The Instigator
Justin108
Con (against)
The Contender
AlyssaDBryant
Pro (for)

Should Holocaust Denial be considered hate speech?

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  
Argument Due
We are waiting for AlyssaDBryant to post her argument for round #4. If you are AlyssaDBryant, login to see your options.
Time Remaining
00days13hours06minutes56seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/14/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 days ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 136 times Debate No: 108025
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Justin108

Con

Whether or not the Holocaust happened, should it be considered hate speech to deny that it did? How is believing something did not happen synonymous with hate? Who is being hated here? Jewish people? If someone were to doubt whether OJ Simpson murdered Nicole Simpson, would that mean that the person necessarily hated Nicole Simpson?

How is simply denying a fact a form of hate speech? At best, you can call these people uninformed, ignorant, etc., but I fail to see how this is automatically an indication of hate or antisemitism.
AlyssaDBryant

Pro

Resolved: Should Holocaust Denial be considered hate speech?

Thank you for this topic and I look forward to the debate.

First, let"s consider the scope of the resolution. Hate speech need not be illegal. The topic only asks whether Holocaust Denial ("HD") should be considered hate speech, not whether HD should be censored.

Second, the American Bar Association has defined hate speech as "speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits." Can we accept this definition? If not, I would appreciate a definition of the phrase from your perspective.

Finally, I assume we are not debating the truth of the holocaust. If that was the topic, I would not have accepted. It is harmful to view some topics as worthy of debate.

In any event, the pro merely need prove that HD meets the definition of "hate speech." HD meets that definition because it offends, threatens and insults, the referenced groups:

1.HD is speech which offends groups based on race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, and other traits. The systematic murder of every Jewish person within the scope of Nazi power was planned. At the Wannsee conference this number was estimated by the Nazis to approximate 11 million people. The Holocaust was initiated with the murder of the disabled and other groups were included, e.g. gypsies and gay men. To the Nazi"s, transgender women were gay men.

Is it reasonable for members of these groups to be offended by the denial of the well-documented systematic murder of millions of their kind? This is basic human nature. We are offended if we catch any criminal red handed killing even one person if that murderer denies the obvious. How much more so if any group is targeted based on their race, religion, sexual orientation or disability, murdered in the millions, and for no good reason the crime is denied?

2.HD is speech which threatens these groups. There are reasons Jewish people do everything in their power to preserve the history of the Holocaust. In the camps, one of the reasons many chose to live was so they could bear witness, one day, to the Holocaust. For this reason, they say, "never again." If we deny it ever happened, we cannot learn from the event and cannot say "never again." HD is speech which makes future genocide much more likely. With the model of the Holocaust we can be on guard for future genocides. If the model is denied, how do we learn to keep it from repeating? Dr. Timothy Snyder, a Yale historian, has an excellent book entitled, "Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning." HD is a threat because it denies a much needed warning.

3.HD insults these groups. HD insists that Jewish people, gays, gypsies who survived the worst are liars. They have concocted a story for sinister reasons of the initial slaughter by gunshot over pits like the 30,000 slaughtered in Babi Yar to the terrible efficiency of Treblinka. These groups are not, according to a Holocaust Denier, preserving an important and terrible history. They are defaming Nazis and, many times, the complicit local citizenry. Consider Dina Pronicheva and her ancestors. Ms. Pronicheva was an actress of the Kiev Puppet Theatre. She was marched to Babi Yar, a ravine in Kiev, where more than 30,000 Jews were shot on September 29 & 30, 1941. She was forced to undress. However, she jumped before being shot and fell among the bodies where she played dead in a pile of corpses. She held perfectly still as the Nazis walked by the dead and shot any who might still be alive. She crawled out of the pit when it was dark and avoiding the torches of the Nazis. Many wounded victims were buried alive.

None of this was a secret. Even after the initial killings of September 29 & 30, thousands more were marched to the ravine. When the Nazis later required Soviet POWs to disinter and burn the bodies, they put down a layer of wood, followed by a layer bodies, and again wood and so on until the pyre was as high as a two story house. When lighted, it took two two nights and one day for each pyre of approximately 1,500 bodies. The entire process of cremating the bodies from Babi Yar took 40 days. All of this was seen and known in Kiev. To deny even this one horrible event, out of innumerable atrocities, is an incredible insult and not just to the dead.

