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

Holocaust happened

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 7/14/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,364 times Debate No: 77664
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (1)




TheTroof challenged me to this debate.

The proposition of this debate: "The Holocaust happened"


Holocaust - A genocide in which approximately six million Jews were killed by Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime and its collaborators [1]


4 rounds, 72 hours, 10,000 characters

For the sake of the reader, the format will be:

Round 1: Resolution, rules and Acceptance
Round 2: Arguments (No rebuttals)
Round 3: Rebuttals and Defense
Round 4: Rebuttals, Defense and Final conclusion

1. No forfeits.
2. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be within the debate or in comments.
3. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere.
4. No trolling.
5. Feel free to run a Kritik if you want.
6. No deconstructional semantics.
7. Burden of Proof (BoP) is shared
8. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.
9. Failure to adhere to the rules above leads to an immediate loss



I accept. It should be understood that my opponent's position isn't merely that "approximately six million Jews were killed by Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime" but that the killing was intentionally.

Looking forward to my opponent's opening arguments, then I will present my own.
Debate Round No. 1


It's very sad that in this day and age holocaust deniers still exist. I wonder why? Where does that misguided passion come from? That's the main reason I accepted this debate. I honestly hope that I can convince my opponent that the holocaust did happen and millions of Jews were intentionally murdered at the hands of the Nazi's, although he seems fixated in his belief.

Contention 1: Means, Motives and Opportunity

A. Means and Opportunity

There's no question that Nazi Germany had the means and opportunity to commit this genocide. It had arguably the strongest army in the world and controlled swaths of land ranging from France to large area of the Soviet Union.

B. Motive

Hitler vehemently expressed his hatred of the Jews.

In a speech in before the Reichstag (German Parliament), Hitler said (First video) "If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result […] [will be] the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe." [1]

In another speech, Hitler said (Second video) "It is clear to us that the war can only end with the destruction of the Germanic peoples or the disappearance of Jewry from Europe. […] Instead, the result of this war will be the destruction of Jewry. For the first time others will not bleed alone. For the first time the genuine old Jewish law will be applied: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth!" And the more this war spreads, the more anti-Semitism will spread. This may be said to world Jewry. Anti-Semitism will be nourished in every prison camp, in every family…" [2].

Therefore, the means, motives and opportunity for this crime are clearly established.

Contention 2: German Reports

Einsatzgruppen were the special unit that was responsible for mass killings [3]. After the fall of Nazi Germany to the Allies, many records were captured. Here are a few:

A. Jäger Report

The first report (shown below), called the Jäger Report shows the extermination of 137,346 people, of which 136,421 were Jews [4].

B. Heinrich Himmler's Report

Heinrich Himmler, the head of the SS, provided a report to the Führer (Hitler) about the Nazo's fight against gangs in Ukraine. It provides a report of the number of exterminated Jews by month (In German: Juden exekutiert). The tally is 363,211 Jews.

C. Heinrich Himmler's Speech

In this speech, Himmler, who's the leader of the SS, speaks openly about the extermination of the Jews (See third video). He said "The Jewish people is being exterminated," every Party member will tell you, "perfectly clear, it's part of our plans, we're eliminating the Jews, exterminating them, ha… A small matter" He continues to say "A number of SS men have offended against this order. There are not very many, and they will be dead men. Without mercy! We have the moral right. We had the duty to our people to do it, to kill this people who wanted to kill us." [5]

I could really go on and on and on, but I think the above evidence is sufficient enough.

Contention 3: Nazi's are not Holocaust Deniers

I think this contention by itself is enough to close this case for my favor. If the holocaust was just a hoax, and a conspiracy theory made by the Jews to advance their agendas, then how can one explain that many Nazi's didn't deny the holocaust! Nazi's who were being sentenced to death and with the full knowledge that they will be hanged as a result of their crime didn't deny it. In fact, they even remained mostly apathetic and didn't feel much remorse. Here are a few examples:

A. Rudolf Höss Confession

Höss was the "longest serving commandant of Auschwitz concentration camp in World War II". He was tried in 1946 and was put to death. At no point did he deny the holocaust, not even moments before his execution. There are transcripts from his confession [8]:

"DR. KAUFFMANN: Is it true that in 1941 you were ordered to Berlin to see Himmler? Please state briefly what was discussed.
HOESS: Yes. In the summer of 1941 1 was summoned to Berlin to Reichsfáhrer SS Himmler to receive personal orders. He told me something to the effect--I do not remember the exact words--that the Fáffrer had given the order for a final solution of the Jewish question. We, the SS, must carry out that order. If it is not carried out now then the Jews will later on destroy the German people. He had chosen Auschwitz on account of its easy access by rail and also because the extensive site offered space for measures ensuring isolation."

Höss explained the final solution, and how the Jews are methodically exterminated:

"The 'final solution' of the Jewish question meant the complete extermination of all Jews in Europe. I was ordered to establish extermination facilities at Auschwitz in June 1941. At that time, there were already in the General Government three other extermination camps: Belzek, Treblinka, and Wolzek. These camps were under the Einsatzkommando of the Security Police and SD. I visited Treblinka to find out how they carried out their exterminations. The camp commandant at Treblinka told me that he had liquidated 80,000 in the course of one-half year. He was principally concerned with liquidating all the Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto. He used monoxide gas, and I did not think that his methods were very efficient. So when I set up the extermination building at Auschwitz, I used Cyklon B, which was a crystallized prussic acid which we dropped into the death chamber from a small opening. It took from 3 to 15 minutes to kill the people in the death chamber, depending upon climatic conditions. We knew when the people were dead because their screaming stopped. We usually waited about one-half hour before we opened the doors and removed the bodies. After the bodies were removed our special Kommandos took off the rings and extracted the gold from the teeth of the corpses."

