Social Darwinism

'Before I post my response, I would like readers to look at the webite listed below. This is where my opponent obtained the entirety of his argument.' Oh please, must all make that argument when they know they have lost. Yes, something of what I did say are copied from other sites. As I did say in my fist argument, much of what I say, will come from many sources. I did say that, and I did show you the sources I used. Much of what I copied, I did to my own words. Whether it's from me or not, it's a fact you can not disprove. Yes, much of what I have said, is copied. I copy from people who know more about this than all of us here. I'm not going to debate without having to pick up my arguments from other people who know this better than me. Most people show their websites that they have obtained information from, when they are debating. Just that they cut away a bit, do it with their own words, and taking only the most important stuff. It is the same whether it is from me or not. Facts are facts! What is the matter here is that what I just wrote or copied or whatever, is about exactly this topic. You who are reading this, do not be fooled by this propaganda nonsense. This is just a trick because he can not disprove me. As you can see, the opponent is unable to disprove a single thing of what I wrote or pasted here. Not a single thing! You who are reading this, I will say this to you: Read everything I wrote, and everything he wrote. You will notice that he has not managed to disprove anything I have said, and since he failed to refute anything I have said, he begins with dirty tricks. So what if I copied everything? Does that mean I'm wrong then? I copied from someone who knows a lot about this, and many scientists have worked with him on this subject. Everything I said is facts, and I give you the historians and other people who admit the fact that social-Darwinism is evil. What are the opponent giving you? A dirty trick to the end. Will this dirty trick from my opponent, make you chose him instead of me? Even when everything I said is fact and proven? Although my opponent has failed to disprove anything I said because this is simply fact copied from people who know everything about this topic? It's ridiculous and sad that one must begin to come up with such nonsense, just because you know you have lost. Facts are facts, no matter who it comes from! Read the debate and you will see who are right or not. If I will lose this debate just because my opponent comes with dirty tricks, and even though I only told the facts, and even though my opponent has failed to disprove anything I said or copied - then I will delete me from this stupid site! Since it's only ridiculous. One should not lose just becaouse you copy something. If you vote against me, then you simply agree with the social-Darwinism. A idealogi that are racist, are against women, the reason for WWII where over 40 million become dead, looking at the handicap as weak people, and all disabled people have to be destroyed, and much more evil! Just read what I wrote. Historians have confirmed that social-Darwinism is evil, which you can look at my arguments in this debate. Be smart, do not vote for my opponent just becaouse of a dirty trick he used to the end. One can see clearly that he has failed to respond to some of the things I said and that he lost this debate. Read what I wrote, also what he wrote. You will notice that everything I wrote is true, and I take even with historians and what they have said regarding this matter. If you disagree with me then you disagree with historians who know all about this. Do you think you know better than historians? I would also say that this was just some of what I would say about social-Darwinism, but unfortunately there is a limit of how much you can write. But I think what I wrote, did make my clear: Social-Darwinism is evil! I want to say thanks to my opponent for this debate, but I would respect you more if you did not use such dirty tricks. This is not the first time anyone has used this dirty trick against me. But anyway, chose the right one. And now to his "responses". Well, there's something to answer? He responded to what I said at round 3, with writing: Yes, it's true - yes, yes and yes. As you can see, my opponent is agreeing with me that social-darwinism is racist, is the reason behind world war II and that social-darwinism is sexist, but he does still not admit that social-darwinism is evil. This dude are saying that social-darwinism is not evil, even when he admits that social-darwinism was the reason behind World war II. Will you who read this, say that World war II, that killed over 40 million innocent people, was not a evil act from the nazizt, who was inspired, like their leader Hitler, at the concept of social-darwinism?(Proven from many historians, do not even think of saying that this is not true. Hitler did himself say this on his book, mein kamph.). A other thing have to be maked clear here, is when i mean evil, i do not mean evil, like satanic evil or something. Evil can mean many things. Something like killing innocent people are evil. And social-Darwinism does allow that. If you are wick, then you are dead! My opponent did not disprove me at nothing at this round, and the early round. In the first round he did not disprove me, in the second round he did just ask some questions becaouse he could not disprove what I did said at round 2, and at this round he just answered someting i did say that was not about social-darwinism and making some dirty tricks, becaouse he can not disprove me. If you are against social-darwinism(A.K.A - racism, killing innocent handikaped, killing innocent people just to "evolv", sexism, and the acts of world war II and many other absurd and evil stuff) then vote for me. If you are for social-darwinism(A.K.A, Evil) then vote for my opponent, who was not disproven my at nothing from the start of this debate! I have clearly shown that social-darwinism is wrong and that it's evil. Now it's you turm to vote for the person who YOU think have the right. Actually, I should in this argument show you some of the terrible things that have happened to becaouse of social-Darwinism, and I would say more about the socialist-darwinism evil. But unfortunately, my opponent did start with foolish and cowardly tricks, so I had to answer him. However, I hope you realize that social-Darwinism is not good (something even my opponent has admitted) I will end my last argument by giving some quotes from historians and others, who are proven what I have said so far; that social-darwinism is evil! The quotes: (And yes, this quotes are of course from other web-sites) Hitler, a fanatical Social Darwinist and great admirer of both Darwin and Nietzsche, put their warlike views into practice. Combining militarist thinking with the theory of evolution, Hitler said: The whole of nature is a continuous struggle between strength and weakness, and eternal victory of the strong over the weak In an article titled "The Philosophy and Morals of War," Max Nordau—one of the leaders of the Zionist movement—identifies Darwin as the primary supporter of war: The greatest authority of all the advocates of war is Darwin. Since the theory of evolution has been promulgated, they can cover their natural barbarism with the name of Darwin and proclaim the sanguinary instincts of their inmost hearts as the last word of science In Hitler's Personal Security, Peter Hoffmann discusses Hitler's Darwinist views: Hitler believed in struggle as the Darwinian principle of human life that forced every people to try to dominate all others; without struggle they would rot and perish. Even in his own defeat in April 1945, Hitler expressed his faith in the survival of the stronger and declared the Slavic peoples to have proven themselves the stronger Vote for me. Lets defeat evil together! - Merdeci