The Instigator
JackNapier
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheLadyofTheInternet
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Holocaust revisionism should be legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 11/2/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 423 times Debate No: 81912
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

JackNapier

Pro

The absolute truth should never fear investigation. On the contrary " that which is absolute truth should actively encourage investigation, confident in the knowledge that all close and objective detail would check out and indeed prove to be the absolute truth that it claims to be.

When anything fears investigation this should serve as huge red flag. When something fears investigation the most obvious question is "why"? The simple answer to that is anything which fears investigation fears some sort of exposure. If it did not then, as I"ve said, it would invite investigation and discussion and not conspire to make investigation or even asking the "wrong" question a criminal offence.

When states send their own citizens to prison for asking a ('wrong') question about or investigating an alleged historical event " then something is very wrong indeed.

Let us now look at a sample of countries in the laughably named "free world" in which any revisionism, disallowed questions, independent research and presentation of discovered facts is apparently such a terrible crime that a man or women can be thrown in jail and face total ruination. And for why? For doing what history and science depends and thrives on in all other cases " revising and study and presenting findings for discussion and information.
These are not terrorists, paedophiles and murderers.

They are very ordinary men and women who have taken an interest in this, researched it for themselves, and who simply discuss or present what they have found. These are not people that are plotting some super- secret genocide against anyone " they are writers, historians, authors, intellectuals and many ordinary men with wives and families.
*

In Romania, Emergency Ordinance No. 31 of March 13, 2002 prohibits Holocaust denial

In Poland, Holocaust denial is punishable by law.

While Holocaust denial is not explicitly illegal in the Netherlands, the courts consider it a form of spreading hatred and therefore an offence

In Luxembourg, Article 457-3 of the Criminal Code, Act of 19 July 1997 outlaws Holocaust denial

The Parliament of Hungary declared the denial or trivialization of the Holocaust a crime punishable by up to three years' imprisonment on February 23, 2010

In Germany, Volksverhetzung ("incitement of the people") is a concept in German criminal law that bans incitement to hatred against segments of the population. It often applies to (though not limited to) trials relating to Holocaust denial in Germany.

In France, the Gayssot Act, voted for on July 13, 1990, makes it illegal to question the existence of crimes that fall in the category of crimes against humanity as defined in the London Charter of 1945, on the basis of which Nazi leaders were convicted by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945-46

In the Czech Republic, Holocaust denial is illegal.

In May 2007 Ekrem Ajanovic, a Bosniak MP in the Bosnian Parliament proposed a legislation on criminalizing the denial of Holocaust

In Belgium, Holocaust denial was made illegal in 1995.

Austria. National Socialism Prohibition Law (1947, amendments of 1992)
whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to excuse the National Socialist genocide or other National Socialist crimes against humanity in a print publication, in broadcast or other media will be punished with imprisonment from one to up to ten years.
While Australia lacks a specific law against Holocaust denial, Holocaust denial is prosecuted in Australia under various laws against "hate speech" and "racial vilification"

**

This is just a sampling of the persecution of any man or women faces that dares do their own research, think for themselves, or who dares to show their research to other supposedly free adults to let them measure the quality of it (or otherwise).

There is simply no genuine ethical, moral or intellectual basis to making criminals out of grown adults who dare to think for themselves and who seek to research this period of history.

Indeed the biggest crime is that this IS a crime in so many modern Western countries. Why does it fear investigation so very much it must hold the threat of prison over anyone that has the audacity to calmly and fairly do their own research and thinking?

They refer to it as 'denial', but when this is broken down, what it really means is any research or opinion that runs contrary to the demanded narrative in these three areas;
The numbers said to be executed
The primary method said to be used to execute(gas chambers)
The existence or otherwise of a formal programme and policy of a literal and actual genocide.

Deviating from the allowed narrative in any of those three areas would, in the above named countries, very likely see you jailed. This is not a just application of law - it is clearly against the spirit of justice.

If the findings and research of the revisionists is so evidently false, and if the permitted narrative is absolute truth, then there should be no issue in encouraging people to go research freely for themselves, look at all information and make up their own minds as a free and sentient human being.
When a state makes it illegal to do so on a matter from history, then anyone who is sent to prison is simply a victim of an INjustice system at work.

And here's the stunning hypocrisy of it.

**
The European court of human rights (ECHR) has ruled that a Turkish politician should not have been prosecuted for denying that the mass killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turkey in 1915 was a genocide.
In a landmark free speech ruling, the ECHR judges ruled by 10 votes to seven that Doğu Perin"ek, chairman of Turkey"s Patriotic party, should never have been convicted of racial discrimination by a Swiss court for saying that the "Armenian genocide is a great international lie".