B. Hans Stark's testimony and supporting footage

Hans Stark was a minor during the war and was given the maximum sentence for a minor (10 years). This is what he said:

"about thirty to forty women were gassed in one gas chamber. The Jewish women were forced to undress in an open place close to the gas chamber, and were driven into the gas chamber by the above mentioned SS members and the Ukrainian auxiliaries. When the women were shut up in the gas chamber I and Bolender set the motor in motion […] About ten minutes later the thirty to forty women were dead." [8]

Here's some footage secretly taken that corroborates the testimony [9].

C. Wilhelm Bahr's testimony

Wilhelm Bahr was an SS military man in the Neuengamme concentration camp. He testifies the following and was put to death by hanging in October 1946.

"Michel [the sergeant-major of the camp] told me later that Wirth suddenly appeared, looked around on the gas chambers on which they were still working, and said: 'right, we'll try it out right now with those twenty-five working Jews. Get them up here'. They marched our twenty-five Jews up there and just pushed them in and gassed them."

Contention 4: Holocaust victims or Foot fetish

The Soviet Army recovered more than 300,000 pairs of shoes from Auschwitz-Birkenau and Majdanek. See the image below for yourself. RationalWiki describes this simple evidence in the simplest way: "Either these shoes were from the Holocaust victims or the Nazis were some serious foot fetishists. Take your pick."

I didn't even present other evidence such as Witness testimonies of victims, census data and mass deportation…etc…etc. But I think the evidence above is more than sufficient to end this debate.

On a final note - Lest we forget Nazi's other victims: The deaf and mute, the disabled, homosexual men, Jehovah witnesses, communists and socialists, gypsies, Slavs, POW (especially Russians) and the over 60 million people killed in World War II.


[8] Klee, Dressen, Riess, "The Good Old Days", p. 255
[11] "Truth Prevails", p. 99



My position is simple and straightforward.
  • Hitler wanted to expel, not murder, all Jews in Germany.

Hitler signed an agreement with the Jews to facilitate their emigration out of Germany.(1) The Nuremburg Trials accepted that, "a written order for the extermination of the Jews does not exist."(2) The Nazi's Final Solution wasn't a plan to exterminate Jews. In the words of infamous Holocaust-denying historian, Robert Faurisson, the Final Solution was a plan for emigration, preferably, or forced evacuation, if necessary.

Substantiating my claim is a 1942 memo circulated amongst the Nazis by then German Secretary of State, Martin, which reads(9):

  • "The present war gives Germany the opportunity and also the duty of solving the Jewish problem in Europe.
  • ... a solution: The removal of Jews from Europe ...
  • ... the Führer intends to evacuate all Jews from Europe ...
  • ... the evacuation of the Jews ... is still in force ...
  • Major General Heydrich informed the Reich Foreign Minister that the whole problem of the approximately three and a quarter million Jews in the areas under German control can no longer be solved by emigration; a territorial final solution would be necessary.
  • In recognition of this, Reich Marshal Goering, on 31 July 1941, commissioned SS Maior General Heydrich to make, in conjunction with the interested German Control agencies, all necessary preparations for a total solution of the Jewish problem ... the Führer, instead of the emigration, had now authorized the evacuation of the Jews to the East as the solution ...
  • On the basis of the Führer's instruction ... the evacuation of the Jews from Germany was begun.
  • ... at the end of this war, all Jews would have to leave Europe. This was an unalterable decision of the Führer and also the only way to master this problem ...

I challenge my opponent to find any official, Nazi document describing a plan to massacre Jews. You would think that after several years of systematic, government-sponsored genocide, at least one official order would have survived the German defeat.

It's also telling that neither Hitler's Mein Kamf, nor the WWII memoirs of Eisenhower or Churchill, make the least reference to genocide of Jews or homocidal gas chambers. Why?

Because they are fictions.

  • The Holocaust is a legend originating in, and sustained by, rumors, lies and government suppression of free speech.

The Germans employed concentration camps to contain Jews, much as America employed them to segregate the Japanese. The German camps were where emigrating Jews were subjected to a delousing (lice-removal) process. As Encyclopedia Britannica states,

  • "The most important form of typhus has been epidemic typhus (borne by lice) ... during World War II it ... caused epidemics ... particularly in German concentration camps."(4)

The German delousing process was one for which, ironically, the United States itself had set precendent. According to National Public Radio,

  • "[I]n the 1920s, U.S. officials at the Santa Fe Bridge deloused and sprayed the clothes of Mexicans crossing into the U.S. with Zyklon B. The fumigation was carried out in an area of the building that American officials called, ominously enough, "the gas chambers."(5)

This is how The Holocaust myth got started. Jews were dieing by the thousands in concentration camps due to the typhus epidemic, which is capable of a mortality rate as high as 60% (8). The Allies were also bombing German infrastructure at the time, reducing the efficiency of, or totally eliminating, the transportation of food, water and medicine to the various concentration camps.

The Germans tried to solve the lice problem by subjecting the Jews to the same type of delousing process which the Americans had put Mexicans through twenty years before. They even used the same delousing agent, Zyklon B (a brand name for cyanide gas)!

Ten years earlier, representatives of the international Jewish community had officially declared war on Germany.(6) This was before the Nazis had even limited the rights of German Jews, but combine those two facts and it's easy to understand the animosity the Jews bore towards the Germans. This animosity encouraged the rumor that Nazis were using Zyklon B to gas Jews to death (as opposed to merely gassing lice to death), and since the Jews were dieing by the thousands due to typhus (which is not only fatal itself, but destroys the appetite and promotes malnutrition), the sight of numerous emaciated Jews made it easy to believe this.

