Nazi Prison Guards

Now, i have not seen this movie, but i have read the book, and i will debate this topic by philosophy. First of all, i would expect my opponent to win because i do not have much time on my hands, and second of all i am rusty after such a long time. Value: Justice. Justice is defined as giving each his or her own due. Since my opponent states no value, justice may be the accepted value. Value Criterion: An unbiased court whose sole purpose is to serve justice. I understand that this will be a major controversy, since my opponent's point is the complete opposite. The trials were held in Germany by the UN. The reason the defendant, Hannah, was given a fair trial is because she had an association with the Nazis. And, at that time, Nazis given a harsh trial were considered to have a fair trial. This links to my value because in order to have pure justice, an unbiased court is required. Contention One: The Nazis deserved a harsher trial. No matter what skeptics say, the Holocaust did occur, and what right did the Nazis have to take away more than one third of the Jewish population? Eleanor Roosevelt states, "It is not fair to ask of others what you are unwilling to do yourself." So, is it fair to ask a certain religious group to die (and use force if necessary against them) if you yourself are unwilling to die? Why should millions of innocent people be killed so brutally and savagely if their killers are not ready to face the consequences? If anything, Hannah's trial was lenient. Many people back then half a century ago believed in an eye for an eye punishment. Strictly conservative people / Republicans today even believe in that type of punishment. Hannah, if anything, got it easy. Anyone affiliated with the Nazis was considered on the same level of a Nazi. That included prison guards, even if their role was infinitesimal. My contention links to my value criterion because at the time it was unbiased to give Nazis a harsher trial. Contention Two: Despite current conditions in Germany, where crime is reduced, the Nazis had committed a crime far worse than any other, and they left a footprint on Earth. In the movie Freedom Writers, (if my opponent bases his/her whole case off a single movie, why can't i base one point off one movie?) opposing parties in school kill each other heartlessly. They all hate each other. However, their new teacher, one day, tells them that they are nothing. They do so much for honor, respect, and remembrance that they become blind killers. Their teacher tells them that they will not be remembered, because they are simply petty criminals. The crimes they commit are not even close to the crimes committed by another group. She asks the whole class if they know what the Holocaust is, and the only person in the class who knows is a Jewish kid who is harmless. She then explains about the Nazis, and takes the class on a field trip. The class learns about the horrible things that have happened, and they come to a realization that the crimes committed by Nazis are unmatchable. Alex Levin states, "The reason there is so little crime in Germany is that it's against the law." Any crime in Germany, even a small theft, can be harshly prosecuted today. The reason that this law was put in place was so that another event like the Holocaust would not occur again in Germany, which would annihilate the state's reputation. So many people become blind followers that the consequences are harsh, and have a reason to be. C.P. Snow states, "When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion." The people of Germany obeyed Hitler because he made them believe they were dominant. He was simply manipulating them, because he himself was not a true German, and did not have blond hair and blue eyes. It was just a petty compliment to "legitimately" gain political popularity and create the National Socialist German Workers Party. Hitler made Germany his soldiers, then executed his plan to dominate the world and eliminate the Jewish people. Hannah ties into this because she was one of the Germans with blond hair and blue eyes (based off the book) and she was one of Hitler's blind followers. Since she was a jail guard, she had association with the Nazis. No exception can be made for her. Neither the book nor the movie tell the whole story about Hannah. I highly doubt a movie or a book can go through many years of time without being thousands of pages long. The parts skipped are so ambiguous that we do not know how many people Hannah had to kill when she was a prison guard. My second contention ties into my value criterion because the severity of the overall crime was so great that it seemed lenient to put a person in jail for life and not have them brutally killed the same way they did to the Jews. NOW TO REBUTT: I really can not rebutt efficiently until my opponent clarifies on what "both states" is. If the opponent does not, his/her point must be dropped, as neither I nor the voters have a clear definition of what "both states" is. However, my rebuttal against my opponent's "contention" (more of a stand-alone point) is that in a court case back then, many things were reviewed many times. For example, in To Kill A Mockingbird, The judge was very fair towards Tom Robinson, the defendant. He reviewed many pieces of evidence numerous times, and when Mr. Bob Ewell was asked to sign his name, he wrote with the hand opposite of the side that his daughter's face was bruised. (His daughter was clearly raped and beaten by him.) The judge stated this point, and became suspicious of the father. Here, we can see, even with an African American defendant (who was regarded as the most untrustworthy person ever), the judge held all evidence in high regard equally. So during to 1940 - 1975 time period, evidence was held in higher regard, and all aspects of a person were reviewed. Therefore, Hannah must have received a fair trial. Before concluding, in no part of my case am I trying to be racist, stereotypical, or insulting, so please do not accuse me of it. Thank you. To conclude, you must vote for pro mainly because the general idea of a fair punishment was an eye for an eye, and many other points i have listed above, but I am too lazy to rewrite them... So, therefore, you must vote for Pro. Thank you for reading.