I could go on but there is no need. Holocaust deniers must be allowed to speak but their words are hate filled because they offend, threaten, and insult groups based on race, religion, sexual orientation and other traits. Holocaust Deniers would deny this is their motivation but debating any pretext for the denial of a continent wide system of murder would debase us both.
Debate Round No. 1
Justin108

Con

Regarding the definition of HD, the definition you provided is "speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits." The main problem with this definition is "speech that offends". Virtually everything uttered can offend someone. Having a sticker on your car reading "Jesus loves me" can offend someone. Would you consider that hate speech? People might be offended (and have been) by T-shirts reading "boys will be boys". Is that hate speech? Rather I suggest we define HD as "speech that ought to be considered offensive". Granted, what ought to be considered offensive is very much up to debate as well. I cannot give a comprehensive criteria for what ought to be considered offensive. What I do suggest is investigating the case of whether Holocaust Denial ought to be considered offensive speech.

Regarding your analysis of whether Holocaust Denial meets the definition for HD you provided.

"1. HD is speech which offends groups based on race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, and other traits. The systematic murder of every Jewish person within the scope of Nazi power was planned. At the Wannsee conference this number was estimated by the Nazis to approximate 11 million people. The Holocaust was initiated with the murder of the disabled and other groups were included, e.g. gypsies and gay men. To the Nazi"s, transgender women were gay men."
- From this we can conclude that the Holocaust itself was a hate crime (to say the least). If one were to commend the Holocaust or imply that it's a good thing that the Holocaust happened, then I would agree. This would be hate speech. But Holocaust Denial does no such thing. Holocaust Denial simply doubt that these events ever happened. It does not suggest or imply that the Holocaust is in any way a good thing. It simply claims that it did not happen. As such, I fail to see how your first point meets the criteria for hate speech.

"Is it reasonable for members of these groups to be offended by the denial of the well-documented systematic murder of millions of their kind? This is basic human nature. We are offended if we catch any criminal red handed killing even one person if that murderer denies the obvious."
- Whether it is obvious is, again, up for debate. As per my example in the OP, would it be hate speech to claim that OJ Simpson is innocent? A lot of people believe, as with the Holocaust, that OJ Simpson clearly did it. That it is obvious. Is your conviction that the Holocaust happened enough justification for dismissing any disagreement as hate speech? In what other instance has it ever been considered hate speech to deny something happened? Is the Flat Earth Society a hate group for denying the obvious that the earth is spherical?

"How much more so if any group is targeted based on their race, religion, sexual orientation or disability, murdered in the millions, and for no good reason the crime is denied?"
- Again, you are relying on your own conviction. You might not believe that there is good reason to deny the Holocaust, but others clearly do.

"2. HD is speech which threatens these groups. There are reasons Jewish people do everything in their power to preserve the history of the Holocaust. In the camps, one of the reasons many chose to live was so they could bear witness, one day, to the Holocaust. For this reason, they say, "never again." If we deny it ever happened, we cannot learn from the event and cannot say "never again." " HD is speech which makes future genocide much more likely. "
- I fail to see how doubting that it once happened before will make it more likely that it will happen again. If a world leader wanted to commit genocide, how would the fact that someone has attempted genocide in the past make it less likely for him to go through with it? Will he think to himself "I wanted to commit genocide, but then I saw Schindler's List. Then I decided to rather not do it"? If anyone is on the verge of committing genocide, the fact that it has happened before would not dissuade him. If anything, it might even convince him to go through with it. "If Hitler got so close, surely I can finish the job". What argument do you have for your claim that Holocaust Denial will result in another Holocaust?

"3. HD insults these groups. HD insists that Jewish people, gays, gypsies who survived the worst are liars. "
- Or simply mistaken. Some Holocaust survivors to this day insist on witnessing the Nazis making soap out of the Jews.
https://www.youtube.com...