Perin"ek was convicted and fined in 2007 after a series of press conferences on the topic, which the ECHR ruled was an infringement on his right to free speech. In its judgment, the court said Perin"ek"s statements related to an issue of "public interest and did not amount to a call for hatred or intolerance " and could not be regarded as affecting the dignity of the members of the Armenian community to the point of requiring a criminal law response".
The court made a clear distinction with Holocaust denial, whose specific history meant it could always be "seen as a form of incitement to racial hatred" in certain countries.
**
http://www.theguardian.com...

On one hand you have the ECHR ruling that this Turkish politician had his right to free speech violated, while from the other corner of their mouth they openly speak about continuing to violate the free thought, expression and speech of those that may have a different view of this alleged holocaust of Jews.

Whether you are even interested in WW2 and history is almost moot here. What really matters is that people should not risk going to prison or be persecuted for behaving in a non violent manner, and they should not find a squad of police officers taking their door down simply because they have researched a given time in history and as a result may have some valid questions that they want to ask, and they may have valid information that they desire grown adults to look at and make up their own mind.

Is this really 2015 when we have intelligent and independent thinkers hunted down, persecuted and jailed for being what appears to be more something akin to a religious heretic?
For no more than research, thoughts, words and ideas?

And as I keep saying if those thoughts are so inaccurate and their research so easily debunked, then the usual and normal thing to do would be to first welcome it and then trying to debunk or refute it.
This is what we would expect to do when anyone brought forth a different idea or new research on a historical or scientific matter.
TheLadyofTheInternet

Con

Looking through your argument and past debates I can see there is an emerging trend of hate and fear. To be honest arguing this debate is a bit hard for me as it seems hard to think you can ever deny something that created such a tear in the history of man kind. Personally I find it hard to believe that anyone would deny the event as apparently the photo's, bones and buildings is just not good enough evidence so it begs the question what else would be needed to prove the event.

Let me ask you this why would these people want to look into this event? What could they get out of it?. Okay let's say in a hypothetical world the holocaust never happened and your alleged truth seekers were the "heroes" in this case what good would this bring upon the world I mean would we be better off if the holocaust was a lie? (At least those lives would of never been taken away). This research isn't driven by intellectual knowledge but by hatred of the Jewish race who in the end are just human beings no less than you or me people who feel and others who experience pain and emotion.

The holocaust was so much more than an event it's a part of history that is one of the moments where we went down a road so dark that to this day it still has such a powerfully painful place in the history of Europe and the rest of the world. So why would these people want to go out of their way to prove nothing happened what good can come into their lives trying to disprove an event that happened just 75 years ago that still shows affect to this day.

Just reading through a topic (2nd Link) on the subject matter I found that the report had little to no evidence to back it up claims are made that scientists had checked these camps for traces of cyanide in the gas chambers but of course even if they did test the chambers it would be inconclusive as no cyanide was used at all they used carbon monoxide gas. Another claim is that not enough bodies were found yet they forget to mention that alot of these camps had contained crematoriums so it answers the question of where those bodies went. It seems that these hard hitting investigators don't do enough research but just pulling facts out of the air that would make sense in a poorly done report.

It seems you are basing your argument strongly on accusations yet you are unable to back this evidence up as you had only supplied one link and even that link doesn't do well in supporting your argument. To compare a politicians accusations towards some man just reading into his own belief is not a fair comparison as he is a politician the lives of many people are counting on him to be of an open and sympathetic stance but when claims are made that he believes a genocide (not the holocaust) never happened it does create concern for many people as he has power over an actual country and of course if he has any existing beliefs against a large group of people this may conflict with his job towards working for his country. Your accusations of the mistreatment of holocaust deniers need to be backed up better than a link that does not equate to that of someone with pre existing beliefs that hold no power over any other people.

"But the problem with these so-called "revisionists" is that they are not engaging in a scholarly practice at all-though couched in academic terms, their claims distort well-established facts and tarnish the memory of the dead"
Genocide Prevention Now Law Banning Holocaust Denial

The laws that were put into place by other countries do more good than you claim otherwise alot of them fall under the hate speech regulations (which are an all round fair regulation). The ones that are directed towards holocaust denial mainly are just fines but can cause an increase in a prison sentence if it is accompanied by a crime. These laws allow to make sure that violence is kept on a low level as there are still many Neo Nazi groups who hold alot of hate towards others and spreading hate can increase misinformed people that may actually harm innocent civilians so this talk of hate has to be kept regulated. Another thing to remember is that your needs are no greater than anyone else's that includes your need to the freedom of speech against another person's freedom of feeling safe and being treated with dignity and most of all respect.

Links
http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org...
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au...
http://www.genocidepreventionnow.org...;
http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org...;
Debate Round No. 1
JackNapier

Pro

You said...

"Looking through your argument and past debates I can see there is an emerging trend of hate and fear. To be honest arguing this debate is a bit hard for me as it seems hard to think you can ever deny something that created such a tear in the history of man kind. Personally I find it hard to believe that anyone would deny the event as apparently the photo's, bones and buildings is just not good enough evidence so it begs the question what else would be needed to prove the event. .."

