Hitler was one of, if not, the most evil being in history

Line by line:RebuttalR24) "First of all you can't have action taken against me because I have an opinion you don't like."I'm not going to be acting against you, but voters probably will, given the absolutely atrocious level of argumentation you have proffered.R25) "Second, about the colonialists who didn't deserve what was to come to them, I wasn't talking about colonialist. I was talking about places which were invaded specifically for empire: basically for looting, stealing, oppressing, like Greenland by the Danish, and India, Scotland and Ireland by the English."CON ignores the argumentation I brought up in #R12. Most European countries attempted to attain empire because without it, they would have been at the mercy of other powers. Eventually, they would have lost their standing, their sovereignty, and their society - they themselves would have been ripe for "looting, stealing, oppressing". Many of the nations that the European nations conquered were themselves empires built on conquering neighbors. India, the Aztecs, even the Hawaiians in the Sandwich Islands were all results of empire attained through victorious armed conflict.How CON's line of thinking is relevant to the resolution escapes me. How were any of these attempts at empire more evil than what Hitler did? Did any of these empires commit atrocities that rivaled the Holocaust? R26) "As for the Treaty of Versailles, it was the English and Danish who wanted to impose harsh and unfair reparations against Germany. Italy, while an Allied Power in WWI, was not vindictive against the Germans, and even didn't agree with the terms, so they became an enemy of the Allies, as a result. "Right. Because France didn't. Because France was not scared out of its mind that the Germans would invade again. Because France did not invade sections of Germany between WWI and WWII in order to exact retribution against Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org...). CON's selectivity in singling out the English and the Danish is comical. Regardless, how does any of this justify the Holocaust?R27) "The whole tomboys and autistic people thing, yes, Germany was more accepting of them than England or Denmark, at that time, and even today."Again, to compare this to the Holocaust is absolutely insulting. R28) "English atrocities? Here. The French-Indian War, atrocities against German and Italian civilians in WWII, the Raj in India, Denmark's oppression of Greenland, Denmark's slave colony in the West Indies, the brutal slave revolt that got Denmark to give up its bulls--t and finally free the slaves, not because Denmark did it out of compassion, dividing Germany into West and East was an English idea."CON is just listing major conflicts in which the English and Danish engaged. CON does not make the case that these conflicts were more evil than the Holocaust, nor does CON pin responsibility of these conflicts on one man. In order for CON to have a case, he needs to point out how these conflicts (which he did not bring up until after 4 rounds of argumentation) compare to the Holocaust in level of evil, and that one man was responsible for these conflicts to the same degree that Hitler was directly responsible for Nazi atrocities.As it is, CON currently does not have a case.R29) ""Right. Because slavery was not integral to the Southern economy. Because it's fun to have to rely upon a large population you fear may revolt and kill you at any time. Because it's fun to keep a gun at arm's length in case a slave tries to kill you." Oh you gotta be kidding me, you mean to tell me if you were a slave, and a f--king slavemaster was oppressing you, you wouldn't want to rebel and fight for your freedom? No offense, but that sounded pro-slavery. I think slavemasters deserved any violence they got. Good for the slaves who wanted to revolt."CON is not following his own argument. CON thought that having slaves was "fun". I am pointing out that slavery was an economic necessity for the plantation economies of the South, and that plantation owners feared for their lives if the slaves ever revolted. By saying that CON also thinks that slaves would revolt in this situation, CON is contradicting himself, that slavery is NOT "fun" and that there are real risks involved in maintaining the institution of slavery.How is this discussion relevant to the resolution? How do any of CON's arguments up to this point actually compare historical events to the horror that was the Holocaust?R30) "The only thing I do agree with you is that slaves were chosen not because of their race, but because they, and other darker skinned people, were more resistant against the sun, and there was no sunscreen yet, so obviously white people couldn't do that work. That doesn't make it right."I never made this point, so to say that CON agrees with PRO on it is a lie. This is clear proof that CON is trolling. How does the lack of sunscreen in pre-modern times compare to the Holocaust? ConclusionI am waiting for this debate to end. CON has not made any clear connections between his arguments and the evils that occurred during the Nazi regime. He has a laundry list of insignificant detail (tomboys?? sunscreen??) that insult and denigrate the significance of the Holocaust in regards to how we perceive evil in society today. His arguments are irresponsible, irrelevant to the resolution, and are IMHO a waste of time and space.CON has dropped nearly all of my points, and seems to think that by bringing up new points without defending his prior assertions, this somehow makes his case stronger. It does not...it makes rebutting his newer points even easier, as the debate has already established a precedence in that CON's points will invariably be rebutted, thereby destroying CON's credibility.