From here, the legend took on a life of its own. Concentration camps began to be referred to as extermination camps, and false accusations were levered against the Nazis at the Nuremburg Trials. Some of the more rediculous accusations made there, which have since been acknowledged as frauds the worldover, include:

  • Making soap out of Jewish fat
  • Making lampshades out of Jewish skin
  • Making shrunken heads out of Jewish heads
  • Tossing Jewish babies alive into ovens
Hopefully the myth of homocidal gas chambers will one day find their place on this list.

Further sustaining the Holocaust legend is the downright criminalization of attempts to re-examine it critically. Holocaust denial, and in many instances, mere skepticism of the 6,000,000 number, is illegal in the following countries(7):

  • Austria
  • Belgium
  • Czech Republic
  • France
  • Germany
  • Liechtenstein
  • Lithuania
  • Netherlands
  • Poland
  • Romania
  • Slovakia
  • Spain
  • Switzerland
  • Israel

Unlike my opponent, I've no need to indulge in appeals to emotion because the facts are on my side. For anyone who questions the possibility of a falsehood of such magnitude being foisted upon the world, remember these prophetic words of Hitler in Mein Kamf (My Struggle):

  • "[I]n the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.
  • Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.
  • From time immemorial, however, the Jews have known better than any others how falsehood and calumny can be exploited."(3)

Indeed; exploitation of the Holocaust Hoax is a political debate tactic used daily, worldwide, capable of stifling any and all opposition. Label your opponent an anti-Semite or compare him to Hitler (see Godwin's Law), and you as well have been taken back to the Medieval Ages and excommunicated by the Pope himself.

Before I close this round, I would like to point out that I have no more animosity towards the typical Jew than I do towards the typical white guy. Because of the lie of the Holocaust, I feel I must ward off the suspicion of racism that so often accompanies those who dare challenge the accepted version of WWII history.


Oops, is that an appeal to emotion?

Debate Round No. 2



R1. Hitler wanted to expel, not murder, all Jews in Germany?

Con argues that "Hitler wanted to expel, not murder, all Jews in Germany". This claim can be easily refuted, and there's a lot of evidence that provides proof of murder. I'll refute this argument as follows:

A. Jäger Report

I've already presented the Jäger Report in Round 2. In the English translation, the report states "Jews liquidated by pogroms and executions" [1]. Liquidates and executions are synonymous with murder, and not about expelling. So Con's claim is false.

B. Heinrich Himmler's Report

I've also presented the Heinrich Himmler's Report in the previous round. It states "Juden exekutiert" which means executed Jews. This refers to death, and not expelling.

C. Goebbels Diaries

Joseph Goebbels was a leading member of the Nazi Party and wrote a diary [2]. Please note that he committed suicide on May 1, 1945 (Before the end of the War), so he wasn't pressured or tortured to fake a diary. What did the diary say? [3]

March 27, 1942 (pp. 147-148)
Beginning with Lublin, the Jews in the General Government are now being evacuated eastward. The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only about 40 per cent can be used for forced labor.

D. Expelled? To where?

Con argues that Hitler only meant to expel the Jews, not murder them. So in this case, you would expect that Nazi's would kick the Jews to someplace far from Europe, right? The answer is no! The map below shows where the Jews were expelled to. They were expelled from the corners of Europe into the outskirts of Germany, such as Auschwitz, Belzek, Treblinka.

E. Crematoriums and Human Remains!

When you find human remains in a crematoriums… Need I say more?

F. Mass Graves

I will not torture the readers by showing these pictures, but I urge you to look at the images in this link [4]. They are graphic. Readers' discretion is advised. These mass graves of "disfigured" Jewish people is further evidence.

Do I need to say more!

R2. Written order?

Con brings the case of Albert Speer Testimony where it states that there was no written order. Con intentionally took this sentence out of context. The full text reads [5]:

"Hitler's method of work was that he gave even important commands to his confidants verbally. Also in the leader's records of my interviews with Hitler completely preserved in the German Federal Archives - there were numerous commands even in important areas which Hitler clearly gave by word of mouth only. It therefore conforms with his method of work and must not be regarded as an oversight, that a written order for the extermination of the Jews does not exist" (Bolded text is what Con originally provided)

Basically, Hitler gives very important commands verbally at times. If a written order was not extracted, it wouldn't diminish the legitimacy of the argument.

R3. Churchill denied the holocaust?

Con argues that Churchill and others didn't mention the holocaust. This is a straw man attack! But I'll address it anyways. Churchill, actually, wrote about the holocaust:

Reading in July 1944 the first detailed account of Auschwitz, Churchill wrote: "There is no doubt this is the most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world, and it has been done by scientific machinery by nominally civilised men in the name of a great State and one of the leading races of Europe. It is quite clear that all concerned in this crime who may fall into our hands, including the people who only obeyed orders by carrying out the butcheries, should be put to death after their association with the murders has been proved." [6]

Con mentioned that Hitler's book (Mein Kamf) which was written in 1924, didn't mentioned the genocide. Con argues that this is evidence that Hitler didn't intend to commit mass murders. That's a joke! This argument is non-sequitur. Hitler may have had the intention to exterminate the Jews, but didn't share these extreme views as they might impact his political aspirations. Or, Hitler may have made the decision to exterminate the Jews later, or even after the beginning of the war.

