The Instigator
MasturDbtor
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
dfinn475
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

The 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 4 votes the winner is...
MasturDbtor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/27/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,252 times Debate No: 25885
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

MasturDbtor

Pro

The information proving the Holocaust as a historical event happened is conclusive.
dfinn475

Con

Yes I would like to accept this debate. It seems fun, but let me set some definitions

Holocaust- an event that happened on the moon in 2030
During the holocaust, Americans built civilizations on the moon because the Earth was uninhabitable.
Historical Event- an event that happened in the past
Conclusive- True

The information proving that the holocaust as a historical event is not conclusive because of three main reasons:
1. It happens in the future.
Something cant be historical if it happened in the future, proving not to be conclusive.
2. People don't live on the moon.
There are no Americans that live on the moon, therefore that makes this statement inconclusive.
3. The Earth is still habitable.
People can still live on the Earth, making this statement inconclusive as well.
Debate Round No. 1
MasturDbtor

Pro

You can't do that.
Everyone knows what the Holocaust is you can't just make up definitions.
dfinn475

Con

How come?
Debate Round No. 2
MasturDbtor

Pro

You are cheating.

Vote Pro!
dfinn475

Con

I will refute my opponent's defense.
You are cheating.
How am I cheating?

Vote Pro!
The debate is not over yet.
Debate Round No. 3
MasturDbtor

Pro

You cheated by redefining the terms in a ridiculous manner.
dfinn475

Con

My opponent specifically said that
"I want to debate someone who thinks or pretends to think that the Holocaust never happened."
So for him to say that I am cheating even though he told me to pretend that it never happened is like getting mad at a kid for saying two plus two is not four when you tell him to say two plus twois three.

"Everyone knows what the Holocaust is....."

Also, there are some people that do not know what the Holocaust is and therefore my opponent's statement is wrong.
Debate Round No. 4
MasturDbtor

Pro

http://www.ushmm.org...... During the Nuremburg Trials they had about 3000 of records that were submitted at the trial. There is also photo and film evidence from the Nazis themselves. http://www.ushmm.org...... There is no way they faked all that evidence.
dfinn475

Con

I guess I should get serious. There are two reasons why the holocaust that my opponent refers to never happened.

1. The people that deny the holocaust the most is the Jewish people.
Why in the world would somebody, much less a Jew, deny the holocaust. That is like an African American denying slavery. Unless, of course, it actually didn't happen.
And also, in the Jewish religion, it is a sin to lie. So for a Jew to lie about something that serious might not be a lie.

2. 6 million Jews didn't live in Germany.
Assuming that my opponent's definition of the holocaust is a mass murder of jews in Germany, that could not be true simply because 6 million jews didn't live there. They must have had to go to neighboring countries and taken jews from there. But how possible does it sound that while a country is warring against many other countries, that they have time to kill their own people.

Now, according to my definition of the holocaust, my defense will be the same.
The information proving that the holocaust as a historical event is not conclusive because of three main reasons:
1. It happens in the future.
Something cant be historical if it happened in the future, proving not to be conclusive.
2. People don't live on the moon.
There are no Americans that live on the moon, therefore that makes this statement inconclusive.
3. The Earth is still habitable.
People can still live on the Earth, making this statement inconclusive as well.

Sources

http://answers.yahoo.com...
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by imnotsayingimjustsaying 4 years ago
imnotsayingimjustsaying
sources: yahoo answers
lololololololol
Posted by achmed242 4 years ago
achmed242
that was stupid, wtf, i hope you two were joking cuz if not you are mentally diasabled
Posted by larztheloser 4 years ago
larztheloser
This topic is seriously lacking in substantive material. From both sides. Esp., definitional claims and challenges need to be backed up with evidence. At this point, I am unconvinced that the topic refers to a habitation that I'm not convinced of either. At the same time, pro hasn't proved that any holocaust happened yet, giving con the debate by default. I don't usually do this before the debate is over, but in the final round - get your act together guys!
Posted by MasturDbtor 4 years ago
MasturDbtor
Abusive how. Holocaust deniers exist. I disagree with them but would like to get some insights into the sorts of arguments they make.
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Wow. Abusive resolution by Pro, but even more abusive definitions by Con.
Posted by MasturDbtor 4 years ago
MasturDbtor
I want to debate someone who thinks or pretends to think that the Holocaust never happened.
I'm taking the side of yes, it did happen.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Uhhhhh wut?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
MasturDbtordfinn475Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had an abusive resolution, but Con had very abusive definitions, gave no sources, and didn't take the argument seriously until the last round.
Vote Placed by danjr10 4 years ago
danjr10
MasturDbtordfinn475Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: The worst debate i have ever read
Vote Placed by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
MasturDbtordfinn475Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: this was a rubbish debate, argumnts and conduct to Pro for not being so semantic. Pro also had 1 more source than Con
Vote Placed by larztheloser 4 years ago
larztheloser
MasturDbtordfinn475Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Debate quality pretty much doubled in the final round. That should have been round one, so that there could be some good rebuttals (if there had, the result could well have been different). Both sides raised mostly assertive points and didn't engage with each other, although there is a lot of potential for development. Pro, do not rely on sources to make points. Con, remember the side with the BOP sets the context for the debate. At the end, both sides had valid points. Pro therefore met BOP.