First, to answer this question, we must provide a sound definition of the word "evil".

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness

This is a poor definition. Morality is completely subjective and up to debate. Therefore, we cannot look to this definition.

2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful

This is a pretty sound definition. It's straightforward and pretty objective. What is harmful is evil. It's not very thorough, so let's keep going.

3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous

Well, okay. This is straightfoward too, but it doesn't really work with the topic at hand. We already know the actions of both Hitler and George W. Bush, therefore this definition cannot apply.

4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous

This pretty much defines evil as being "bad". So what is bad? Probably definition 2. But we cannot look to this, either.

5. Characterized by anger or spite

This is a pretty good definition too. But in this discussion it would be VERY biased against Hitler. Bush is greedy, but not angry. For the sake of level-headedness, we shall look to definition 2 and define evil as something that causes ruin, injury, or pain; harmful.


So our value is "evil". Our criterion in the decision must be built around which causes more destruction.

Now let's analyze the two subjects at hand.

George W. Bush. Well, I'm not a fan of him at all. Never have been. He has waged war in Iraq and the middle east for very sketchy causes. Sure, there were some "triumphs" in the invasion (goals drawn out by Congress) - Saddam Hussein was overthrown, citizens got to vote, etc. However, conditions have gotten worse since Saddam has been out of power. More citizens in Iraq are now without power or water, and very short on food. Moreso than before. Additionally, the vote never really got anywhere. Radical and terrorist groups ensured that the leader they wanted still got in. And the point is, conditions are still bad over there. However, it is imperative to note that this whole idea was not merely Bush's. His cabinet supported it (it was probably Cheney's idea in the first place), and Congress passed the act to go into war. He could have easily been stopped, but was not. Still, many have died in Iraq, both civilians and U.S. soldiers, because of this war. And we can safely conclude that it's pretty bad there.

About the oil situation, yes, Bush did it for oil. But hey, let's face it, America needs oil. Admittedly, he handled it pretty bad - we could have easily found oil in sources that did not belong to our (or what should be) enemies. Or even better, investment could have been put into finding alternative sources for fuel. But instead, Bush continued to trade with Saudi Arabia. A poor decision indeed. However, it's not so much Bush benefitting from this as the oil companies. He, after all, still needs to pay for gas and stuff. I really don't think he did it to gain wealth himself - he did it for his buddies. So we cannot conclude that Bush did it in an act of self-gain.

Now to the price of the oil barrel. Yes, the way did a lot to escalate costs, but we cannot completely blame this on Bush. Why? There are many other factors that went into the escalation of the barrel. The oil drills in the Gulf of Mexico being wiped out because of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita are a big factor there. Another HUGE factor, and probably the biggest, is the depreciation of the U.S. dollar. This is out of Bush's hands. This is something that only the COngress and the Federal Reserve Board have control over, and even then, not much. So we cannot blame the escalating prices of oil exclusively on Bush.


Now, onto Hitler. I do not need to say nearly as much - for we all know his story quite well. Initially an artist in Austria, he admired Germany, hated the Jews, loved the Ayran race, etc. He joined the army, eventually built up his party, came into supreme power. He acted purely for the benefit of Germany, as he saw gypsies, Jews, gays, etc, as a legitimate threat to the sort of utopian society he was trying to go for. And, we have to say, he was very successful for a while. None of these facts dismiss him for blame. He called for the death of millions, and he got his wish. You cannot possibly say that Hitler was entirely good-willed for calling upon the deaths of millions, no matter how bad he legitimately thought they were. It pretty much says that he thought of these people as nothing more than obstacles working determinely against Hitler's plans. This in itself goes along with definition 5 of evil. It certainly does not dismiss him from being "evil" as defined by definition 2, either.

Hitler was proclaimed by Time as being Man of the Year in 1938 for having the most influence on the world. It did not have to be good influence. And it, indeed, was not. He was probably the biggest player in World War 2, a war that killed around 62 million people altogether, and caused an unimaginable amount in damages and expenses - a trillion 1944 U.S. dollars worldwide,^[1][2] making it the most costly war in capital as well as lives.


In analyzing the effects both men have had on the world, it is apparent Hitler's negative impact was much more severe than Bush's has been. Hitler has caused far more military conflict and more deaths. Bush has caused somewhere around thousands of deaths and some economic deterioration. Bush's actions, however, have not been heinous enough to recieve the backlash that Hitler's actions did.



Therefore, when taking into consideration the evil is something or someone that causes ruin, injury, or pain, Hitler is the more evil man.






-- Edited by Dragon Wing at 22:36, 2008-03-05

I think Bush. Cos he's a manipulative b*****d who spent his time playing golf three months before 9/11 and when hurricane Katrina destroyed New Orleans, he says that he is helping when in fact the government never helped because Most of the people living there were black! So he's racist too!