This has been debunked by virtually every historian.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

Is it hate speech to not believe those who claim that the Nazis made soap out of humans? Is it hate speech to call them liars?
AlyssaDBryant

Pro

Definitions: First you say offense should not be a factor and then you boil down your definition of hate speech to "Investigating the case of whether HD ought to be considered "offensive" speech." You apparently agree that offensiveness is an element of hate speech but I imposed an additional requirement on my proof which should not be ignored.

This is speech which offends, threatens, or insults a group, based on certain immutable (e.g. race, sexual orientation) or sacred (religion) traits. Moreover, these groups have often been subject to a history of persecution like, enslavement, pogroms criminalization, lynching, and castration. In other words, these are groups which have historically been targets and when we are talking about speech which offends, threatens or insults these groups because they have the traits of that group.

Therefore, "hate speech" should not be sanitized to mean only "offensive speech."

You then go through the three categories of speech towards these people " offense, threat, insult. However, before I respond in kind, I repeat that will not in this debate argue whether occurrence of the Holocaust itself can in good faith can be debated. You can argue about specific elements like your soap point, but not that there was a systematic plan to kill 11 million Jews which was set into motion by Hitler, started with the killings of the disabled, continued with the death squads in the East, was further pushed into action at the Wannsee conference on January 20, 1942, morphed into the massive complex at Auschwitz which included an extermination facility and took other forms like the macabre Treblinka which was a small island of death where over 800,000 were murdered.

Now to the categories.

1. Offense and insult, combined: Let me give you an analogy to help make the point.

Before May 31 and June 1, 1921, in my home town of Tulsa, Oklahoma, a thriving community of African Americans built was called "Black Wall Street." Whites invaded this 35-block area and burned it to the ground. Officially, thirty-nine were killed although the Red Cross said the number was more like 300. We have photographs of the bombing and it was covered in the very complicit local newspaper. It was also reported by witnesses that airplanes dropped bombs on this area.

Imagine that your grandfather was one of the business owners in this amazing and prosperous area. Maybe he was a dentist. Perhaps a lawyer or a tailor. There were dozens of businesses and your families" wealth was burned to the ground in what was America"s own pogrom. The blacks had gotten too wealthy and all it took was a spark and your families" wealth and lives were lost.

If someone came to you and contested whether airplanes were used to drop bombs you probably would not be offended or insulted. You might disagree strongly and wonder why this person is picking on such a minor point, but it would not shake the core of your history.

Now imagine that someone came to you and said that the entire history was a fraud. They are "Tulsa Race Massacre Deniers." It didn"t happen. The photographs are fake. The witnesses were "mistaken" about the death of their families and friends and the erasure of 35 city blocks.

Would you be offended or insulted? Would you question the motives of the speaker in calling into question something which is known to have happened?

No? What if they denied that slavery was ever an institution in America? What if they said Jim Crow laws were never passed? What if they denied that a single black person was ever lynched in America?

At best, this person is an idiot and idiots can offend. Far more likely, he is unwilling to believe that his race did something that bad to your race. He is attacking the very core of your history in America.

To extend the analogy, why limit the speech to the mere denial of historical fact? Why not make up facts? If a white person reads a study from 1930, believes it, and says blacks are disease ridden, stupid, lazy, and cannot control their sexual impulses, is that hate speech?

But, says the white person, I really believe this. Here is this 1932 study! I am not engaging in hate speech because all of these facts are true!

Holocaust Denial is not mere doubt. It is "denial" and it has to create an alternate history to erase lived experiences. But, you argue, what if the witnesses are "merely mistaken?"

Dina Pronicheva cannot be not "simply mistaken" when she said that she was led to the pit at Babi Yar along with tens of thousands, made to undress, jumped into the pit as if she had been shot, laid naked and perfectly still among the corpses, crawled through the bodies and earth to escape into the night. She cannot be "simply mistaken" about these events. If you deny them, you are calling her a liar.

Samuel Willenberg could not be "simply mistaken" when he said that he was the sole survivor of his transport train to Treblinka or about what later happened and what he witnesses at Treblinka. He was made to sort and process the unpacking and sorting the belongings of the murdered.

