Hitler was a Socialist

"Hitler was Collectivist Hitler was third wayHitler was socialist but not marxistStalin was Communist Stalin was Collectivist George Orwell as Anarcho-SocialistGoerge Orwell was IndividualistGeorge Orwell opposed socialist parties Anarcho-Socialists are individualistsAnarcho-socialists oppose socialist partiesSocialist Parties are collectivist. "I shall do a little work regarding all these claims, firstly I will remove those that do not matter: "Hitler was Collectivist Hitler was third wayHitler was socialist but not marxistStalin was Communist Stalin was Collectivist George Orwell as Anarcho-SocialistGoerge Orwell was IndividualistGeorge Orwell opposed socialist parties Anarcho-Socialists are individualistsAnarcho-socialists oppose socialist partiesSocialist Parties are collectivist. Next, I will remove the conclusion, and put it at the end:Hitler was Collectivist Hitler was third wayHitler was socialist but not marxistSocialist Parties are collectivist. Therefore, Hitler was socialist.Now, I will remove what I agree with: Hitler was Collectivist Hitler was third wayHitler was not marxistSocialist Parties are collectivist. Now, we clearly see the remaining premises after all of this, ignoring those that have been dropped. Hitler was Collectivist and third way, therefore he was socialist.Now, i will use the definitions my opponent presented at the beginning of the argument to create a syllogism which would have proved his argument:Socialism is a political theory advocating the community's ownership of industry.Hitler advocated the community's ownership of industry, or other socialist policies.Therefore, Hitler promoted socialismTherefore, Hitler was socialistic. My opponent has not made a contention that Hitler advocated community ownership, nor any other socialist unique policies. Therefore, the syllogism fails. My opponent stated in round 2 that "Socialism vs Capitalism as I stated before, is socioeconomic". My opponent then shows a "source" (which is little more than a picture) placing socialism as statist, and refutes the idea that anarcho-socialism is an actual position by stating "Anarcho-socialism is more of a anarchist ideal". I know many "anarcho-socialists" who'd disagree. Very strongly. It is clearly more than an idea, and the idea that it is not is just insulting the position. Now, to say that Hitler being collectivist means he is socialist is simply a weakness to an argument, not a strength. (practically) Everyone is both*. Do you believe that human beings should take responsibility for themselves? If so, then you're individualist. Do you belong to any community? e.g. the debate.org community? Therefore, you're a collectivist. To say this makes a difference is like saying breathing is necessary to be a socialist, or eating is a necessity to be a capitalist. "The Soviet Union failed to qualify as socialist because it was a dictatorship over workers -- that is, a type of aristocracy, with a ruling elite in Moscow calling all the shots. Workers cannot own or control anything under a totalitarian government. In variants of socialism that call for a central government, that government is always a strong or even direct democracy… never a dictatorship. It doesn't matter if the dictator claims to be carrying out the will of the people, or calls himself a "socialist" or a "democrat." If the people themselves are not in control, then the system is, by definition, non-democratic and non-socialist. And what of Nazi Germany? The idea that workers controlled the means of production in Nazi Germany is a bitter joke. It was actually a combination of aristocracy and capitalism. Technically, private businessmen owned and controlled the means of production. The Nazi "Charter of Labor" gave employers complete power over their workers. It established the employer as the "leader of the enterprise," and read: "The leader of the enterprise makes the decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise." "My opponent's final contentions did not deal with the issue. My opponent's final contentions were majority irrelevant. My opponent's final contentions alone should be enough to let you realise that he has dropped more argument than Bruce Willis drops german terrorists (If there were points for comedy, I'd lose all of them).*I say practically everyone, there very well may be an exception. I have never met one though, nor is it likely to be a popular position.