Hitler or Mussolini would have returned Reggie Hammond's money before Cates did

Red herringsCool, I didnt mention being Nordic, I mentioned being Black. So, this is a complete red herring and irrelevant. It was actually because most of the people that debate me have claimed so. Anything about the KKK, its origins, and where it is from has no bearing on this debate, and it seems mostly like conjectureIt was relevant as Cates had characteristics of the Klan (which I'll put later). Blacks not persecuted? The Nazi regime was fully against blacks, claiming they were there due to a Jewish plot to undo the aryan race [1]. To deny the extreme predjudice and the hate crimes which the state sanctioned against african americans is denialism at its finest. It is a fact. My opponent is rewriting history to fit his needs. Although not mass exterminated, they were considered as low as gypsies [1]. I mean, the fact you think Hitler would have upheld his promise to someone he saw as inferior makes no sense. You have failed to refute this saying they were not massacred like the Jews, but that is a red herring; whether or not they were victims of genocide is irrelevant. It is whether or not Hitler would have kept his promise. . http://img405.imageshack.us...http://upload.wikimedia.org...Pictures of black soldiers fighting proudly along with the white Nazi soldiersConcession? "he Nazis were probably an everybody-except-blacks-Jews-and [perhaps]-Nordics party"Yep, even my opponent admitted that the Nazis were anti black, and even puts them next to Jews. .. That is basically a concession, as it proved my argument correct: Hitler hates blacks more than Cates would have, therefore, Cates > Hitler. No I didn't concede. I said that Nazis had prejudices against blacks like most of Europe. What I did say was persecution didn't happen against blacks in the Fascist regimes like they did in Nazi Germany. Many blacks served in the Nazi army. As I proved with pics. Cates was KKKSo? KKK was terrible. However, the Nazi regime ended up killing 11 million minorities, if not more. However, my opponent makes a huge mistake: no citation. To make such an accusation--that a character, so central to this debate--is a white supremect with no reference is not credible. As this is not common knowlege, unless my opponent can prove his accusation, this point is null and void. . http://www.youtube.com...(as I showed before; see video posted to see who Cates really was and then come and tell me if you think he's not a Klan type of man after seeing this)This is the same character in the sequel as I posted above, only the video is from the first movie, not the second. After seeing the way he treats Hammond repeatedly, it's safe to assume he's like that in the second movie, and worse, he's a sneaky cheat. As I've shown before. Opponent dropped the argument that it wasnt in either Mussolini's or Hitler's self interest to return the money. It would be much more in their interest to keep the money for (1) governmental needs, or (2) self-indulgence. You never really refuted what I said which was that it was only Jews' and Northern Euros' money taken, not other races. If you saw my links. Conclusion:I already gave proof.