity of concentration camps. Remember that we are talking about Hitler here, not the Nazi’s or Germany in particular. Unless you believe that Hitler ordered and confirmed every single one of those deaths. The Nazi’s are a group of people. Hitler is an individual who generally agreed with this group of people. Stereotyping a group and then calling out individuals and blaming them for the actions of the group is not strong evidence in support of your case. Stereotyping is wrong and can create the sense of the loss of individuality when you attribute the group to the person [3]. General Rebuttal Whilst it is true that a lot of my history is taken from this source, my opponent is in no position to contest since they have done the exact same thing in their case. The majority of my opponent’s case comes from the ‘United States Holocaust Memorial Museum website’ - USHMM [4]. My opponent makes two massive claims without any evidence (unless I missed something). He makes the following ‘unsourced’ claims: “ he clearly refused to end the war” … “expand it as often as he could” When did he refuse to end the war? When did he seek to expand it? It is part of my opponent’s burden to show me when this happened and I am unable to refute this without further explanation and evidence suggesting that this is the case. Do not allow my opponent to respond to this in the final round since he is not allowed to respond to this round. Next my opponent lists the names of many individuals who received the prize and attempted to (subjectively) persuade me and readers that Hitler was not as peaceful as these individuals, this is known as an ad hominem argument - appealing to the reader’s emotions. Hitler delayed his armies in Dunkirk and Russia, promoted peace with Britain and possibly others [6] and remained loyal to Japan despite obvious reasons as to why it shouldn’t [5]. Hitler severely mitigated the impacts of a world war which ended up costing him the war and his life (in the real world, not this debate). Hitler is arguably more worthy of the award than these individuals as proven with objective evidence. Poland Attacked First This argument is weakened by the fact that the significance of these events is not explained and it is not explained why this matters. Nevertheless, I will still attempt a refutation of an already mitigated argument. I agree with the history put forth by my opponent however I do still believe that my history is correct and Poland did castrate German boys and commit other torturous war crimes towards the Germans. The Nazi’s were gaining land and didn’t like Jews. I fail to understand how this equates to what Poland did. Evidently, my opponent did not look hard enough because when they ‘claim’ that there is nothing on the internet in regards to what the Polish did, they are very wrong. These sources all reference to the atrocious acts of Poland: [7,8,9,10]. A full scale invasion was his only option when Poland were doing what they did. He could not talk to Britain or France about reconsidering their treaty because it was a signed deal that they were not allowed to break [11]. Hitler Proposed Peace It isn’t that strange that he stopped trying after years of attempting to gain peace. After years of attempting to make peace it was evident that peace could not be achieved [12]. If they continued to promote peace, despite it being obvious that complete peace would not be achieved then casualty rates would be increased [12]. They had to fight back at some point otherwise, innocent Germans would have been killed and the overall death toll would have been higher (in terms of innocent children and Germans in general). Soldiers know that they may die in way, innocent German children should not have to feel and experience this [13]. My opponent merely sites a book in which it says that Hitler proposed peace so that it would be ultimately beneficial for him. He hasn’t even questioned the sources that I have used - simply dismissing them as literature that is not up to date. He then states that there is a better theory. He never states how mine is wrong or how his is superior, which is a point that is needed to be explained. Citing a source is not enough since I am not obliged to refute arguments stated by the source. The source may say that it presents a more reliable theory but that is not included in my opponent’s argument. My opponent states that his theory is superior. I have shown through evidence via multiple quotations and sources, that Hitler stopped the advance on the British troops on Dunkirk as a symbol of peace and to reduce casualty death numbers. Remaining Claims C1 is something that is brought up by my opponent in regards to his speaking out against Jews and his opinions in regards to homosexuals, Jews and other groups of people. Dropping the argument should be considered to be a drop of this contention. C2 is almost as if Con is arguing in my favour. He states that Hitler was harsh and attempted to use Dunkirk as an example of this. The problem with this being that Dunkirk has just been refuted by me. He then makes the (new) argument that Hitler attempted to make people give in to him before the war even began. The problem with this being that this would have been the much more peaceful solution. I have shown that the only reason that WW2 began was because of the actions of the Polish and therefore, a forfeiture of the war would not have done anything bad for the allies, it would merely be a Nazi victory and there would be a hugely decreased number of casualties. My opponent hasn’t actually refuted some important elements of this contention. Instead he focusses entirely on new arguments (in the rebuttals round). I quoted references to delayed attacks on Russia (which was dropped). I referenced to the war in North Africa being lost due to Hitler’s kindness, this was dropped. C3 is dismissed and dropped. Con attempts to dismiss this argument, saying that I provided no reasons as to why my interpretations are more accurate. Clearly, Con missed all of my quotes and sources in regards to this contention because if he had actually seen these there should have been an effort to refute them. Conclusion I have shown through strong sources that my case should be considered preferable. My opponent has dropped multiple arguments of mine and has also insufficiently explained many. I thank Whiteflame for an enjoyable debate and I strongly urge voters to vote without bias and to vote Pro! Over to Con for his final round. Sources [1]http://debatewise.org... [2]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [3]http://www.aauw.org... [4]http://www.ushmm.org... [5] The Barnes Trilogy, section “Revisionism and Brainwashing [6] McLaughlin, op cit., 10 [7] https://archive.org... [8]http://justice4germans.com... [9]http://www.germanvictims.com... [10]Fish, Hamilton, FDR: The Other Side of the Coin, 86 [11]http://huff.to... [12]Onward Christian Soldiers, 55 [13]http://forums.philosophyforums.com...