R4. Delousing Argument

Con argues that Nazi's sprayed Zyklon B to delouse Jews, and not kill them. He's inferring that they might have unintentionally killed them, or that the Typhon is the cause of the death. Con then shows that Zyklon B was used by Americans on Mexicans as well. I will refute this argument below:

A. Carbon Monoxide: all three Reinford camps in Treblinka used carbon monoxide [7], not Zyklon B. Carbon Monoxide doesn't delouse.

B. Zyklon B kills humans effectively: Zyklon B consists of hydrogen cyanide, less that 300 mg/m3 would kill human after 10 minutes. 3200 mg/m3 would kill humans within 1 minute! [8]

C. Gas chambers vs. Delousing chamber! There were two types of gas chambers in Auschwitz: One for delousing clothes, and one for exterminating people. The fact that there are two types of gas chambers should be enough to refute my opponent's claim. To prove my point further, there are differences between the two [9].

Delousing chambers had blue walls due to hydrogen cyanide. Blue walls occurred as a result of hydrogen cyanide reacting with iron compounds to form the pigment Prussian blue. Gas chambers didn't have blue walls. That's because gas chambers had ventilation units, which prevents hydrogen cyanide to taint the walls. Also, lice are more stubborn than humans and requires "levels up to 16,000ppm (parts per million) and an exposure time of more than 20 hours" [10]. Human only need 300ppm to be killed as I've shown previously.

D. Nazi's destroyed gas chambers, but not delousing facilities
: What's interesting to note that Nazi's destroyed gas chamber before they were captured by the Soviets. However, they left the "delousing facilities" intact. Coincidence?

E. Too convenient? If Nazi's genuinely didn't mean to kill the Jews, and only delouse them, why would they continue performing the same "instant" killing procedure over and over for millions of people? If a doctor injects medicine to patients that kills them instantly, would them keep doing it, over and over and over again? And if they did, would they not be liable for "deliberate killing" having knowledge of the result of their actions?

Red Herrings

Con presented many "Red herrings" so I simply ignore most of them. For example, Con claims that holocaust denial is illegal in some countries, or that Jews declared war on Germany. These and others don't change the fact that Nazi's killed nearly 6 million Jews.



Images from:



Pro's numbers add up to less than 1 million, but he must prove 6 million.
  • "If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result […] [will be] the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe." - Hitler

Leading expert on the Holocaust, Hans Mommsen(1), says this was merely propaganda and not indicative of genocidal intent(2), and Mommsen isn't even a Holocaust Denier.

  • "[T]he war can only end with the destruction of the Germanic peoples or the disappearance of Jewry from Europe."
  • "Instead, the result of this war will be the destruction of Jewry. For the first time others will not bleed alone. For the first time the genuine old Jewish law will be applied: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth!" - Hitler

The first quote refers to forced emigration. The second refers to the destruction of the Jewish grip on the media, which Hitler intends to combat with anti-Jew propaganda. In fact, he was very successful with this approach in Germany, and is here revealing he will employ the same tactic throughout the rest of Europe.

Just because Hitler employed violent language in this declaration, like "others will not bleed alone," and, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth!" doesn't mean he wanted genoide. As tempting as it is to take the statements literally, that is only due to our deeply entrenched prejudice. The facts of history prove they were merely metaphors for the annihilation of the Jewish influence, not Jewish race. Refer back to the Nazi memo circulated among top Nazi officials well into the war-- after this scathing speech-- which confirms Hitler's only plan for the Jews was expulsion.

The Jäger Report purports to record the massacre of 136,421 Jews at the hands of Nazis. It purports to be a copy of the original, but it's just a typewritten paper bearing no signature (much less Jäger's signature) and anybody could have typed this up, especially the Soviets who claim to have 'discovered' it over a decade after the war's end. It was alleged to have been 'found' so late that its existence was not even known at the Nuremburg Trials.

There is no reason to trust the Soviets who published this document, and every reason to consider them liars and fraudsters. They massacred 22,000 Polish(4) in cold blood during WWII, blaming it on the Nazis. This hoax was upheld for 40 years until they finally fessed up in 1990.(3) This Jäger Report is just another instance of Soviet fraud.

Himmler's report is on anti-partisan measures taken. Jews were executed if they were partisans. This was completely legal, since partisan Jews, fighting in civilian garb, were war criminals guilty of perfidy under the Geneva Convention.

Here's the correct translation of Himmler's speech, which says nothing about exterminating Jews:

  • "I am thinking now of the evacuation of the Jews, the uprooting of the Jewish people. It is one of those things that's easy to say: "The Jewish people will be uprooted" , says every Party comrade, "that's quite clear, it's in our programme: elimination of the Jews, extirpation; that's what we're doing." ... The riches they had, we've taken away from them. I have given a strict order ... that these riches shall, of course, be diverted to the Reich without exception ... he who takes even one mark of it, that's his death. A number of SS men ... have violated that order, and that will be their death, without mercy. We had the moral right, we had the duty to our own people, to kill this people which wanted to kill us."(5)

Pro's deceitful quote-mining and incorrect translation gave the false impression that Himmler, in speaking of the "people which wanted to kill," were Jews. It was actually thieving, disobedient Nazis, portrayed as wanting to kill the German people (hyperbole).

Höss' confessions were obtained via torture and not submissable as evidence. They also manifest absurdities that prove their false character, such as the reference to a non-existent concentration camp (Wolzek) and suspicious mispellings ("Tublinka" instead of "Treblinka"). Some of them weren't even written in his own language (!).

