Hitler wasn't such a bad guy

Please vote based on the substance of the debate. It takes courage to argue a heavily controversial perspective, especially in the course of one's first debate. A warm welcome to the DDO community! ____________Definitionsbadadjective unfavourable; adverse; having a harmful effect; lacking or failing to conform to moral virtueInitial rebuttalsFirstly, my opponent cites the leadership and economic ability of Hitler. However, on the topic of whether or not Hitler was a "bad guy", his ability, that is, quality, is not really what we're addressing. When one employs the term "bad guy", when is referring, perhaps, to the quality of that person's character, but not of their intellectual ability. In this sense, while it is certainly true that Hitler was intelligent and flattened unemployment in Germany (as well as massively strengthening the economy primarily through industrial projects)(1), this does not help us determine whether or not he was a "bad guy". While it doesn't make him a bad guy, it also doesn't make him a good guy. In the second paragraph, my opponent begins to broach the more appropriate context for considering Hitler's moral position. My opponent is correct in their assertion that morality is subjective. My opponent asked, "Do you think abortion is wrong? whatever your answer, many people disagree with you. That doesn't make the other side total monsters, does it? "An interesting position, although unfortunately you have been hoist with your own petard. By your own admission, morality is subjective. That means that should, for instance, the majority of a population, consider a person to be a 'monster' (obviously in the metaphorical, moral sense), then to those people, that person is a monster. It is not possible to be an objective monster, in the same way one cannot be objectively bad or good; it is our ascription that determines the moral value of a thing or person, because there is no other way to make such a determination. Because we are aware that good and bad, right and wrong, exist (albeit as intangible philosophical concepts), then it follows that we must derive those determinations somehow. Being objective, morality has no absolute truth. Some people might consider me 'bad' because I am in favour of the right for homosexuals to marry one another should they choose. To a person who disagrees, I am 'bad'. To a person who agrees with me, I might be considered 'good'. It is not paradoxical for it to be true that I am both good and bad, because they do not represent absolute truth, but others' ascription of moral value to me. Based on evidence (which I will supply after my rebuttals), I make the determination that Hitler, his subordinates and the Reich, committed acts of heinous atrocity. This position is reflected by the world's majority, save for periodic eruptions of anti-Semites. Merely by the majority's ascription, it is possible to determine that Hitler was a "bad guy". While this may not be personally true for you at the moment, I hope to convince you and readers over the course of this debate that he was, in fact, a bad guy, based on the moral standard upheld by the majority. My opponent then cited Hitler's pursuance of what he believed to be right as evidence that Hitler was not a bad guy. An interesting premise. However, all that really demonstrates is that Hitler did not see himself as a bad guy. This makes no declarative statement about whether or not he was, in fact, a bad guy. All that can really be used to determine this is majority opinion. This is how morality works. This is how laws work. We, the people, decide what is good or bad, right or wrong. While many Germans took Hitler seriously and saw him as a "good guy", and Germany had many allies, there was also a large group of people who thought he was, in fact, a bad guy, including vast populations within his constituency, all Jews, and much of rest of the West. Further to historical opposition to Hitler being characterised as anything other than a "bad guy", it is also permissible to make retrospective assessments of past events. For instance, while most people would consider the lapidation of disrespectful children to be immoral or 'bad' today, when the Old Testament was written is was seen as perfectly acceptable. Just because someone, somewhere, found it moral at some time, this does not mean that we have to accept their assessment. This is one of the reasons why religions' creeping fingers are slowly being beaten back. We, as a collective populace, are beginning to make the decision that what happened before is not moral and that we should not repeat it. In the same way, it is permissible to decide that Hitler was a "bad guy", regardless of his self-assessment. As an aside, it is widely believed that Hitler contracted syphilis from a Jewish Viennese prostitute, which I think we could agree would have caused his self-assessment of his own morality to be, at the least, compromised(2). ContentionsI make the judgement that Hitler was a "bad guy" based on the following facts:- He socially, politically and militarily engineered the mass execution of Jews. - He engaged in insipid racial elitism and functional eugenics. - He was responsible for the brutalisation and murder of the disabled. - He established a fascist dictatorship designed to imperialise Germany and the "Aryan race". - A number of other well-known acts of inhumanity. The abbreviated list above serves merely as a source of examples. Because none of these things are inherently "bad", with "bad" being a subjective perspective, I must use my reasoning to make determinations about the reasons why I consider these things to be bad. I consider these things to be bad because they effect pain and suffering on countless millions (if not billions) of other people, which is in contrast, to use the example again, with homosexuality. It is up to you, me and the readers to determine whether or not we think he is a "bad guy". In my judgement, he is, because the acts he committed were:1. unfavourable to the vast majority (regardless of his own constituency, the majority population of earth thought it was unfavourable).2. adverse. Trainloads upon trainloads upon trainloads of men, women and children sent to die. This outcome for them is adverse.3. having a harmful effect. The harmful effect was not limited to Jews, blacks and disabled people. Innocents on all sides perished, and the social fabric of survivours was soiled.4. failing to conform to moral virtue. I suspect the fourth point will be our final point of contention, as the rest I barely have to actually argue for. Given that Hitler meets our definition of bad for three out of four points cleanly, and subjctively subjectively the fourth point for almost all people, I am happy to sit in the position of calling Hitler a "bad guy". What do you think? So far, you've only touched on the subject; whether or not he was a good leader or a good economist is not really relevant to the discussion about whether or not he was a good or bad "guy" (i. e. the moral character of Hitler as a person). Being proficient at something doesn't necessarily make a person good. I eagerly await your arguments in favour of considering Hitler a good guy. With respect,InnovativeEphemera. ____________________(1)[. http://www.ihr.org...](2)[http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...]