Topic: There is nothing wrong with Genocide.
Judges: Maraj, Dez384, DragonHellfire
Do Not Begin until January Fifth. Bizox leads.
There really is nothing wrong with Genocide. Life and death are natural things, and if killing off a certain race or group of people is apart of your society, there's /really/ nothing wrong with that.
I'll give you an example or two. First of all, there were the Nazis. You can say you hated them all you want, but you have to look at how successful Germany was as a country as opposed to before Hitler and his regime took over, though. Germany was terrible beforehand. It was in a worse economic depression than the United States, which is saying quite a lot since we were home to Wall Street, where the Stock Market was.
Enter Hitler. He is elected Chancellor of Germany, and though he takes over and creates essentially a dictatorship, there is no question that he saved Germany. If genocide was a bad thing, then the Nazis wouldn't be nearly as successful as they were as the government of Germany, and much of Europe during WWII for that matter. You could say that Hitler got his ass kicked in WWII, but he really didn't. He and Nazi Germany were able to hold off all the allied forces for the duration of WWII, which contained some of the most powerful armies in the world. The USA, Great Britain, etc. And this is with Germany, the country that really was at the bottom of the heap just a few years before, and few allies. He nearly took over Europe. He was brilliant in his own respect, and his plan incorporated Genocide as a major element. Killing that many people in Europe not only drained the overall power of Europe to fight back and take back their country(which I'm sure he thought of, though it wasn't the motive he had), but it also provided distractions, decoys if you will. In the heat of a major battle, if a concentration camp was to be nearby, the Allies would liberate it. This gave Germany quite the tactical advantage. Utilizing Genocide was more brilliant than even Hitler himself was aware of.
So there's my first point. Utilizing something looked down upon, like genocide, as a scapegoat or decoy of sorts, can drain potential rebellious power, and it can provide a critical distraction that is too immoral (to the enemy, anyways) to ignore. They will liberate concentration camps. They will often not shoot at victims of genocide being used as things like human shields for war purposes. It gives you an amazing tactical advantage. If a more powerful country was controlled by a genocide-utilizing leader like Hitler, he would very likely have the most powerful army on the planet, and would likely have succeeded in all his plans.
Then there's medical purposes. What about medical genocide? In Africa, whenever an Ebola Zaire outbreak occurs, do you know what the Centers for Disease Control does? They completely quarantine the area to control the virus, leaving every person within the quarantined area to face the steep odds of Ebola's 90% death rate. This is leaving a given group of people to die, isn't it? Isn't that genocide in its own way? This is an extremely useful method of completely stopping a potential threat to human life as we know it before it becomes too widespread to control. Ebola Zaire would more likely than not cause epidemics worldwide if these methods of medical genocide weren't used. Would you rather have a group of people all die terrible, bleeding deaths, or an entire country? If a flu epidemic or a smallpox epidemic, like the ones we have had in the past of our country, can cause such a mess, imagine a virus that will kill nine out of every ten people. The CDC practices genocide. That is why we can rest easy about these things.
So you see, genocide is perfectly justifiable. If a certain group of people are causing more trouble, in some way or another, than their worth, then simply kill them off. Problem gone, and the genes that could continue the problem have been removed from the gene pool. If it's a brilliant tactical strategy, use it. If it's for the greater good, use it. A country does not succeed and become a world power on morals, does it? It becomes a world power through making the best decisions to make the country a better and more powerful country. If that includes genocide, which it did in the case of Hitler and could in any given future case, then let it be.
~Maverick~ Failed to Reply. ~Maverick~ Loses, Bizox wins.