Stark's testimony is just so stupid, frankly, that it cannot be believed. Stark said the Nazis executed Jews by hiding a rifle behind their back and telling them, "Look over there,"(7) then immediately shooting them behind the neck. Once again, we are required to believe the Jews are complete idiots in order to accept the Holocaust legend as fact. There's no way anyone with a room-temperature IQ is going to fall for this prank. The Nazis would have come up with a more efficient killing process if their true intent was to systematically slaughter Jews.

Even more rediculous is Stark's testimony that "10 to 15 minutes" after gassing of the Jews commenced, the doors were opened and Nazis retrieved the bodies inside. The Zyklon B insecticide would have still been releasing its lethal load of cyanide gas; it does so for hours. Any Nazi that dared open the door in 15 minutes would have poisoned himself, assuming he wasn't dead already from cyanide gas escaping the non-airtight chambers.

Based on his own careful on-site examination, chemist Dr. Lindsey, declared under oath: "[N]o one was willfully or purposefully killed with Zyklon B ... absolutely impossible."(8)

Leuchter, America's number one gas-chamber expert, declared:

  • "After reviewing all of the material and inspecting all of the sites at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek ... there were no execution gas chambers at any of these locations ... the alleged gas chambers at the inspected sites could not have then been, or now, be utilized or seriously considered to function as execution gas chambers."(9)

Pro's photos of typhus and dysentry-infected corpses being burnt; i.e. properly disposed of, are hardly evidence of any wrongdoing, much less murder.

Bahr's testimony is a comment about 25 Jews, not 6,000,000.

The shoe argument is another Soviet lie. They weren't taken from murder victims. They came from the nearby shoe factory.(10)

  • “The rest of the Jews ... would be liquidated, which means either transported eastward in cattle trucks to an unknown destination, or killed where they stood” - The London Times, December 4th, 1942
  • "the Jews ... are now being evacuated eastward ... On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only about 40 per cent can be used for forced labor." - Goebbels

He is saying 60% will be evacuated to the east while only 40% can stay to work for the Nazis.

Pro shows a map which he uses to support his claim Hitler 'deported' Europe's Jews into Germany. Not only is this nonsensical claim utterly absurd, false, and without basis in fact, but his image is of such low quality that it's difficult or impossible to make out the legend/key.

Pro gives us two photos of crematoria containing bodies. Since the purpose of a crematorium is to burn bodies, there's nothing sinister about that. The Nazis should be applauded for properly disposing of disease-ridden corpses in this manner.

There were indeed mass graves in the Nazi concentration camps; many people died of typhus, as I find myself repeating far too often. None of Pro's photos show more than maybe ten or twenty corpses, yet you must prove first that 6,000,000 were killed, and second, that they were all Jews and it was the Nazis who done it.

"Hitler gives very important commands verbally at times. If a written order was not extracted, it wouldn't diminish the legitimacy of the argument." - Pro

It definitely does hurt your case that no written order exists for the murder of Jews. None from Hitler, none from any Nazi, none from nobody. The pathetic argument that this is so because Hitler was fond of verbal orders is just an excuse.

I didn't say Churchill never mentioned the Holocaust. What I said was he never wrote about "genocide of Jews or homocidal gas chambers" in his memoirs. I appreciate Pro's concession that genocidal intent is not shown in Hitler's Mein Kamf.

Pro says, "Treblinka used carbon monoxide," but his citation takes me to an irrelevant Wiki page.

Pro argues there were two types of gas chambers at Auschwitz; one for gassing lice, and one for gassing Jews. First, I will remind the voters that I have expert testimony on my side from a person who actually designed and built Missouri's gas chamber that concludes no human gassing could or did take place at the Nazi concentration camps; The only authority Pro calls to his defense is RationalWiki.

Second, Pro argues less Zyklon B is needed to kill people than lice, which is why the lice chambers are stained blue but not the Jew chambers. An obvious question that arises is how does he know the Jew chambers weren't stained blue, since according to Pro, the Nazis destroyed them? And if the Jew chambers weren't stained blue because they were ventilated, then how did sufficient gas build up to kill the Jews? Also, what were the Nazis doing delousing clothes for Jews, when they intended to kill them anyway?


(5) (minor edits by myself)
(8) The Globe and Mail, Toronto, Feb. 12, 1985, p. M3.
(10) p.17

Debate Round No. 3


I will defend my arguments and provide a closing statement.

6 Million Jews

Con states that my numbers add up to less than a million, but I must prove all 6 million. He's saying "Chill Salam! It's only a million or so. Not that much of a deal". This is one of the worst arguments I've ever heard. The holocaust is not merely about numbers. It's about the systemic killing and genocide of (primarily) the Jews. I will however defend the 6 million estimates anyways.

There were studies made by several scholars. Hilberg wrote "The Destruction of the European Jews" [1]. He estimated that 5.1 million Jews were killed. Why did I present this source? Because it wasn't kind to Jews and faced opposition from Yad Vashem [2]. So it's only reasonable to accept this account as unbiased and neutral.

Other scholars such as Benz Wolfgang estimated the death toll from 5.29-6.2 million Jews [3]. Lucy Dawidowicz estimated the toll to be 5.9 millions [4]. Martin Gilbert estimated the number to be above 5.75 million [5]. So while the exact number will never be known, we know one thing for sure. And that the holocaust happened.

Contention 1: Means, Motives and Opportunity

Con is trying to engage in semantic debate to argue words for words. But there's no need to do so, and it appears that Con doesn't seem to understand what motives are. What I was able to establish in this contention is that Hitler had profound hate towards the Jews, and that he wanted to annihilate the Jewish race from Europe. That's a mere fact. As such, I've established the means, motives (hate) and opportunity for this crime. Now, I must provide evidence that the crime occurred.