Really, I'm not much sure I should even pay you the courtesy of entertaining you as my opponent in this debate when in your very first sentence you make this about me and my "past debates", before going on to decide that they are a "trend of hate and fear".
I'm going to let that slide this one time, but readers please note, I am too long in the tooth to have an honest debate with someone if they repeat this opening tactic of an attack on the messenger.
Although this is not untypical when anyone dares discuss this subject in all but the most allowed ways, I personally don't have time to waste debating anyone if they are going to repeat this kind of thing.
Please also read and stick to the topic. The topic is not what you think of a total stranger online, nor is the topic my 'past debates'. The topic is clearly - holocaust revisionism should be legal. That is to say the freedom of an individual to examine what you may think are established facts without fear of imprisonment. The truth fears NO investigation.

Moving on...

You said

"Let me ask you this why would these people want to look into this event? What could they get out of it?. Okay let's say in a hypothetical world the holocaust never happened and your alleged truth seekers were the "heroes" in this case what good would this bring upon the world I mean would we be better off if the holocaust was a lie? (At least those lives would of never been taken away). This research isn't driven by intellectual knowledge but by hatred of the Jewish race who in the end are just human beings no less than you or me people who feel and others who experience pain and emotion. .."

I cannot speak for any individual, but why do they have to 'get anything out of it'? This is meant to be an event from history. This makes it worthy of examination and revision, as would be the norm with any other event in history. This is how we learn, discover, this is how errors or falsehoods within history are corrected, through the freedom to fairly examine the evidence for one's self, as a sentient human being and adult. You have no way of knowing what "this research is driven by", but you assume that you do. You've already made up your mind that this one event should have some sort of quasi religious status that is akin to 'going against god' from centuries ago, you've already made up your mind that any adult that dares think for themselves or do their own research is drive by some unexplained "hate".

Again, it is a waste of my time to debate you when you deploy such positions.

You said;

"The holocaust was so much more than an event it's a part of history that is one of the moments where we went down a road so dark that to this day it still has such a powerfully painful place in the history of Europe and the rest of the world. So why would these people want to go out of their way to prove nothing happened what good can come into their lives trying to disprove an event that happened just 75 years ago that still shows affect to this day. .."

The emotional stuff here ^^ is totally and utterly redundant. As you say, it is meant to be a "part of history". As such it should be freely open to research, examination, and revision.

You said

"Just reading through a topic (2nd Link) on the subject matter I found that the report had little to no evidence to back it up claims are made that scientists had checked these camps for traces of cyanide in the gas chambers but of course even if they did test the chambers it would be inconclusive as no cyanide was used at all they used carbon monoxide gas. Another claim is that not enough bodies were found yet they forget to mention that alot of these camps had contained crematoriums so it answers the question of where those bodies went. It seems that these hard hitting investigators don't do enough research but just pulling facts out of the air that would make sense in a poorly done report. "

So your position here is that Zyclone B gas was not in fact used but "carbon monoxide gas"? Just to be clear, is that your position re the type of gas allegedly used? Have you ever checked to see, even using the most modern day methods, how long it takes to cremate even one body?
But these things are also moot, as the subject here was not my personal view on specific aspects of this event, but that adults should be perfectly at liberty to do their own research, weight the quality of evidence, and make up their own minds.

You said

"It seems you are basing your argument strongly on accusations yet you are unable to back this evidence up as you had only supplied one link and even that link doesn't do well in supporting your argument. To compare a politicians accusations towards some man just reading into his own belief is not a fair comparison as he is a politician the lives of many people are counting on him to be of an open and sympathetic stance but when claims are made that he believes a genocide (not the holocaust) never happened it does create concern for many people as he has power over an actual country and of course if he has any existing beliefs against a large group of people this may conflict with his job towards working for his country. Your accusations of the mistreatment of holocaust deniers need to be backed up better than a link that does not equate to that of someone with pre existing beliefs that hold no power over any other people. "

Accusations of what or whom? Are you suggesting that people who are holocaust revisionists in the countries I mentioned don't to go prison and incur massive fines? My entire position is purely based around the freedom and liberty of any individual to study this historical event for themselves and make up their own minds about all and every claim. My position is that truth fears no investigation. It is not 'accusations' to say that men are thrown in prison for peaceful research and for making up their own mind. It's a self evident fact.

You said

"The laws that were put into place by other countries do more good than you claim otherwise alot of them fall under the hate speech regulations (which are an all round fair regulation). The ones that are directed towards holocaust denial mainly are just fines but can cause an increase in a prison sentence if it is accompanied by a crime. These laws allow to make sure that violence is kept on a low level as there are still many Neo Nazi groups who hold alot of hate towards others and spreading hate can increase misinformed people that may actually harm innocent civilians so this talk of hate has to be kept regulated. Another thing to remember is that your needs are no greater than anyone else's that includes your need to the freedom of speech against another person's freedom of feeling safe and being treated with dignity and most of all respect."

