Adolf Hitler was a good Artist

Thanks Con. Unfortunately, I was very pressed for time with my round two argument-so instead of forfeiting and ruining the debate, I thought I'd just post 'Hitler was a good artist' in a grammatically incorrect fashion. Because Con has an advantage over me with an extra round, I will outline my opening, rebutting, and closing arguments in this round. I ask that voters do not penalise my lack of arguments in round two, as they will be provided here. Hitler, the Good ArtistAs was specified in round one, I am not arguing that Hitler was the greatest artist to have ever lived, but merely, that his skill and technique can be considered 'good' and somewhat above average. Let's briefly summarise what an artist is, and what makes him/her 'good'; an artist is one who, in the purest sense of the word, creates. It's clear that Hitler was a very creative individual, given that he liked to explore different and revolutionary ideas; he was, a dreamer. In regards to his artistic skill as it relates to his paintings/drawings, the technique is most certainly there. Now, I am no painter myself, as literature and science are more my areas, but, I digress, I can still recognise a decent painting or drawing when I encounter one. I.e; I can distinguish the difference in skill by a painting made by a six year old, and one made a professional artist. It can be asserted that anyone with an interest in art and with the desire to study art at school, probably could be considered a 'good' artist-they do not necessarily have to be wonderful. That Hitler wished to be an artist and applied to art school in Vienna weakens Cons argument somewhat because it demonstrates that A.) he had the interest, and B.) he probably did have some talent. You do not see a poor mathematician applying for math-oriented degree, and you do not see a biologist applying for a biology-oriented degree. The same, can be applied to the arts and humanities as well, as you also would not see a poor dancer applying to a dance school or a poor writer applying for a literature-oriented degree. Interest in itself, usually means skill.Here, we can review some of Hitler's artwork: Tree at the Track Vienna State Opera House Mother Mary with the Holy Child Jesus Christ Old Quarter of Vienna Rebuttals/Closing ArgumentsWhat is also apparent is that on the contrary to what Con has stated regarding Hitler supposedly losing interest, his passion for art was maintained throughout his life; to the extent that Hitler would still visit art galleries and so on. In fact, here are some pictures of Hitler viewing some artwork: Viewing a statue: It is also a well-known fact that artists love to contemplate, often while travelling: In addition to this, the 'good' artist is expressive: Inquisitive: Talkative: Kind: Now, regarding Cons statements on Hitler killing Jews and thus not being a 'good' artist, this is ridiculous. One can absolutely be a good artist and still happen to commit ethnic or religious cleansing; as I said, Hitler was a dreamer, and he dreamed that he could restore the Fatherland to its former glory. That you disagree with him instigating the murder of six million Jews, and millions of other people, should have no impact on your judgement of his art. For example, I think that Stalin was quite a nefarious person, but I'm still sure that he was very good in bed, Hitler likely was as well, due to how passionate and intense he could be. It's blatantly apparent that on the basis of Hitler's political conduct, Con is arguing with a bias. Note: this debate is to discuss Hitler's art, not what he did in his professional life. Con also asserts that just because Hitler removed and brought about the burning of some literature (namely Jewish and communist), he again can't be considered a good artist-which once more, is beyond foolish. Vincent van Gogh cut off his ear, which is a rather strange thing to do, and is now idolized in the world of art by many. Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio was also somewhat eccentric, and hardly a pillar of morality given that he was arrested multiple times, he even once threw a plate of artichokes at a waiter. I'm almost certain that Hitler never engaged in such acts. Then you have Benvenuto Cellini, who stabbed the man who killed his brother-at least Hitler did not kill anyone with his own bare hands.Moreover, Con referred to struggle and claimed that it cannot be associated with Hitler, when Hitler's entire life was based on a struggle; from losing his brother during childhood, to being pressured by his father to pursue interests he did not wish to pursue, to then losing his father suddenly, to becoming a poor artist in Vienna, to then returning home to look after his dying mother alongside his siblings. His next struggle, was to establish and popularize the Nazi Party, and then become Chancellor of Germany. It's important to emphasize that the Nazi Party was not an overnight success; far from it, it actually took years to flourish, and involved many early hardships-like being imprisoned. Then, there was the task of making Germany a great nation again; which was no small feat indeed. Like many other artists before and after him, Hitler eventually committed suicide-but, his legacy, will go forever. I will finalise my argument by noting that Hitler, because he was a very versatile artist, also wrote a book called 'Mein Kampf', which ironically for Con, translates as 'My Struggle'. Here is a quote from it:'I am firmly convinced today that, generally speaking, it is in youth that men lay the essential groundwork of their creative thought, wherever that creative thought exists. I make a distinction between the wisdom of age- which can only arise from the greater profundity and foresight that are based on the experiences of a long life, and the creative genius of youth, which blossoms out in thoughts and ideas with inexhaustible fertility, without being able to put these into practice immediately, because of their very superabundance.'