Contention 2: German Reports

A. Jäger Report

Con tries to discount the Jäger Report as "anybody could have typed this up". But if that's the case, wouldn't they type up a report with 6 million Jews and get it over with? Why only show 136,421 Jews? And if it was Soviet propaganda, why would they do it decades later? Con then tries to shift the subject of how evil the Soviets were. That's a Red Herring.

B. Heinrich Himmler's Report

Con argues that the report refers to Jews who were being killed because they were anti-partisans. That's 363,211 Jews over a four month period from August to November! At this rate, there would be more than 1 million anti-partisan Jews per year! May be all Jews were considered anti-partisans by Germans.

C. Himmler's Speech

Con tries to "retranslate" Himmler's speech. I'll refute my opponent's arguments below. I hate semantic debates, but bear with me here:

Himmler said (in German) "…die Ausrottung des jüdischen Volkes" (Extermination of the Jews). Con argues that it means uprooting, but doesn't mean exterminating. This is a very nice cherry picking argument from Con. But I'll prove him wrong nonetheless.

In the very same speech, Himmler continues: "Because we don't want, at the end of all this, to get sick and die from the same bacillus that we have exterminated" [7]. In German it is: "…weil wir den Bazillus ausrotten…". This is the same word that Con referred to as "to uproot". But uprooting Bacteria is insane. The only proper meaning is killing the bacteria, and that's why exterminating is what Himmler meant.

But I have further evidence. In the following speech 2 days later (October 6th, 2014), Himmler says: "I did not consider myself justified to exterminate the men – in other words, to kill them or have them killed and allow the avengers of our sons and grandsons in the form of their children to grow up." [9]

In German, it's written as: "… die Männer auszurotten – sprich also, umzubringen (!) oder umbringen zu lassen – ..." [10]

You can see the use of the word auszurotten again, which clearly means exterminating as explained by Himmler, as it relates to umzubringen which means to kill in German. So Con can argue all he wants, but there's no escape that this was a command to kill the Jews.

Contention 3: Nazi's are not Holocaust Deniers

A. Rudolf Höss Confession

Con argues that Höss' confession was not submissable (he meant admissible) as evidence because it was obtained via torture. He also mentions absurdities in the confession, which I will address and use to support my argument further. So let's examine this:

1. Höss actually described the holocaust in his memoir vividly. He states that around 1.13 million were killed in Auschwitz alone. To argue that he was coerced is complete rubbish. His memoir is very candid, and he challenged estimates of witness testimonies. He states "I regard a total of 2.5 million as far too high. Even Auschwitz had limits to its destructive capabilities. Figures given by former prisoners are figments of their imagination and have no foundation in fact." [13]. What kind of coercion is this?

2. Höss had the opportunity to deny the claims before being hanged. He didn't do so. Höss stated it in his autobiography that he will be executed [12]. Why would he maintain "coerced and fake" facts that will get him hanged?

3. Höss signed the German confession, not the English one [14]

4. Con claims that the confession has absurdities like misspelling of Treblinka. Misspelling is hardly an argument! Also Wolzek most likely refers to Sobibor's concentration camp. That concentration camp is closer to Wolczyny than Sobibor (See map below [11]). That concentration map was closed shortly after a revolt in 1943, so it's not odd for Höss to not remember it vividly [15].
In fact, these so called "absurdities" work for my case! If the whole thing was just a "made-up" story, it would be more plausible that the written confession would be written perfectly without these absurdities! The fact that there are imperfections due to memory attests to the authenticity of Höss' confession.

B. Hans Stark's testimony and supporting footage

Con argues that asking a prisoner to look the other way is unreasonable! But this is normal in executions. This is normal even if the prisoner knew that they'll be killed! Even today, ISIS/Daesh rounded thousands of Iraqi soldiers and asked them to kneel and look the other way… I prefer not to share the video for obvious reasons.

And the comment that anyone opening the doors after 10 to 15 minutes would die because of cyanide is complete rubbish. They had many ventilation units to replace the air. Also, the Sonderkommando's (Jews who worked for the Nazi's) wore gas masks were ventilation units were limited or non-existent [16].

C. Wilhelm Bahr's testimony

Con doesn't challenge Bahr's testimony. He only complains that they only gassed 25. This is a concession from Con that gassing was used to mass murder. Bahr's testimony was about one event only. I never argued that all the Jews were killed in one session.

Contention 4: Holocaust victims or Foot fetish

Con simply argues that Soviets were lying. How convenient for Con! He argues that these are the pictures of a factory, which is complete nonsense. The picture shows old, well worn and in bad condition shoes of different colors and types. What kind of factory does this?

Other points

Con claims that Leuchter is "America's number one gas-chamber expert!" What a joke! He is an execution technician with no engineering experience [17], and produced a pseudoscientific Leuchter report [18]. Some of his report's findings I have already refuted in this debate! "Leuchter chiefly cited the absence of Prussian blue in the homicidal gas chambers in support of his view". However I explained in Round 3 "Gas chambers didn't have blue walls. That's because gas chambers had ventilation units, which prevents hydrogen cyanide to taint the walls."

Con simply drops my point about the map to deport Jews from the outskirts of Europe (specifically into the main extermination camps). Con actually already admits that Hitler wanted to evacuate the Jews, and that they were evacuated to Auschwitz, Belzec…etc. There were many Russian and Ukrainian prisoners. That's further than Germany than the concentration camps.