So it "does good" to put people in prison or ruin them financially for doing their own research and making up their own mind. Only some sort of slave would be penalised for daring to do that.
Whether it is a fine or a prison sentence is moot. The research itself and gathering of materials is illegal in all those so called 'free' nations. They end up with a criminal record for doing their own research and making up their own mind as any human being should be allowed to do. This has nothing to do with violence, that's a straw man popped in for effect. This is about a person's inherent right to do their own research any make up their own mind, without fear of being penalised by the state for doing so.
This is not research in which the person is collating information on how to make an execute bombs. This is information and this is people's human right to have a mind of their own. If that constitutes 'violence' or 'hate' to you, then you must have a very different meaning for those words than the ones I use. Research is not 'violence'. Making up your OWN mind should never be a crime. Your use of Neo Nazi's here is also amiss, since your clear implication is that anyone that thinks for themselves on this issue and who may have a view different somewhat to the state mandated 'view' is a 'Neo Nazi' with the implication then being anyone that researches this must really want to "murder Jews".
Does this gentleman seem such a threat to you?

Robert Faurisson

Faurisson played an important role in both the 1985 and 1988 "Holocaust trials" in Toronto of Ernst Zundel. His role in those legal battles went far beyond his testimony on the stand as a witness. Especially during the 1985 trial, he spent hundreds of hours -- often working all day and very late into the night -- preparing questions used by defense attorney Doug Christie in his devastating interrogations of Raul Hilberg, Rudolf Vrba and other prosecution witnesses. Faurisson's most important contribution to the defense in the 1988 trial may well have been his key role in securing the participation of Fred Leuchter, an American gas chamber specialist. Faurisson played an important role in arranging for Leuchter's on-site investigation in Poland of supposed extermination gas chambers, and in making public the American"s remarkable findings.
Much about Faurisson"s role in the 1988 "Holocaust trial" in Toronto, Canada, can be found in the 562-page book edited and compiled by Barbara Kulaszka, Did Six Million Really Die?: Report of the Evidence in the Canadian 'False News' Trial of Ernst Z"ndel.
For years various government agencies and influential organizations have waged a concerted campaign to silence him. He has been obliged to defend himself many times in French courts for his forthright writings and statements. He has had to contend with numerous court convictions.
His bank account has been frozen, and court officials have repeatedly visited his home threatening him and his wife with seizure of their furniture to pay for financial "damages" imposed for his "heretical" remarks. Because of this campaign, his family life has been repeatedly disrupted and thrown into turmoil. His health has suffered terribly.

For his views Faurisson has repeatedly been a victim of physical assault.
Between November 1978 and May 1993 he was a victim of ten attacks, at least nine of them carried out by Jewish thugs. None of the criminal assailants in any of these assaults has ever been brought to justice. The most savage was a nearly fatal attack on September 16, 1989, for which a group calling itself "The Sons of the Memory of the Jews" claimed responsibility.

http://www.revisionists.com...

How about this man? He uses a pen and makes up his own mind. This is how desperate some are to silence a man doing that...

Ernst Z"ndel
Three documented assassination attempts by fire and pipe bombs. Endless legal harassment leading to repeated jailings and bankrupting of his graphic arts business. Jailed for more than 7 years in Canada, in the USA, in Canada again and finally in Germany, just for speaking the truth.

To this day, he is efficiently gagged by the German authorities who monitor his every word.

Haviv Schieber

Driven to attempted suicide

Background and contribution:

A Polish Jew and former mayor of Ber Sheeba in Israel, Schieber taught Ernst Z"ndel much about Israeli reality. He was an Israeli Revisionist, wanting to revise Israel's attitudes, institutions and borders.
He fled Israel to find safety in the USA, was denied political asylum at first, and tried to take his life by slashing his wrists at Washington, D.C. airport on the day of his deportation. He was finally allowed refuge from Israeli persecution in the US in the early 1970s.

Is this not 'hate'?

Francois Duprat

Killed for distributing the French language version of "Did Six Million Really Die?"
Background and contribution:

A French writer, historian and educator, Duprat had introduced the booklet "Did Six Million Really Die?" in France by publishing the first French translation. He also published "The Mystery of the Gas Chamber." He was only 38 years old when his car was blown up by a bomb and he was assassinated on March 18, 1978. His wife, who was with him in the car, lost the use of her legs in this terrorist act.
Two Jewish groups took credit for the assassination - the "Jewish Remembrance Commando" and another group who identified itself as ". . . Jewish Revolutionary Group." The assassins were never found.

http://www.zundelsite.org...
TheLadyofTheInternet

Con

If you felt offended by my first paragraph then I am sorry but I always look into the past debates to try and grab an idea of who I am debating against when I said "hate and fear" that wasn't directly aimed at you but the debates you have done in the past again this was in no way supposed to offend you so I am sorry.