Also, what's with their health system where you have to have insurance and not have any previous illness or disability to be able to have the care you need!? 50 million Americains haven't got an insurance to pay thousands of dollars to be able to get better. And yet, many people have died because of the system! And yet still, lots of Americains are denied of medical care nearly all of the time. And they are scared of socialist ways of medical care. Ooh! Scary socialist medical care that has kept lots of people living three times longer than an Americain! That's why France are placed at number one for the health industry while America are placed at number 42 on the list! And that's just a DVD of "Sicko" that I watched in general studies.

When I did history, we found out that Hitler didn't have a good background. He was abused by his dad and he didn't do too well at school. I'd be a little full of revenge if I was treated like that from a young age. Bush however must have been treated like a king from his daddy! Yet, he has these crackpot ideas about threatening people to do as he says even though it's not right!

So therefore, Bush is the most evil son of a b***h b*****d everyone has ever come across!

(A bucket of water is chucked on me.)

Me: Thanks. I needed to stop ranting before I came up with worse things on my mind.

Again you kind of nailed me with the definitions there, but that is if we take the definition of evil as who did most damage. Hitler killed the most people and did most harm, definately, we all know that. But what I meant was, what is worse/more evil/bad in the way most people think of ''evil'' and wrong.


Debating definitions is pure habit for me now. In varsity debate, about half of the entire round is just debating definitions. Now I (annoyingly) do it in real life all the time. But let's grant you your assumption.


Now, the key thing to remember here, as I'm sure many of you have heard before, is that Bush is not smart. That being said, he probably had little idea of the consequences of his actions regarding Iraq and the economy. He was ultimately just helping the inner circle of his clique, yes, but I really doubt he meant for anything bad to happen as a result. If there is anyone who is evil in Bush's cabinet, it's gotta be Dick Cheney. He is Bush's top adviser, after all, and there is well enough reason to suspect that the agenda Bush puts forth are largely Cheney's. Cheney probably does know the consequences of these actions - Bush probably does not, but Cheney tells him to go along with it anyway.

Basically, Bush is cursed by his own self interest and near sightedness. But that does not make him "evil".


Hitler, however, was very intelligent. And even so, carried out the actions he did. He acted not in the interest of himself, as has been established, but in Germany's welfare. But that does not dismiss the millions who died. He thought them legitimately evil, yes, but there were many who died that were not simply a victim of the holocaust. Many more died in warfare than in the Holocaust. He pretty much wanted Europe as Germany's own, in a sense, completely disregarding the welfare of everyone else. I think this in itself says something.


when hurricane Katrina destroyed New Orleans, he says that he is helping when in fact the government never helped because Most of the people living there were black! So he's racist too!

No, not because they were black. Bush has many faults, that is for sure, but racism is not one of them. If he was racist, he would probably not have Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of the State, or previously had Colon Powell in his cabinet. No, the Katrina mess was due to the COMPLETE corruption, incompetency and irresponsibility of FEMA and Michael "heckuva job" Brown. This is a large part Bush's doing, yes, as he appointed and encouraged FEMA during this. It could definetely be counted as one of Bush's greatest blunders. But it was hardly because the people there were black (and I'm sure not all of them were black), despite what Kayne West says.


Also, what's with their health system where you have to have insurance and not have any previous illness or disability to be able to have the care you need!? 50 million Americains haven't got an insurance to pay thousands of dollars to be able to get better. And yet, many people have died because of the system! And yet still, lots of Americains are denied of medical care nearly all of the time. And they are scared of socialist ways of medical care. Ooh! Scary socialist medical care that has kept lots of people living three times longer than an Americain!

I completely agree with you on every aspect. However, this is not a unique argument against Bush; rather, it's a folly of the Republican party in general. Pretty much all republicans are afraid of socialism, which makes up about half the country. It's the democrats who keep pushing for Universal Healthcare, but the Republicans that keep holding them back. So we can't really completely blame Bush for that, since any other Republican president would be the same way. And other republicans certainly wouldn't peg them as "evil" for that.

Admittedly, though, I don't really get what you mean by "three times longer than an American". America's average life expectancy is pretty much about the same as any other socialized country.


When I did history, we found out that Hitler didn't have a good background. He was abused by his dad and he didn't do too well at school. I'd be a little full of revenge if I was treated like that from a young age.

True. But killing 6 million people is a tad bit excessive of a revenge.

Bush however must have been treated like a king from his daddy! Yet, he has these crackpot ideas about threatening people to do as he says even though it's not right!

Correct. The thing is, though, he probably does not know its not right. As I said earlier, he's quite dumb.




Also, props, Techfan. This is probably the first topic on here in which a real legitimate (non-flamatory) debate can go down.

i say both are evil

1. hitler kiled most of the jews(thank god hes dead)

2.iyt seems like bush does nothing now and we can't wait for the new president

techfan979 wrote:

---

Bush is still alive?!? WTF? You'd honestly think someone would nail him by now...