These are facts he has told anyone who would listen since the war ended. He cannot be "simply mistaken." He is either a hero or an epic and despicable liar.

Years after Babi Yar, Soviet POWs were made to disinter the dead. Were they liars about performing this grisly task? They took the bodies, tens of thousands, to a Jewish grave yard and layered the bodies with wood to create two story pyres which took two nights and a day to burn. The burning continued for 40 days.

Were the witnesses of these flames, simply mistaken?

These are not events on which a person cannot be simply mistaken. Slavery happened in America. My own town massacred Black Wall Street and its families. The Holocaust happened.

2. Threat: Your argument: "I fail to see how doubting that it once happened before will make it more likely that it will happen again. If a world leader wanted to commit genocide, how would the fact that someone has attempted genocide in the past make it less likely for him to go through with it? Will he think to himself "I wanted to commit genocide, but then I saw Schindler's List. Then I decided to rather not do it"? If anyone is on the verge of committing genocide, the fact that it has happened before would not dissuade him. If anything, it might even convince him to go through with it. "If Hitler got so close, surely I can finish the job". What argument do you have for your claim that Holocaust Denial will result in another Holocaust?"

Much of this is a strawman. I did not say that HD would, inexorably, result in another Holocaust. Nor did I say that these lessons could only be learned from the Holocaust although it is probably the best example. You can also look to Rwanda, Armenia, ad nauseum.

I argued that denial threatens these groups by white washing the lessons we could, otherwise learn. Genocide Watch lists eight stages of a genocide:

1.Classification: Who is the "us" and who is the "them." Read the book IBM & the Holocaust to learn of the lengths to which the Nazis went to create classifications. The Nuremberg laws created complex classifications as to who was to be considered a Jew. How much blood made you a Jew? Snyder talks about how rending the Jewish stateless was an integral part of the Holocaust.

2.Symbolization: The Star of David, the Pink Triangle, racial differences, all allow a potential genocidal government to segregate the target even before first ghetto is built.

3.Dehumization: This often draws on the powerful pull of our fear of contamination. Blacks were diseased. Jews were rats, vermin. Rawandan Huto referred to the Tutsis as "cockroaches." The target needs to be a disease infecting culture.

4.Organization: The planning need not be a elaborate as the death camps, but in the Holocaust genocide reached its most mechanized, bureaucratic form in the death camps.

5.Polarization: The Nazis called the worst stage of the Holocaust "Operation Reinhard" because the chair of the Wannsee Conference, Reinhard Henrich, was assassinated. The groups polarize which can lead to an acceleration of the genocide.

6.Preparation: The target must be identified more specifically. Their property must be appropriated. What to do with the the non-Jewish German spouse of a German Jew?

7.Extermination: This speaks for itself.

8.Denial: Denial is universal. The graves are emptied, and bodies burned. Records are purged. This can be subtle with the denier referring only to "doubt" existing.

Denial, the last stage of genocide, prevents us from identifying what is happening as it unfolds. It prevents justice from occurring and not just through legal means. After WWII we quickly turned to confronting the Soviets and many Nazis in the death camps escaped justice.

Denial keeps them from being punished in the only way possible " shame. These people, if they lived full lives, should have done so in shame. Denial protects them and erodes deterrence and often the only form of punishment we have for the perpetrators when there are too

Holocaust denial is worse than hate speech. Denial is an inevitable part of the process of genocide.
Debate Round No. 2
Justin108

Con

To clarify the matter of the definition, I never intended to ignore the rest of the definition. I only meant that "offensive speech" should be replaced with "speech which should be considered offensive", whereas the rest of the definition can remain as is. As a whole, I would then define hate speech as "speech which should be considered offensive, threatening, or insulting to groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits."

"Now imagine that someone came to you and said that the entire history was a fraud. They are "Tulsa Race Massacre Deniers." It didn"t happen. The photographs are fake. The witnesses were "mistaken" about the death of their families and friends and the erasure of 35 city blocks. Would you be offended or insulted?"
- No. I might consider them ignorant or uninformed, but I would not be offended.