  • I cannot speak for any individual, but why do they have to 'get anything out of it'? This is meant to be an event from history. This makes it worthy of examination and revision, as would be the norm with any other event in history. This is how we learn, discover, this is how errors or falsehoods within history are corrected, through the freedom to fairly examine the evidence for one's self, as a sentient human being and adult. You have no way of knowing what "this research is driven by", but you assume that you do. You've already made up your mind that this one event should have some sort of quasi-religious status that is akin to 'going against god' from centuries ago, you've already made up your mind that any adult that dares think for themselves or do their own research is drive by some unexplained "hate".

People do things every day because they believe that action will cause a reaction. To give an example that if someone chooses to garden usually it's for aesthetic reasons or being able to grow food so it may not be anything noticeable but in everything we do we expect something to come out of it in the end. When you said "Falsehoods within history are corrected" it still brings in the original question I asked of "why" as in why do these people want the holocaust to be corrected if this drives them to do research then what do they see happening in the end what shall they receive if they disprove the holocaust and you are right I have no way of knowing the drive behind the research but the reason the laws are in place is too make sure those being driven by hate don't have a way to strengthen their hate as well as the hate of others. If I have no way of knowing what drives others than you have no way of knowing my own stance on the issue either so you cannot make that judgement on me after just one round yet you already have.

  • The emotional stuff here ^^ is totally and utterly redundant. As you say, it is meant to be a "part of history". As such it should be freely open to research, examination, and revision.

As much as I love to hear that my argument is redundant I have to disagree because believe it or not this is an emotion fuelled subject and I'm not talking about the revisionist I’m talking about the victims. Look there is no way any revisionist can know 100% that the holocaust never happened so the ones you are defending (those who do it in a non-threatening way) still need to make sure no one is getting hurt and that it should still be done in a way that is respectful to everyone and most importantly the Jews who were the biggest victim in the event.

  • So your position here is that Zyclone B gas was not in fact used but "carbon monoxide gas"? Just to be clear, is that your position re the type of gas allegedly used? Have you ever checked to see, even using the most modern day methods, how long it takes to cremate even one body? But these things are also moot, as the subject here was not my personal view on specific aspects of this event, but that adults should be perfectly at liberty to do their own research, weight the quality of evidence, and make up their own minds.

No it is not my position because I do not have a concrete idea of which method was used as I had looked up to see what was used and I found that it was Carbon Monoxide Gas and we can argue over it but that's not what we are here for. When you say moot I’m not sure what you are referencing if you are talking about my argument I was pointing out that existing research was not very clear and appeared to be a bit one sided real researchers cannot be biased and must take on both sides to find what they are looking for and I saw that this report did not do that very well and the arguments are common with revisionist's. I do believe that adults have certain rights to knowledge but this right conflicts with the rights of other so is their right to knowledge more important? No it isn't

  • Accusations of what or whom? Are you suggesting that people who are holocaust revisionists in the countries I mentioned don't to go prison and incur massive fines? My entire position is purely based around the freedom and liberty of any individual to study this historical event for themselves and make up their own minds about all and every claim. My position is that truth fears no investigation. It is not 'accusations' to say that men are thrown in prison for peaceful research and for making up their own mind. It's a self-evident fact.

My question is the everyman treatment someone just doing peaceful research on their own term not a 1 in 100 case like the politician all I want to know is how unfairly they are being treated. Your position isn't freedom of historical research its freedom to research the falsehood of the holocaust there is a difference. Again what do you mean I don't understand how it is a "Self-Evident Fact" can you back this statement up cause it's not put into context very well.

  • So it "does good" to put people in prison or ruin them financially for doing their own research and making up their own mind. Only some sort of slave would be penalised for daring to do that. Whether it is a fine or a prison sentence is moot. The research itself and gathering of materials is illegal in all those so called 'free' nations. They end up with a criminal record for doing their own research and making up their own mind as any human being should be allowed to do.This has nothing to do with violence, that's a straw man popped in for effect. This is about a person's inherent right to do their own research any make up their own mind, without fear of being penalised by the state for doing so. This is not research in which the person is collating information on how to make an execute bombs. This is information and this ispeople's human right to have a mind of their own. If that constitutes 'violence' or 'hate' to you, then you must have a very different meaning for those words than the ones I use. Research is not 'violence'. Making up your OWN mind should never be a crime. Your use of Neo Nazi's here is also amiss, since your clear implication is that anyone that thinks for themselves on this issue and who may have a view different somewhat to the state mandated 'view' is a 'Neo Nazi' with the implication then being anyone that researches this must really want to "murder Jews". Does this gentleman seem such a threat to you?

