The Instigator
GarretKadeDupree
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
xPrtN00bSn1p3r
Con (against)
Losing
0 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...
GarretKadeDupree
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 382 times Debate No: 84023
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (9)
Votes (4)

 

GarretKadeDupree

Pro

I will provide evidence the Holocaust happened. I am willing to debate any stupid Holocaust-deniers. Just say "I accept" as soon as you accept the debate and I'll post my evidences
xPrtN00bSn1p3r

Con

Nothing happened, ever. Right now all came to be and the only things that can be proven here on out either relate to the present or the future. The past is merely what we assume that the current evidence points to but the past never existed, the only time that exists is the present and the immediate future.

The Holocaust in an imaginary sense may seem to be really happening but in reality it never was, it is part of the present illusion which was imposed on us all less than a nanosecond ago.

Hitler is a figure we say was "real" and the holocaust we say "happened" but both are lies. The only reality and only happening can be in the present or the foreseeable future.
Debate Round No. 1
GarretKadeDupree

Pro

Thanks for accepting. According to Wikipedia,
  • "From 1941 to 1945, Jews were systematically murdered in a genocide, one of the largest in history, and part of a broader aggregate of acts of oppression and killings of various ethnic and political groups in Europe by the Nazi regime."(1)

Wikipedia articles have been edited 804,430,849 times by over 27,009,864 users and is managed by over 1,000 administrators.(2) If Wikipedia's record of the Holocaust were mistaken, don't you think it would've been corrected by one of those almost 1 BILLION edits? Or seen and revised by one of the over 1 THOUSAND admins?

Even the Institute for Historical Review, "an organization primarily devoted to publishing and promoting books and essays described by critics as pseudo-historical that attack the mainstream historical consensus concerning the Nazi genocide of Jews,"(3) does not deny the Holocaust! And I truly mean it literally says that it "does not" deny the Holocaust.(4)

I'll end with a quote from RationalWiki:

  • "... Holocaust denial is a form of anti-Semitism often embraced by bigots who are too cowardly to admit that they wished that Hitler had finished the job."

Is my opponent a cowardly bigot? Would he be able to argue his position while looking in the eyes of these Jewish children?



Thanks for the debate.

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org...
(3) https://en.wikipedia.org...
(4) http://www.ihr.org...
(5) http://rationalwiki.org...

xPrtN00bSn1p3r

Con

xPrtN00bSn1p3r forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by GarretKadeDupree 11 months ago
GarretKadeDupree
SolInvictusRising did you literally just join to spam anti-semitic crap?
Posted by SNP1 11 months ago
SNP1
Well, I guess I can't debate this. I was going to use a k anyways.
Posted by SolInvictusRising 11 months ago
SolInvictusRising
By all means, the holocaust is mostly a fraud. Although people died, including jewish people, they do not amount to the number of 6 million, neither were they killed because of their race/religion.
In fact, all evidence towards the Holocaust comes from the Soviet Union, a nation that isn't known for telling the truth, and to deny it is, in some countries, a crime. The photos and documents have never proved that 6m jews were killed by the Nazis, they mostly died due to hunger and tiphus, both caused by Allied bombing that destroyed german supply lines, therefore preventing food and medication from reaching the concentration camps. Again, there were, supposedly, two types of camps: concentration and extermination. The latter were all discovered by the Soviet Union, and that is quite strange.
The supposed gas chambers are unfit for such a function due to their condition, just simply compare to real gas chambers used by America as a form of death penalty and the difference is quite obvious. Furthermore, using gas chambers are not and efficient way of killing people: would the germans, known for their technological and industrial capabilities, force a jewish family from Russia to walk, or by train, towards a extermination camp, so that they would be killed days after? It is, in most cases, a waste of resources.
Posted by SNP1 12 months ago
SNP1
I am more confused on why he created a new account when his old one isn't even closed.
Posted by tajshar2k 12 months ago
tajshar2k
you did like 3 debates on it.
Posted by tajshar2k 12 months ago
tajshar2k
wait wtf, i swear you used to deny it lol.
Posted by Marksworth 12 months ago
Marksworth
How can any fucktard deny that it happened? There is video evidence, journals, pictures....Do people think Hitler just loved to keep Jewish people as pets and treated them well!??
Posted by SNP1 12 months ago
SNP1
If the change is not made, then I will not accept.
Posted by SNP1 12 months ago
SNP1
If you make the resolution "The Holocaust happened without a reasonable doubt" then I will accept.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 9 months ago
dsjpk5
GarretKadeDupreexPrtN00bSn1p3rTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff a round, so conduct to Pro.
Vote Placed by lannan13 9 months ago
lannan13
GarretKadeDupreexPrtN00bSn1p3rTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by U.n 9 months ago
U.n
GarretKadeDupreexPrtN00bSn1p3rTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro cited sources to support his argument; Con did not. Also, Con forfeited a turn.
Vote Placed by AngryBlogger 11 months ago
AngryBlogger
GarretKadeDupreexPrtN00bSn1p3rTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gave up, and so again, i am voting pro. He provided a good argument, and had some good reliable sources, sadly it could have been a better debate if con would have tried of course.