The Instigator
GarretKadeDupree
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
SNP1
Con (against)
Winning
6 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 2 votes the winner is...
SNP1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 344 times Debate No: 84040
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

GarretKadeDupree

Pro

I will provide evidence in support of the following thesis:

The Holocaust happened without a reasonable doubt.

I ask my opponent to just say "accept" and I'll post my arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
SNP1

Con

Note, the resolution is that the holocaust happened BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

Pro has made a MINIMUM of THREE assumptions in order to make his point (which isn't even his own point).
He uses the three basal assumptions:
1) The universe exists
2) We can know something about the universe
3) We can test our assertions about the universe

While making those assumptions, I agree that holocaust denial is ludicrous. The problem here, however, is that the resolution requires 100% certainty.

100% certainty CANNOT exist if assumptions must be made to reach the conclusion.

As Pro (or anybody) MUST make the three basal assumptions to even get close to claiming that the holocaust happened, that means that Pro (or anybody) cannot be 100% certain that it happened.

Since that 100% certainty does not exist, one cannot claim it happened BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

As it cannot be claimed to have happened beyond a reasonable doubt, Pro has not fulfilled his BoP.

VOTE CON
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Jerry947 5 months ago
Jerry947
@Con

You made a self-defeating statement. You said "Since that 100% certainty does not exist, one cannot claim it happened BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT."

Are you 100% certain that 100% certainty does not exist?
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: retroz// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments), 2 points to Pro (Sources). Reasons for voting decision: While Pro's argument makes more sense and has more reliable of a source (Con had no sources)... Con showed that the Pro did not fulfill their burden of proof. Thus, Con is the winner of this round

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter is not specific. It must be clear from the RFD why the voter thinks one side's argument makes more sense, not just a statement that it does. The same's true for burden of proof. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter has to state why Pro's sources were reliable and important to the debate, rather than just stating that one side having sources while the other does not justifies the point allocation.
************************************************************************
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 9 months ago
U.n
GarretKadeDupreeSNP1Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't see posting a single youtube video that someone else created as your argument to me anything more than a glorified version of plagiarism. If Pro had elaborated in his own written word or created the video himself it would have been different. Con is the only participant to provide a written argument, even if said argument was essentially a semantics-based loophole.
Vote Placed by Peepette 11 months ago
Peepette
GarretKadeDupreeSNP1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G are tied. Pro offered a resource, Con did not. Conduct tie but, Con pulled a kritik;100% certainty based on 3 universe assertions. Based on this Con won the argument.