But suppose I was offended. Is that enough to conclude I ought to be offended? Theists consider the existence of God to be self evident. To them, atheists do exactly the above. Atheists call the bible fake, witnesses "mistaken", etc. Should atheism be considered hate speech for denying the existence of God? I assure you many theists are offended by atheism. They are offended by any who deny God's existence. Is atheism nothing but hate speech?

"What if they denied that slavery was ever an institution in America? What if they said Jim Crow laws were never passed? What if they denied that a single black person was ever lynched in America?"
- Again, I would consider them horribly uninformed about history. I might call them ignorant, but that does not automatically translate to hate speech. I would put them in the same camp as Flat Earthers or Creationists. What, to you, is the difference between a Holocaust Denier, a Flat Earther and a Creationist? Just as you consider the Holocaust as something that clearly happened, surely you believe the Earth is clearly spherical or that evolution is clearly true? So why is only the Holocaust considered hate speech? Why is Creationism not hate speech against non-Christians?

"At best, this person is an idiot and idiots can offend. Far more likely, he is unwilling to believe that his race did something that bad to your race."
- That is an assumption on your behalf. You do realize that one of the most famous Holocaust deniers, David Cole, is himself Jewish? What sinister motive would he have for being unwilling to believe in the Holocaust?

"To extend the analogy, why limit the speech to the mere denial of historical fact? Why not make up facts? If a white person reads a study from 1930, believes it, and says blacks are disease ridden, stupid, lazy, and cannot control their sexual impulses, is that hate speech?"
- Saying "black people are disease ridden, stupid, lazy, and cannot control their sexual impulses" is obviously offensive. It is a clear insult and it is clearly targeted at a specific race. This fits my proposed definition of hate speech perfectly. Saying "the Nazis never attempted to exterminate the Jews" is entirely different. It does not aim to insult the Jews, it does not imply the Jews are inferior in any way.

"Dina Pronicheva cannot be not "simply mistaken" when she said that she was led to the pit at Babi Yar along with tens of thousands, made to undress, jumped into the pit as if she had been shot, laid naked and perfectly still among the corpses, crawled through the bodies and earth to escape into the night. She cannot be "simply mistaken" about these events. If you deny them, you are calling her a liar."
- How would you respond to the Jews claiming they witnessed people being made into soap? Are they mistaken? Or would you go as far as to call them liars?
AlyssaDBryant

Pro

We have arrived back at my original definition. Offense, threats, insults based on these traits is hate speech.

Tulsa Race Massacre: If you are merely ignorant, you do deny an event which took the lives of millions. You do not ignore the photographs of the Tulsa Race Massacre. If you are merely ignorant or uninformed, you say that, if you are in good faith and then you GET informed. Otherwise, you are merely intending to insult. Further, Tulsa has been shaped because we have not denied our history. Much progress has been made and to erase that history would be an Orwellian attack on what we need most to defend minorities which have been subject to pogroms - the truth.

Comparing faith to facts is a non-starter. I give deference to how people guide their lives when it does me no harm. Belief in God is a topic on which many reasonable minds have differed. However, denying events which occurred not that long ago and impacted in the case of Tulsa 35 square blocks of a blooming miracle or in the case of the Holocaust, which redefined the demographics of Europe., is simply not apples to apples. Not even close.

Why on earth would you consider people denying the existence of Jim Crow, lynching or even slavery to be uninformed? At some point, surely, if you were black, you would think this is a denial designed to conceal and which is, in fact, the final phase of genocide. I really cannot believe you would say they are just uniformed.

Flat earthers are not targeting a minority which has (i) immutable characteristics and (ii) has a history of persecution. They are just dumb. This is dangerous and ill-intentioned.

I assume animus because it is a reasonable assumption. When you are denying a history of mass persecution, in this case, extermination, without facts, you have an agenda. Period.

Making affirmative insults: But why not just assume that they honestly believe that blacks have these traits? Why not just say they are horribly uniformed? How can someone give offense if they honestly believe a fact? That's your point, isn't it?

