Hitler is one of the best leaders of all time

First, you are slightly misrepresenting my argument. I'm not claiming that luck was what brought Hitler to power, but that it's a significant factor to his rise of power. As I argued in the previous round, I claimed that an operational version of your proposed definition is to measure how much the social influence said individual caused due to his own will and not to external circumstances that simply involve him. In other words, you aren't a great leader simply because times were good under your rule and you get lucky - a good measurement of what deems one to be a great leader is when you can point at a change as a consequence of their choice. Discriminating between this distinction is important, as my argument lessens Hitler's status as an incredible leader. I am not denying that Hitler was a great orator, and I am not denying that even under the circumstances Germany was in during the 30's it is still a hurdle to rally the country as Hitler did. However, I am claiming that this isn't as grand as you may express it to be -- after all, while effort is needed it basically consists of a large, susceptible country who have been charmed by the idealistic (but ultimately false) promises of their leader. Further unbeknown to them were the political dirty work Hitler did to squeal any possible political problem. To add to my point, after Hitler basically became the supreme commander of Germany, he displayed numerous times disastrous failures on his part, both political and military. While Alexander made huge mistakes as well, his track record is much better than Hitler's (his undefeated military record being a notable mention). =================== Alexander the Great ==================== Before I reference Alexander the Great, I want to note a sense of vagueness in this debate. The title implies that Hitler can, at the very least, be at par with other leaders. However, this is made unclear as in your second round you claim that if I can provide a better leader, I would negate your position. This would imply that you posit Hitler to be the greatest leader of all time -- I suppose at this point there is no way you can clarify, but I will work off this interpretation. First, both Hitler and Alexander were military commanders, but the latter is obviously superior. His tactics are still being studied today, and he is commonly stated to be undefeated in battle (that is, despite the near-mutiny in India he has yet to lose a battle). Perhaps there are qualitative differences between political and military leaders, but first of all Hitler was one of the latter AND Alexander particularly shines in this role as he was apt with achieving a cohesive army for the most part of his legendary campaigns. In terms of social influence (per your definition), Alexander introduced lasting influence with his most obvious contribution being Hellenistic civilization. Hitler mainly caused large turmoil and damage, but this isn't anything socially significant except to perhaps motivate many History channel documentaries, or more seriously lead to some other political conflicts. However, I don't count this into the equation as he probably didn't want to will these side effects - his goal was quite different, obviously. Again, remember that evaluating a leader even under your definition should be confined under the focus of their intent. Alexander is clearly a superior leader given his ability to consolidate the many nation-states of Greece, amazing tactical ability in foreign land and against great odds (his army rarely succeeded 40K and were commonly far from supply lines), plus his ability to leave not wastelands but structured civilizations. Founding cities, canals, ports, etc. was what he accomplished as he spread throughout countries, meaning he wasn't a senseless barbarian. Plus, the guy was just plain bad@ss - he fought in the front lines, and conquered a vast majority of the known world at the age most people graduate from universities ;)