---

Never thought of that. Maybe it's just not worth the time to do him in?

I never said engaging in war makes you evil, in-fact I think there alot of wars we should start engaging right now! No I dont beleive it was PURELY for self-gain, but mainly, I also thought we agreed it on it isnt really SELF-gain since all his oil buddies and weapons manufacturers benefit too.

Money was never the official reason for going into Iraq. It was all because of those WMDs, which we still somehow have yet to find... so it would never have been ''publically waging a war for no other reason than "Ommina make me some money!''

They had their cover story in order.

Its not much of an assumption. Its pretty obvious the main reason he went in was for money, his own and his buddies. Look at what his family does, look at his background. Look at his families friends and what Cheney's family do. Look at how he ''won'' the election back in 2001.

Its also a fact war gets the economy going (Unless your the one being bombed to peices) because it makes a demand. Uniforms, weapons, tanks, food, and people make money off that!

This is getting hardcore now.


I never said engaging in war makes you evil, in-fact I think there alot of wars we should start engaging right now! No I dont beleive it was PURELY for self-gain, but mainly, I also thought we agreed it on it isnt really SELF-gain since all his oil buddies and weapons manufacturers benefit too.

1.) Well, all you said on that matter was "war=dead people", so it was an imperative point to make.

2.) OK, I concede to this. It wasn't purely for self-gain. But how does that help your case?

Let's go over some thing you have previously said in this debate.

"Its nothing new to me the whole thing was probably Cheneys idea, because hes smart, very smart. But hes boring and grey, and could therefore probably never get into office. Therefore, they got a charismatic texan cowboy like Bush to be the showman."

You are absolutely, positively correct in this. But now I pose the same question as I did earlier - how does this help your case? You are pretty much saying, even agreeing with me, that Bush is little more than a figurehead carrying out another person's ideals. How does that make him more evil than someone that carries out their own negative ideals? You could argue that it makes him just as evil because he is going along with something he knows is wrong, but as I have previously argued, that is not exactly the case here.

As I've said earlier, and you dropped this point, Bush would of course be concerned about his reputation. He is, after all, a large figurehead, perfectly capable of being impeached and reprimanded for his actions in office. Therefore, he would not risk waging such a war that he knew in advance would have mostly negative impacts. Why? Again, the American government runs on a system of checks and balances. If he knew initially that the war would be utter disaster, he knew he'd be in deep **** later on with everyone. Cover-up story or not. And this is pretty much what ended up happening, too. He probably regrets some of the things he did now.

Even if, as we have said countless times now, he went in it mostly for himself and his oil execs, he would still not let the war go down if he wasn't at least under the impression that waging war would be overall beneficial to the general populace, because of the way our government is set up.


About the WMDs, Bush was not alone in the sentiment that Iraq did have nuclear weapons. President Bill Clinton, took the same position, stating in August of 1998, "Saddam’s ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction ... threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of the rest of us." It was generally conceded by both parties that Saddam was very well capable of holding weapons. Therefore, this is a non-unique argument.

Its also a fact war gets the economy going (Unless your the one being bombed to peices) because it makes a demand. Uniforms, weapons, tanks, food, and people make money off that!

As an economics student, I know this. But again, how does this help your case at all? If you are using this to say that the war was waged for money-reasons, then that does not help your case that much. Wanting to boost the economy is not a bad thing to do. But, again, the government would not wage war purely for economic benefit, given the costs of war and how much deficit that has already put us into.



Now let's go back to Hitler really fast.

Despite any impressions he was under or any legitimate perspective he had, he still killed millions of people and felt justified in doing so. Going back to what you said much, much earlier:

"Hitler, in his own little perverted head tried to do what was right. He and the Nazis tried to fight who they thought the bad guys were. They had some sort of moral code, ideas on how the world should be. Theyre orientation point was to do whats right, what THEY thought was right."

OK, so because they were under the impression that they were doing good, and that exempts them from being considered evil. At least, this is your assertion.

Now I will make the argument that because they thought they were completely justified in killing, that they are inherently evil. Your argument seems to be very similar to that of one made for a mentally-ill person who was involved in a murder. They did not know any better, so therefore it is okay, because they did not know the extent of their actions. This cannot be applied to Hitler, because he knew very well the extent of his actions, as did the other Nazis. They simply thought it was okay, cause it would benefit Germany. That does not excuse anything they did.


Now to quickly overturn an argument that might be made against me:

"You said that it's okay for Bush because he thought he was doing good, but then you use that same reason to say that Hitler is bad! WTF!"