Simply mistaken: You seem to concede that Holocaust survivors like Ms. Pronicheva could not have been "simply mistaken" about crawling out of mass graves. Those who dug up those graves and set the pyres a light cannot be simply mistaken. Those who saw the fires, smelled the flesh burning, cannot be simply mistaken.

Or do you? You seem to suggest because there was something like an urban myth about Jews being made into soap (instead of lamp shades which did happen), that this invalidates all of the mass of testimony which the Nazis tried to deny, just as do other Holocaust Deniers. Every large story will have an element or two which gets conflated by hearsay. The link you gave was some kind of You tube where an anonymous caller called in about the soap claim. Give me the name of a specific person making the soap claim, the words which they said, and I will respond in more detail.

If you look Ms. Pronicheva in the face and tell her, "you lie" about her experience that is a grave insult. Repeat that six million times plus the many more millions who enabled, pursued and witnessed the Holocaust, and you have a clear conclusion.

You ignore the stages of Genocide, the last of which is denial. There were new things, horrible new things, in the Holocaust. It has rightly been called the worst thing to ever happen. However, genocides occur with some frequency and we have to be clear eyed. Denial is not just a threat to the survivors of the genocide but to us all.

If you are uninformed about the genocide, read. It's just that simple. Read about Armenia. Read about Rwanda. I can't tell you the number of books I have read about the Holocaust and the Tulsa Race Massacre. Failure to do so may result in ignorance, but it is a willful ignorance which flows from a desire not to believe the truth of a persecuted minority. It is an offense, threat, and insult.
Debate Round No. 3
Justin108

Con

"We have arrived back at my original definition. Offense, threats, insults based on these traits is hate speech."
- As already clarified, I would like to make a distinction between "offensive" vs. "ought to be considered offensive", "threats" vs. "ought to be considered threats", etc. Being offended by something does not make something offensive. As mentioned before, anyone can be offended by literally anything.

"Tulsa Race Massacre: If you are merely ignorant, you do deny an event which took the lives of millions. You do not ignore the photographs of the Tulsa Race Massacre. If you are merely ignorant or uninformed, you say that, if you are in good faith and then you GET informed. Otherwise, you are merely intending to insult. "
- From the perspective of Holocaust Deniers, they ARE informed. A Holocaust Denier could suggest the same to you in that you should get informed. Simply dismissing anyone who disagrees with your conclusion as "merely intending to insult" assumes too much. You do not know their motives. You cannot know their motives. If your argument rests on the assumption that you know the motives of all who disagree with you, then your argument has a weak foundation.

"Comparing faith to facts is a non-starter. I give deference to how people guide their lives when it does me no harm. Belief in God is a topic on which many reasonable minds have differed. However, denying events which occurred not that long ago and impacted in the case of Tulsa 35 square blocks of a blooming miracle or in the case of the Holocaust, which redefined the demographics of Europe., is simply not apples to apples. Not even close."
- You dismiss my comparison without giving proper justification for the dismissal. You simply dismiss it as a "non-starter" and "not even close". Why? What is the difference? In both instances, one camp ignores the abundance of evidence, refuses to accept the truth, denies past events, etc. Yet only one is hate speech. Why? What is the difference between Creationism, Flat Earthers and Holocaust Deniers? Flat Earthers deny the moon landing which is also documented, has photographic evidence, and occurred not that long ago. Yet Flat Earth is not hate speech. Why?

"Flat earthers are not targeting a minority which has (i) immutable characteristics and (ii) has a history of persecution. They are just dumb. This is dangerous and ill-intentioned."
- Nor are Holocaust Deniers. How does Holocaust Denial "target" Jews? Suppose someone denied Exodus. Would that be hate speech? It "targets" Jews as much as Holocaust Denial "targets" Jews. In both instances, the claim is something bad happened to the Jews. In Exodus, it was slavery. In the Holocaust, it was genocide. But only one of the two denials is hate speech. Why?

