Social Darwinism

'My opponent in the last round simply described the ideological and historical implications of social Darwinism. He did not show how or why they were wrong. It is for this reason that I will not challenge my opponent's concept of social Darwinism, but will ask him what specifically is evil about it? What is 'evil' about racism, killing the handicapped, imperialism, or the Nazis?' You say that I did not show why social-darwinism was wrong. Did you read what i did write? If you read what i did say, then you will see why social-darwinism is evil. Remember that the argument was just to explain what social-darwinism is. 'but will ask him what specifically is evil about it? What is 'evil' about racism, killing the handicapped, imperialism, or the Nazis?' Are you saying that racism and killing handicapped, is not evil? What do you who are reading this, think? Is not killing innocent handicapped a evil thing? As i can see it, you will not debate with my about if social-darwinism is wrong or not, but you will debate with me about social-darwinism being evil or not. Right? You say that what i did just say about social-darwinism being evil, is not evil? Please, teel me what you want to debatt, and what you are not agreeing with me. But as i see it, you are saying that social-darwinism is not evil. Weel, then i will say to you that you are MAD. You who read this, decide for yourself if this is evil or not: 1. Social-Darwinism is racist. Social-Darwinism viewing blacks as not fully developed humans. Black, according to social-Darwinism is that monkeys, like animals! Less worthy of white people. 2. Darwin and his social-darwinism theory belittles women. As the evolutionist scientist John R. Durant has stated, the two main consequences of the theory of evolution are racism and sexual discrimination: Darwin rested his case upon a judicious blend of zoomorphic and anthropomorphic arguments. Savages, who were said to possess smaller brains and more prehensile limbs than the higher races, and whose lives were said to be dominated more by instinct and less by reason ... were placed in an intermediate position between nature and man; and Darwin extended this placement by analogy to include not only children and congenital idiots but also women, some of whose powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation were "characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilization." 4. Social-darwinism was the reason behind war II and killings of 40 millions! Hitler thought that he could improve human race, as animal breeders do. He claimed that those he saw as "polluting" the Aryan race, those with genetic illnesses and the weak all needed to be eliminated; and he ordered the ruthless extermination of millions—proofs that he regarded human beings as animals and was attached to Darwinism. In an article titled "The Nazi Terror," Alexander Kimel—one of the few to survive the Nazi genocide—emphasizes the link between Darwinism and Nazism and describes how it was that the Nazis, with their belief in Social Darwinism, were able to treat people like animals and feel absolutely no pity for them: Nazism with the acceptance of social Darwinism, equated man with animals, rob him of individual freedom of making choices, the ability to think for themselves. Brutality, terror, mendacity and ruthless exploitation of man by men became the norm of behavior. If the same laws of natural selection like the animals rule man, when the spark of the divine is removed from man's consciousness than [sic] men can be treated like an animals [sic]; he can be bred artificially, and treated like cattle. For example the war and the reckless conduct of the war brought very high casualties. Hitler tried to improve the situation, not by cutting losses, but by improving the breeding methods. In Auschwitz ... Mengele [a Nazi doctor] was [sic] conducted "scientific" experiments on twins, killing them, dissecting them, trying to figure out how to improve the breeding methods, to double the output of the German women. The Germans were treated like breeding animals the S.S. - their shepherds and their master breeder - their Fuhrer. The Germans were treated like prize cattle, other nationalities were treated like ordinary cattle and the Jews like vermin I can write much much more about this, and prove it. And if my opinion wants, i can do that on my next argument. But first, I will ask my opinion if he thinks this is okay? Can you prove that this is not evil? Can you at all say that this is human? Just the fact that you support this, make me sick inside! I will like to say that i did exaggerated when i did say that social-darwinism is the evil of everything and e.t.c. This is of course not true, but its a fact that social-darwinism theory was the biggest reason of World war II, that it is a racist idealogi, that it's againts women, and that it support killing handicapped. This is a fact most historians do agree with. In a book about Auschwitz, Dr. Karl A. Schleunes, a professor of history, accepts Darwinism's so-called scientific justification for racism: Darwin's notion of struggle for survival … justified the racists' conception of superior and inferior peoples and nations and validated the conflict between them I hope i can go more into this evil of social-darwinism in my next argument. Over to you.