It's actually quite a different story for both, for a couple of reasons. I will first revert back to my initial argument, that Hitler had a MUCH more negative impact than Bush has had. You have conceded this. Therefore, even if the above counter-argument is legitimate, Hitler still comes out as more evil.

However, I would continue to argue that the situation is not the same, because Hitler was a smart man, and very well knew the extent of his actions. Also, as was agreed upon, Bush probably never expected Iraq to blow up in his face. That being said, the argument I make against Hitler in this regard cannot be cross-applied to Bush.

Hitler. No doubt. No contest. Hands down.

He killed people because he needed someone to blame. He killed millions just because they were different from him. In the most inhumane ways possible, millions died as he watched on with a smile on his face. Millions of innocent people, it didn't matter if they were old, young, or just at the beginning of their adulthood, he took away their rights to live, he made himself a god and abused his power to do unspeakable things.

He is most evil, but from the looks of things from the other posts, the real question you are asking is who has done the most damage?

That answer is: Neither.

Neither did any damage at all, it was the people who followed them that did the damage.

Hitler did not personally kill the Jews, his soldiers did. And though Bush did declare war on Iraq, Congress had the right to veto him, and his soldiers are the ones in Iraq that are doing all the "bad things" you all are talking about.

So you really have to question the followers, not the leaders, because without followers, leaders are just powerless nobodies.

And it's my opinion that he is evil and heartless. Also, I was just pointing out what the replies on the thread were actually talking about.

techfan979 wrote:

---

 But from orientation point, whos more wrong? Because you must still remember Hitler TRIED to do what he THOUGHT was right.

---

Now I will make the argument that because they thought they were completely justified in killing, that they are inherently evil. Your argument seems to be very similar to that of one made for a mentally-ill person who was involved in a murder. They did not know any better, so therefore it is okay, because they did not know the extent of their actions. This cannot be applied to Hitler, because he knew very well the extent of his actions, as did the other Nazis. They simply thought it was okay, cause it would benefit Germany. That does not excuse anything they did.

I think we pretty much have to agree to disagree, since we're both starting to use the exact same arguments over and over again.

On the surface, I thought Hitler was more evil and you though Bush was more evil, but I don't need to tell you that. As far as the details go, a lot of things.

-- Edited by Dragon Wing at 15:05, 2008-03-09

Dragon Wing wrote:

---

Admittedly, though, I don't really get what you mean by "three times longer than an American". America's average life expectancy is pretty much about the same as any other socialized country.

---

I think I should have corrected it really. That those who are taken care of with socialist medicene, are likely to live 3 years longer than an Americain. I really should have clarified that. Must be that rage when I went overboard.

In one of my first debates I actually lost because my judge thought I was "too angry".

techfan979 wrote:

---

Control your rage, you must, young one. If a master in debating you will be.



-- Edited by techfan979 at 16:33, 2008-03-09

---

I shall Sensei Techfan.

*Bows*



-- Edited by Akira_Cat at 09:46, 2008-03-10

techfan979 wrote:

---

Right, and thats somewhat subjective when talking about their orientation point, whatever you want to call it. Hitler killed most people and did most damage, no doubt.

But when talking about whos more morally evil, then it gets subjective. Because I feel AT LEAST Hitler was working for what he thought was right.

Thats why this is an opion asking thread... I cant formulate.

-- Edited by techfan979 at 15:09, 2008-03-09

---

Just because he thought it was right doesn't make him less evil. Bush is also doing what he thinks is right, but he's just plain stupid, not evil.

And what in the world got into everyone's heads that would make you guys think that the United States would go to war for anything but money? Do you honestly think we'd be this active in Iraq right now if the oil wasn't at stake? We don't do charity work, if a country has problems, we won't help out until it affects our economy or our people. Being greedy does not make Bush, or my country for that matter, evil. It just makes us a bunch of jerks.

And so what if Hitler thought he was right?

WARNING: GRUESOME EXAMPLE

Let's say that I hate gays (though I don't this is just an example). I just hate them because I think it's disgusting. So I go around killing gay people, I drown them in their bath tubs then use a powersaw, cleaver, and kitchen knives to carve up their bodies, then I stack their parts like they're meat on display. I kill over 30 gay people with no remorse, even with a smile on my face.

GRUESOME EXAMPLE IS OVER

But I thought I was doing the right thing, I was ridding the world of sinning gay people. Does that make me innocent? No it does not, it makes me evil. Killing anyone with no remorse is evil, and just because you have a petty little reason as to why you do what you do does not give you an excuse.

Hitler killed Jewish people because he needed someone to blame for the loss of WW1. The worst part was, he did not know any of them, he just killed them because of their religion. If that isn't evil, I don't know what is.

Excuse me if I sound rude, but this is the controversy area, you should've been prepared.


-- Edited by Jetsir at 09:31, 2008-03-29

-- Edited by Jetsir at 09:33, 2008-03-29

"no" What?