Con doesn't disagree with the use of crematoria or of the existent of mass graves. He simply argues that they are for people who died from typhus. What rubbish! On top of that, how can one explain the Jew being shot before being thrown in the mass grave?

Regarding Treblinka's use of carbon monoxide, I've already shown it in Höss confession in Round 2. But here's another source [19].

Con then challenges, "how does [Pro] know the Jew chambers weren't stained blue, since according to Pro, the Nazis destroyed them". This question is a joke! Just because it was demolished, it doesn't mean that the destroyed building vanished from Earth.

Con challenges "How did sufficient gas build up to kill the Jews?" That's a very silly point. The ventilation units were opened only after the Jews were killed.

Con then says "What were the Nazis doing delousing clothes for Jews, when they intended to kill them anyway?" It was war! They deloused the good clothes to ship to Germany. That's why in the picture of the shoes, you only see the poor quality ones. Good ones most likely were also shipped for reuse.

On a final note - Lest we forget Nazi's other victims: The deaf and mute, the disabled, homosexual men, Jehovah witnesses, communists and socialists, gypsies, Slavs, POW (especially Russians) and the over 60 million people killed in World War II.

Therefore I affirm. Vote Pro!

Sources in Comments



Pro promised in the first round to prove approximately 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis, so it's 
a bit absurd for him to complain when I point out that he has failed to so.

Just because books written by Jews, like Hilberg and Lucy, claim 5.1 million Jews were killed doesn't
mean it's true. Remember, Jews also wrote in the Talmud that the Romans slaughtered 4 billion of them
in ~70 A.D.(1), a blatant lie since there wasn't nearly that many people in the world yet. The other
book citations are meaningless without an argument or evidence to back up the respective numbers. I'm
not aware that citing a long list of books supporting your position in the very last round is a valid
debating tactic.

Yes, Hitler developed a hatred for Jews based on his personal experience with them, and admitted as much
in Mein Kamf. But hatred doesn't automatically mean genocidal intent. Teenagers say they hate their
parents all the time, but that doesn't necessarily make them murderers.

The reason the Soviets didn't claim 6,000,000 dead Jews in their Jager Report is obviously because the
number 6 million was already commonly accepted as the total number of Jews slain in WWII, so there would
be no deaths left to attribute to the concentration camps. Note the Jager Report doesn't refer to
concentration camp, or mythical gas chamber, deaths.

Pro makes much ado about the 363,211 partisan/war-criminal Jews killed in 4 months, but remember that's a tiny fraction of the total slaughtered overall in the War;
15,000,000 battle deaths alone (excluding that of civilians) occured over the course of it(2).

20,000 British and Commonwealth soldiers were slain in a single day at the Battle of the Somme.(3) I
could make an argument as silly as Pro's and explain how at this rate, over 6 million would have been
killed in a year! Oh dear! Does that mean the Civil War was a Holocaust of the British people?

Since Pro doesn't understand the flexibility of the German word "ausrotten" and how it doesn't
necessarily mean "to murder," especially when the context prohibits such an interpretation, I will let a
native German speaker, and a Nazi to boot, explain:
  • "I do not need a foreign dictionary in order to explain the various meanings "ausrottung" may have in the German language. One can exterminate an idea, an economic system a social order, and as a final consequence, also a group of human beings, certainly. Those are the many possibilities which are contained in that word. For that I do not need an English-German dictionary. Translations from German into English are so often wrong ... It means "to overcome" on one side and then it is to be used not with respect to individuals but rather to juridical entities, to certain historical traditions. On the other side this word has been used with respect to the German people and we have also not believed that in consequence ... 60 millions of Germans would be shot." - Rosenburg(4)

Pro's only basis for arguing ausrotten universally means "to kill" is that a Nazi used it to refer to
bacteria. After accusing me of playing semantics, he says it's insane to "uproot bacteria." But when I
said the word means, "to uproot," I obviously wasn't being literal in the sense of pulling up the Jews
by their literal roots ... I clearly meant removing them, as anyone with common sense would understand.
Just because a Nazi uses the term "ausrotten" to refer to removal of infectious bacteria doesn't
necessarily imply he means it in the sense of murder when referring to Jews ... especially when, as in
the case at hand, he began his remark by saying:

  • "I am thinking now of the evacuation of the Jews, the [ausrotten] of the Jewish people." - Himmler

To claim "ausrotten" here means "to kill" requires ignoring the first part of the sentence, which is an
obviously silly exercise is self-serving semantics. Since "ausrotten" can have any of a large variety
of meanings, including "extirpation" (removal), the context in this case forces us to interpret this way.
Not in Pro's way. And as I showed above, the Nazis themselves explained they did not mean it in the "to
murder" sense.

  • "I did not consider myself justified to exterminate the men – in other words, to kill them" - Himmler (allegedly)

SS General, Berger, was in the audience when Himmler gave that speech. He says the transcript (from which Pro got his quote) is not accurate; in other words, it's a fabricated quote.(5) If the testimony of this eye-witness isn't enough to convince you that this particular quote was faked and snuck inside the rest of the genuine transcript, then perhaps the fact that the transcript is titled "Jewish Evacuation" will convince you.(5) The transcript is not signed. It was faked very easily by someone with a typewriter, likely the Soviets, based on their admitted fraudlence regarding the massacre of those 22,000 Polish.