Comparing a revisionist to a slave is just such an overblown claim and these two things have nothing to do with each other no matter what stance you have on either subject. You also seems to use "'Free Nation'" a lot so my guess is that you believe that we do not have access to free rights so then to use your term isn't this debate "moot" if there is already no chance of it becoming legalised. Sure it's another argument if it should or shouldn't but it seems this cause is already lost by your belief that we lack freedom. Another thing that got me was when you claimed it has "nothing to do with violence" which from the start is false because the holocaust is a violent event and to this day still drives people to perform violent acts. Sure revisionism isn't always violent but you would be wrong to claim it is never violent and because of that people want to make sure it doesn't cause violence because it does have a violent background to it. Your claim that "people's human right to have a mind of their own" doesn't match with this debate as you have not broken any laws if you just believe it is false you break the law when you go and try to disprove the event with “research”.

I have ran out of characters but I will address those men you had pointed out in the next argument.

Debate Round No. 2
JackNapier

Pro

You said;

"If you felt offended by my first paragraph then I am sorry but I always look into the past debates to try and grab an idea of who I am debating against when I said "hate and fear" that wasn't directly aimed at you but the debates you have done in the past again this was in no way supposed to offend you so I am sorry."

That"s fine, I"m sure I"ll recover. In all truth I am not "offended" by it. I"ve had much worse than that. I just consider it a poor debating tactic to attack the messenger, especially when you open the debate that way. Just as I"m not offended by you trying to drag the debate off topic from the outset. It"s just a poor debating strategy. I"m not remotely offended, I felt the need to tell you though as it gets very boring trying to debate someone if that"s going to be their modus operandi. You"ve apologised though so let"s move on.

You said

"People do things every day because they believe that action will cause a reaction. To give an example that if someone chooses to garden usually it's for aesthetic reasons or being able to grow food so it may not be anything noticeable but in everything we do we expect something to come out of it in the end. When you said "Falsehoods within history are corrected" it still brings in the original question I asked of "why" as in why do these people want the holocaust to be corrected if this drives them to do research then what do they see happening in the end what shall they receive if they disprove the holocaust""

Well you are right in one regard. Peaceful and non- violent holocaust research and revisionism does bring a reaction. If the person isn"t getting thrown in prison he"s being fire bombed by Jewish extremists (see previous note). Are you suggesting that men and women who do this research actually want to be beaten up and fire bombed by Jewish terrorists? Are you suggesting that maybe they really want to go to prison and that they are so rich they perhaps wish to be financially ruined by punitive and crippling fines? The truth fears NO investigation since the truth can withstand all and any scrutiny.
When investigation is met with firebombs and gulags then clearly there is fear toward the investigation. Why do people revise any part of history or science? It"s obvious " they are seeking truth for themselves. They are seeking to do their own research and make up their own mind rather than devolve their thinking and their own mind to others. They are seeking anomalies and falsehoods that have been woven onto the tapestry of history. Example. After WW2 (and for many decades), there was a claim that Jews were turned into soap and lampshades. Even to this very dark, long after both were debunked, there are still those that assume this true. Yet the claims were nothing more than post war Communist propaganda.
Without on- going research and investigation then such lies would have remained as "documented facts". That is why one"s own search for objective truth is important and must be an inherent right. Why should this holocaust be the one and only exception to the rule?

You said

"As much as I love to hear that my argument is redundant I have to disagree because believe it or not this is an emotion fueled subject and I'm not talking about the revisionist I"m talking about the victims. Look there is no way any revisionist can know 100% that the holocaust never happened so the ones you are defending (those who do it in a non-threatening way) still need to make sure no one is getting hurt and that it should still be done in a way that is respectful to everyone and most importantly the Jews who were the biggest victim in the event."

Emotions and claims of personal feelings have zero place in the field of objective research and debate. Any victims are long since dead " I doubt their feelings are being hurt by research and people making up their own mind.
But even those "victims" that "survived" should not be a barrier to good investigation and questioning. On the contrary " the eye witnesses (sic) should play an active part of any revisionist"s investigation. For the reader (and yourself).
Here is a wonderfully made critique of the 1998 holocaust documentary " "The Last Days". This was produced by Spielberg and heralded by himself as his greatest ever work. Spielberg is of course Jewish. His "eye witnesses" include one Irene Zisblatt. Irene claims that she swallowed and defecated diamonds for two years while in a "death camp".
She claims that she "escaped the gas chamber" by essentially walking backwards. When one examines the claims of Zisblatt it very soon becomes apparent that Irene Zisblatt is a liar and a fantasist.
Yet were it not for the great work of American researcher Eric Hunt, then others would still be believing her ridiculous claims to this day.

Spielberg's Hoax - The Last Days of The Big Lie

https://www.youtube.com...

