The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

"Holocaust Deniers" Are simply, petty minded antagonists, who enjoy winding people up.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 398 times Debate No: 98587
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




We all know beyond any doubt, that the Nazi Germany lead "Holocaust" of the 1940's actually occurred. I would suggest that anyone who chooses to deny this fact, is being insincere and deliberately antagonistic.
I would also suggest that there is no intelligent reasoning, to their supposed view point. Just a petty minded enjoyment, in annoying and upsetting others. Especially, people who are sill affected by or who have strong emotions, relating to events that occurred in Europe between 1939 and 1945.

Con must prove their sincerity.


Good luck Pro, and I look forward to the your argument. The burden of proof clearly is on you as that is an extreme statement, and there are many holocaust revisionist only seeking to find out the truth of what really happened, and they clearly counter your proposition.

I argue that this one is very easy to defeat. First you have to define what a "holocaust denier" is, then you have to show that anyone that disagrees with that is "petty minded antagonists, who enjoy winding people up." I will await these proofs before I introduce my argument against them. But in the mean time I will introduce the below information to demonstrate what I have already said, and that shows the burden of proof is clearly on you.

Source #1 David Cole young Jewish historian that did not believe the official narrative and investigate it himself and found many discrepancies, this was before the holocaust was weaponized and it was a legitimate topic to investigate.

Interesting enough he had to go into hiding for making this video because the Jewish Defense League put out a contract for his death. It's a most fascinating story, here him tell it in the interview below.

So while there were many Jews along with other groups that are conveniently ignored (gypsies for example), that were murdered in mass and forced to work in slave labor camps, there are questions that the official story is true, and my understanding of "holocaust denier" is anyone that does not believe the official story in its entirety. I look forward to you trying to proof your proposition.

Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1


Hopefully Con has genuinely misunderstood the purpose of this debate.

If I had wanted to argue whether or not "The Holocaust" actually occurred. I would simply have proffered that question.

The purpose of this debate, was to discuss the rationale of someone, who would persistently attempt to deny that the mass murder of 11 million people actually occurred.

Nonetheless I will continue with round two, in the hope that Con is able to get back on track.

Definition: From the Oxford dictionaries.
DENY: "State that one refuses to admit the truth or existence of"

Definition: From Wikipedia.
THE HOLOCAUST: Primarily, refers to the genocide of 6 million Jews, including 1.5 million children. by Nazi Germany and its collaborators. Other definitions also include the mass murders of a further 5 million people.

Therefore, by definition. A "Holocaust Denier". Is someone that refuses to admit the truth or existence of, the genocide and mass murder of 11 million people, by Nazi Germany and its collaborators.

Con argues that, certain people (revisionists) may question the validity of specific facts, relating to events of "The Holocaust".
In the context of genuine historical research, I would regard this a wholly right and proper course of action.
I would also not wish to imply, that genuine historians and researchers could ever be regarded as "Holocaust Deniers".

Con cites the work of David Cole.
I will reiterate the point here, that from the outset, Con misunderstood the context of this debate. Nonetheless, in respect of Con's argument and out of a genuine interest, I have taken time to briefly reference David Cole and consequentially David Irving. I conclude that, although both men may be regarded as controversial, it is still appropriate to consider them as genuine historians and researchers. In fact it is clear that neither man, as ever sought to deny the genocide and mass murder of 11 million people.

So, to get back on track. Why would someone choose to deny "The Holocaust" ? When the evidence is so unequivocal.

I would propose that the intentions of such a person, were wholly malicious and insincere.

Therefore the burden of proof falls upon Con. They must explain how, someone who persistently states that the genocide and mass murder of 11 million people never happened. Can be regarded as sincere.



Thank you Pro for the thoughtful response, but his response is not relative to his initial proposition. Pro is simply trying to redefine his proposition, to one more ration.

Pro has failed to add anything of substance defending his original contention. Anyone questioning the official numbers you yourself quote is a "holocaust denier" The holocaust has been turned into a political weapon and has been greatly exaggerated, both in scale and context. It has also been turned into a very profitable industry for certain lawyers as well as a go to for politicians in political trouble. [see Norman Finklestein - Holocaust industry]

You fail to prove the insincerity of people that legitimately think the holocaust narrative is false. Furthermore, you have to prove that for ALL people that deny the Holocaust are "simply, petty minded....." your proposition is pretty much self defeating, as this is impossible. Next time I would suggest to use less nonsensical propositions and think a little more critically before posting a debate. If you wanted to argue some are, sure that is highly likely that some are... but that everyone in the group of "holocaust deniers" belongs to the group "petty minded...." is impossible to prove.

This will serve as my conclusion as well. I yield my final round.
Debate Round No. 2


As we are at such cross purposes. I too will yield my final round.


Thank you Pro for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Ozzz169 1 year ago
Thanks Pro, I would suggest not posting hyperbole as your motion, it is very easy to defeat. If you post a serious topic I will debate you on it. may I suggest something along the lines of "Holocaust deniers" should not deny the holocaust.

Then you define what you mean by a denier and what the holocaust actually means in terms of the debate. then you can have a real debate on the topic :)

If I told you Holocaust actually meant burnt offerings and that Jews use to practice it as part of their religion, you would probably deny it and be a holocaust denier. So its important to define exactly what you mean esp when you want to debate an issue.
Posted by Ozzz169 1 year ago
If you want to argue the validity of his statements that is not relevant to the topic of the debate. I am not speculating on those. I am proving burden of proof only. In case pro, we silly enough to think it was not on him.

As an aside, he said he made a deal with them and they called it off. I find it hard to believe he made up his story, but stranger things have happened I guess. though I think the burden of proof is on disproving his claims as they seem reasonable, esp since he lost his livelihood by being outed by an ex girlfriend. But, the topic is not that interesting to me.

What is interesting to me is how public knowledge is manipulated. Which the Holocaust is just one of many many examples of this.
Posted by GrimlyF 1 year ago
Hello OZZZ. This David Cole/Stein would be a holocaust adviser who doesn't believe the event happened? Who organised shindigs for the Republicans for 16yrs?. The apparently born-again revisionist who wrote all those books for duty and not money.
If the Jewish Defence League wanted Cole/Stein dead he would be.
Posted by Frederik 1 year ago
I argue Pro is projecting.
No votes have been placed for this debate.