"I assume animus because it is a reasonable assumption. When you are denying a history of mass persecution, in this case, extermination, without facts, you have an agenda. Period."
- Holocaust Deniers believe they have facts. Again, dismissing them because of your own personal conviction is a poor position. Judging by your blatant refusal to argue whether the Holocaust happened suggests you never even bothered to look at the arguments made by Holocaust Deniers. If you did, you'd know it isn't based on thin air. They don't just shout "it didn't happen!" and run away before anyone can question them. They do have supporting arguments. You might not agree with their arguments, but you cannot ignore their existence.

"Making affirmative insults: But why not just assume that they honestly believe that blacks have these traits? Why not just say they are horribly uniformed? How can someone give offense if they honestly believe a fact? That's your point, isn't it?"
- As already explained, suggesting black people are inferior is blatantly and beyond dispute an insulting position to take. This cannot be said for Holocaust Denial. Holocaust Denial does not insult the Jews. You can have the highest opinion of the Jewish people and STILL deny the Holocaust.

"Simply mistaken: You seem to concede that Holocaust survivors like Ms. Pronicheva could not have been "simply mistaken" about crawling out of mass graves. Those who dug up those graves and set the pyres a light cannot be simply mistaken. Those who saw the fires, smelled the flesh burning, cannot be simply mistaken."
- The existence of mass graves do not confirm the Holocaust. This was war. People died. Even in concentration camps. Holocaust Deniers do not make the claim that no Jews died. The claim is that there was no planned extermination of the Jews, there were no gas chambers. Jews did die. The denial is whether they died as the result of a deliberate genocide.

"You seem to suggest because there was something like an urban myth about Jews being made into soap (instead of lamp shades which did happen), that this invalidates all of the mass of testimony which the Nazis tried to deny, just as do other Holocaust Deniers. Every large story will have an element or two which gets conflated by hearsay. "
- What is the difference between a witness and hearsay?

"The link you gave was some kind of You tube where an anonymous caller called in about the soap claim. Give me the name of a specific person making the soap claim, the words which they said, and I will respond in more detail."
- What difference would a name make? Are you suggesting the caller was a fraud?

"If you look Ms. Pronicheva in the face and tell her, "you lie" about her experience that is a grave insult."
- And if you said to the anonymous caller "you lie" about her experience, it would be just as grave of an insult.

"You ignore the stages of Genocide, the last of which is denial."
- That's because I didn't see the point. If no one denied the Holocaust, would it no longer be genocide because it doesn't follow all the stages of genocide?

"Denial is not just a threat to the survivors of the genocide but to us all."
- You have yet to give a clear explanation for how it is a threat. One could argue that Creationism is a threat as it stifles scientific progress. Is Creationism hate speech because of this?

"Failure to do so may result in ignorance, but it is a willful ignorance which flows from a desire not to believe the truth of a persecuted minority."
- You've once again resorted to your own personal conviction as your argument. You refuse to even hear the side of Holocaust Deniers on principle, yet whenever their belief comes into question, your default position is "they are willfully ignorant". Unless you actually take the time to listen to an argument presented by a Holocaust Denier, your entire position is nothing but presupposition.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Justin108 4 days ago
Justin108
Not all Holocaust Deniers are Neo Nazi skin heads or KKK
Posted by FanboyMctroll 1 week ago
FanboyMctroll
Neo Nazi skin heads, KKK and other racist cults and groups, they all deny the Holocaust and they also are not afraid to kill Jews and spray tag buildings with swastikas. People like that have a lot of hate and can influence young impressionable minds into believing that it's ok to kill Jews

Those types
Posted by Justin108 1 week ago
Justin108
@FanboyMctroll
"they start thinking that it didn't happen, and then it becomes ok to do it. "
- What? How would thinking the Holocaust didn't happen make it ok to do it? Who would go "well we didn't kill 6 million Jews. Therefore, it would be ok to kill 6 million Jews"?
Posted by FanboyMctroll 1 week ago
FanboyMctroll
I see your point, but when people start denying things that happened in history, they start thinking that it didn't happen, and then it becomes ok to do it. We don't want another Holocaust that is why the younger generations need to be reminded of what happened back then. If we deny it then we are saying it didn't happen. and it did. 6 million people lost their lives there and people need to be aware of it, because Nazi Germany did it and the German people didn't even know it was happening, they were just supporting the Nazi's
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.