You said;

"No it is not my position because I do not have a concrete idea of which method was used as I had looked up to see what was used and I found that it was Carbon Monoxide Gas and we can argue over it but that's not what we are here for. When you say moot I"m not sure what you are referencing if you are talking about my argument I was pointing out that existing research was not very clear and appeared to be a bit one sided real researchers cannot be biased and must take on both sides to find what they are looking for and I saw that this report did not do that very well and the arguments are common with revisionist's. I do believe that adults have certain rights to knowledge but this right conflicts with the rights of other so is their right to knowledge more important? No it isn't"

Okay. So it"s fair to say that you took on a debate about holocaust researchers and revisionists without having any idea about what the alleged methods were to exterminate these alleged 6 million Jews. What do you think holocaust revisionists do? One of the key areas they research is the alleged methods by which the alleged 6 million Jews were exterminated.
What is it you believe the holocaust to be if not made up of three components " that 6 million Jews dying, mostly in supposed gas chambers, and as formal party policy?
What else would revisionists research if not those three key areas? For your own record, the official claim is that the bulk were said to be gassed to death with Zyclon B gas and not Carbon Monoxide gas(which was also claimed but is mentioned far less).

Zyclon B is hydrogen cyanide. Not Carbon Monoxide. Zyclon B is sometimes called "Prussian Blue" owing to the blue staining that it leaves.

I can give you more information if you wish, but how am I able to do so? Because where I am I won"t get the cops bursting through my door at 5am for doing so, I won"t get thrown in prison " holocaust revisionism is not illegal in my country. That is why I am so informed on the technical matters " the science behind it. If I had the threat of prison hanging over me and if information was suppressed (as it is in all those "free" nations I cited in my first post), then I would probably be ignorant on such matters. But it is not a criminal offence here, so I am able to research and inform myself with relative freedom.
This is a right that should be extended to every man and women.

Incidentally, you might want to look into why Carbon Monoxide was cited in some cases before sort of fading from popularity in this story. Consider the practicalities and efficiency. How practical and efficient do you think it would be to kill six million people in just a few years with Carbon Monoxide?

There were claims of second-hand motor oil being used, and let's be generous and assume a mere 40 kg per corpse. At around 0.85 kg/lit, it would take 4.7 million litres of motor oil for every 100,000 bodies.

There were othe
TheLadyofTheInternet

Con

Bringing up notable holocaust deniers I have found that there are a lot of noteworthy revisionists and that not all of them had a peaceful approach. Yes a lot of them have a PHD which you did point out but if there’s one thing I've learnt is that often a PHD is not an instant verification of being a good or decent person. A lot of them also had relationships and standings with current Nazi groups. A lot of them have been arrested but they knew the consequences and were willing to take it on. If someone knowingly robs a bank and then gets arrested I would have no sympathy because they knew what the consequences were for their actions. Maybe instead of trying to deny the holocaust they would be better to just try and legalize holocaust denial but they chose to go ahead and do it anyway. Still my question goes unanswered of “Why” as in why do they want to disprove the holocaust and what do they see coming out of it something my opponent never really answered.

Your biggest claim was “The truth fears no investigation” if that was true wouldn't it be illegal to research it anywhere in the world but it remains illegal only in Europe and parts of Asia and that claim is still questionable in parts of Great Britain and you know why it’s still illegal in Europe it's because that it happened in Europe and these laws were put in soon after the war because there was a lot of Nazi sympathisers in Europe and was used as a way to lower that amount as well trying to remove any Nazi ideals that remained in Europe. One day these laws may be removed but believe it or not it’s still too soon to tell.

You also make it seem that big brother has a heavy grip of European Laws like if anyone were to just Google “holocaust denial” a fleet of armed soldiers would smash down the door. I’m sure if anyone just did it on their own and kept the research to themselves nothing like that would happen because honestly no one would find out but it does happen to people who publish those views and they do it knowingly so again I feel no sympathy as they knew those consequences.

To answer your question as why should the holocaust be the one and only exception to the rule? Is that it included pretty much all of Europe and other allied countries that fought against Nazi’s. In the last hundred years there were six major genocides including the holocaust but what stood out about the holocaust was that it involved multiple countries, was in a world war, included multiple categories of people and only happened 75 years ago these things make it stand out against the rest especially since there are still victims alive to this day (from what I and a lot of others believe).

Something else that you forgot is THE HOLOCAUST ISN’T THE ONLY ONE. Other countries have laws in place towards the denial of genocides including the Khmer Rouge regime’s atrocities and also the Armenian genocide this means by the logic of revisionists all those genocides are false and history is just a massive fluke. I actually just found this out and wished I found it sooner because this shows that it isn’t just the holocaust but other genocides as well. There are more to these laws than just an evil plot to silence the truth but they are here to make sure people feel safe and that we remain respectful to the memory of the dead.

I'm ending the debate with this last paragraph. We all know that WW2 happened and we all know that Hitler wanted to build a stronger Germany but why debate the holocaust. We have been given the gift of knowledge and the gift to access it as well but why should someone feel the need to go out of their way to deny the holocaust sure we all have our reasons but to go out of your way and risk your life there seems to an underlying motive with some of these people and we would never know for sure about what they are but it's far too much of a dangerous subject that you simply cannot take the risk especially since there have been issues in the past with that same topic and there will continue to be issues for years to come. For now it's the best option for everyone and yes it does conflict with the right of free speech but if it was legal it would conflict with the right to feel safe as well as increasing the risk of feeding fuel to a large fire.