  • "Höss actually described the holocaust in his memoir vividly. He states that around 1.13 million were killed in Auschwitz alone. To argue that he was coerced is complete rubbish." - Pro

No, it's complete rubbish to think his memoirs are admissable evidence. Not even the author of the
particular compilation in your citation thinks his memoirs are accurate. For example, the memoirs
records Himmler stating that Auschwitz will be used as an extermination camp since the extermination
sites in "the East" don't suffice. But the author of the compilation Pro himself cited admits,

  • "there were no exterminaton centers in the East ..." (p. 27 of Pro's source)
Another example of Pro's own source challenging the accuracy (thus destroying the credibility) of Höss'
memoirs is on page 31, where Hoss supposedly says Eichmann gave orders, and where the author of the
compilation points out that, "It is unlikely that Eichmann could or would give such orders since he was
not in charge of the camps."

  • "Why would he maintain "coerced and fake" facts that will get him hanged?" - Pro

Let's let Höss himself answer, quoting from your own source:

  • "[The Allies] beat me to obtain evidence. I do not know what was in the transcript, or what I said, even though I signed it, because they gave me liquor and beat me with a whip. It was too much even for me to bear." (Hoss on page 179)

Höss was imprisoned by the Allies when he wrote the memoirs ... as proven by the above quote, they are
not admissable as evidence because they were produced under duress.

  • "Con argues that asking a prisoner to look the other way is unreasonable! But this is normal in executions." - Pro

Pro doesn't understand Stark's statement. It alleges Nazis tricked Jews into coming into a room with
them, under innocent pretexts, telling them to, "Look over there!" and sneakily pulling a gun from
behind their back and executing them. That's rubbish. Stark said they killed Jews one by one with this
method. Let's pretend this really happened; if they killed 100 Jews with this method every day since
the beginning of WWII, and wanted to reach 6 million, they'd still be doing it today.

  • "Con doesn't challenge Bahr's testimony. He only complains that they only gassed 25. This is a concession from Con that gassing was used to mass murder." - Pro

It's not a concession, I admit no such thing. I just didn't find such a silly testimony worthy of
thorough debunking:

  • "Wirth suddenly appeared, looked around on the gas chambers on which they were still working, and said: 'right, we'll try it out right now with those twenty-five working Jews. Get them up here'. They marched our twenty-five Jews up there and just pushed them in and gassed them."

Really? They just "pushed them in and gassed them"? 25 working men? Are these Jews sheep? They didn't fight back, or try to run away?

  • "Con simply argues that Soviets were lying. How convenient for Con! He argues that these are the pictures of a factory, which is complete nonsense." - Pro

The only complete nonsense is Pro's pathetic attempt to uphold his shoes as Holocaust proof. Okay Pro, just go ahead and ignore my source, which quotes a person who actually worked at the museum
where the shoes are displayed, admitting that they come not from victims of some mass-murder scheme, but
from the nearby shoe factory. The shoes are in bad shape because the shoe factory did business
repairing shoes shipped in from other places.

  • "Con claims that Leuchter is "America's number one gas-chamber expert!" What a joke!" - Pro

Leuchter designed Missouri's gas chamber. Joke's on you.

Pro again says the gas chambers weren't stained blue because killing chambers used less gas than
delousing chambers. But this doesn't excuse the fact that no gas at all was detected by Leuchter on the
walls. Pro says it's because of ventilation, but this contradicts his claim that gas reached sufficient
concentration to kill people inside.

  • "The ventilation units were opened only after the Jews were killed." - Pro

You can't have perfect ventilation and lethal concentrations at the same time, anymore than you can have
your cake and eat it too. Note that Pro hasn't even provided positive proof of his mythical, homocidal
gas chambers. He expects us to assume, a priori, that they existed and were used for mass murder, even
though a gas chamber expert denies this.

  • "how can one explain the Jew being shot before being thrown in the mass grave?" - Pro

How can one explain something that never happened?

(4) From Nuremberg to Nineveh by Mark Turley, p. 124 (free page preview on Google Books)
(5) [343]

Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by salam.morcos 1 year ago
Debate him.
Posted by TheTroof 1 year ago
His vote is rude.
Posted by salam.morcos 1 year ago
I dare you to debate him.
Posted by salam.morcos 1 year ago
That's rude @TheTroof. This *kid* is smarter than many people combined.
Posted by TheTroof 1 year ago
You're 13 years old. I see now.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
@TheTroof -

It's a red herring because "Soviet" is an overgeneralization. It's like saying "humans aren't trustworthy sources" and giving 50 incidents of lying.
Posted by TheTroof 1 year ago
tejretics your vote is a joke. It's a red herring to challenge the credibility of Soviet-supplied evidence based on the fact they are admitted hoaxsters? The rest of your vote is similarly absurd.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
Working on this, guys. Sorry for the delay.
Posted by ThamesDarwin 1 year ago
Start a new challege to me. I'll take you on. Set it as a judged debate and set the word count and number of rounds to maximum.
Posted by TheTroof 1 year ago
Thanks. Try not to let the cute Hitler pics pressure you either way.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con frequently goes off-topic, randomly using red herrings and straw-man arguments to support their case, e.g. Soviets are evil, Jews have lied before, etc. I'm not seeing as many links as there should have been in Con's case, while Pro's case is to the point, with all necessary links and impacts. Con's case hinges on the delousing v exterminating point, and that the motive was to expel Jews from Germany. The former is refuted with the fact that CO was used in some camps, and Zyklon B kills. Con's source to the contrary is questionable. As for the motive, it's preempted by Pro's case, leading us there. Pro's C2 is the strongest impact here. Con's point against Jager report is weak, and not backed up by any evidence. The motive point is also refuted by Pro regarding crematoria, since Con's argument against that is those were for deaths caused by disease, which doesn't explain gunshot. The crematoria with gunshot, that Zyklon-B can kill, and the usage of carbon monoxide means I vote Pro.