Links
http://endgenocide.org...
http://www.genocidepreventionnow.org...
http://www.loc.gov...
http://www.antisemitism.org.il...;

Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BlackFlags 1 year ago
BlackFlags
The Slavs outnumber every other ethnic group killed during WW2. They are often overlooked because their populatiosn were so big relative to the number of people killed.

The nazis carried out mass exterminations in territory they captured in Russia.

They also killed the vast majority of rich and intellectual Poles and Czechs. Anyone deemed literate or wealthy was killed.

The plan with the Czech Republic was assimilation into Germany after killing off a certain portion of the population.

The plan with Poland was complete eradication of all Poles following colonization of their lands with German settlers.

Even without a strong presence in Africa, Hitler didn't pass up the opportunity to send SS officers to hunt down any Jews. Good thing that Rommel outright denied Hitlers orders in that area.
Posted by BlackFlags 1 year ago
BlackFlags
I have often heard conversations somewhat like this.

"How many people died in the holocaust?"
"6 million"
"No, 12 million people died. 6 million were Jews"
"Well both of you are wrong, because roughly 35 million people were killed in an organized fashion by the nazis over the course of WW2" <-- That is always me, but it is true nonetheless
Posted by BlackFlags 1 year ago
BlackFlags
Opinion wise, the holocaust is actually way worst than described. People fail to fully comphrehend the full scope of what was actually going on. Talk to the top Holocaust scholar, and I bet you that there are a dozen things that would make him go, "Wow, I actually didn't know that"
Posted by BlackFlags 1 year ago
BlackFlags
Jacknapier has very articulate speech. He needs to not directly quote and he is already better than 99% of the high elo debaters who think they actually know how to debate.
Posted by GenericUser747 1 year ago
GenericUser747
I agree with Pro here. "History is written by the victor," Winston Churchill. While quotes themselves aren't proof, this is a trend we can see when history goes under revision. And while I do lack the interest and resources to go out and reasearch the holocaust myself to form a more educated opinion and while I do believe the generally accepted version of what happened, others should have the right to investigate and form their own opinions without being criminalized.
Posted by ithink-ithink 1 year ago
ithink-ithink
Historical revisionism is the re-interpretation of a particular aspect of history. Technically speaking, it can occur at any time after the initial discourse on the historical event has been established, and can occur many times over. Its basically the refining of opinions on a historical event over time, as more evidence is brought forward or the evidence interpreted in different ways.

Generally speaking, though, it follows that, directly after a historical event takes place, as the topic is so pertinent (touchy) to the politics and society of the time, the current agendas of all sorts of parties may be fudged into the historical record. After a period of time, that is when the revisionist movements come in to clear some of this fudge.

That is why I think Holocaust revisionism is so opposed; society and/or politics of today still determines the events of the Holocaust to be too politically significant to allow any discourse/challenge to it.
My greatest guess would be its role in the establishment of the Israeli state.
Posted by ithink-ithink 1 year ago
ithink-ithink
I tend to agree with Pro.
I'm not a historian - best I ever did was an A Level in Medieval History, but I was pretty shocked when I found out about the legal action against researchers in the field of Holocaust revisionism.

I mean, look at the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - I consider that to be quite the genocide. But I don't blame the scientists that developed the atomic bomb. If they hadn't done it, likely someone else would have. The blame falls on those who ordered the scientific findings to be used to (a) create the bombs, and (b) drop them on civilians of another country.
If the Japanese followed the examples of the Jewish community (including its Non-Jewish supporters), then any research, manufacture, discussion on atomic bombs, or papers/speeches justifying the use of the atomic bombs by the american government, should be illegal in commemoration of their tragedy. Why is the Holocaust classed differently to these other horrific events in history?

Knowledge is just knowledge. How you use it, is completely up to you and your - actions - should be judged by the law or society.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
No true-Scotsman idioma: There is no True Jew.

Please summarize what Holocaust revisionism is right now. here for me. thank you. Hail.
Posted by danonspark21 1 year ago
danonspark21
It's ironic though because the people who do the most Holocaust revisionism actually comes from Jewish people. Netanyahu saying it was the Mufti who wanted the holocaust to hitler and even Wolf Blitzer was the one who brought up the holocaust to Ben Carson who claimed if the jews were armed the holocaust would have never happened. It's a weird thing with Jews because it's like they bring it up the most in every political debate and then demand the other side to agree with them on everything and then the other side says something odd then they get angry. It's a complete and total psychotic mess that Jewish journalists, Politicians and sociologists brought on themselves
Posted by C1cool 1 year ago
C1cool
It is almost foolish to think that it should be illegal too based on the evidence you have, and some general morals ex: "Your whole family was killed off from it and you deny the fact that the holocaust ever happened" is that punishable by law, if it is the that is a truly sad truth.

It is astounding the amount of research you have already done, and I wish you luck if someone can even manage to have a decent opposition.
No votes have been placed for this debate.