The Holocaust actually happened
Debate Rounds (2)
Hello there! Three things I'd like to point out.
1-I think Germans systematically killed Jews
2-The Commandant of Auschwitz admits it
3-I will endeavour to prove this. Emphasis on endeavour. E is for endeavour. Whatever.
I would like to keep this as cold and logical as possible, so please, PLEASE don't turn this to a
shouting match. Ok, my argument. Let me think about that.....
I'm BACK!!! Say hello to my little friend! I mean argument.
1. The Germans Admit it
"It" being the systematic killing of Jews, Rudolf Hoess, the commandant of Auschwitz admitted to gassing and cremating Jews specifically. This was DURING the aftermath, not after it. They were not "pressured into" that decision because most people thought that. At the time, the news of all of this happening wasn't widespread, so it is against the odds for him to admit it without having the risk of being branded a liar.
2. It isn't Possible to Cremate People on that Timeframe with that Many Crematoriums Foolishness
They had 52 crematoriums in Auschwits, 1 person crematoriums. Gassing thousands of people a day and cremating them 2 hours per body with 52 crematoriums doesn't add up. ASSUMING that they didn't have bodies lying around waiting to be burned, took breaks from gassing people, and cremating them in other ways in a mass attempt to expose of evidence,
like for instance, piling bodies in heaps and torching them without crematoriums. Which kind of proves my point about how they had waiting rooms to be cremated. Besides that, there are plenty of eyewitnesses to the horrors that happened.
3. There aren't Documented Orders for Jew Extermination Tangent
Yes, according to my info, there aren't. (Sobs.) It would make this a one-round match debate if I could prove it. But the holocaust-deniers fail to mention one key point, they can burn a few sheefs of paper, just like they can burn a few thousand bodies. (Not very well.
The bodies were not very well-burned during the mass-cremation attempt. See point 2.)
Well, that was interesting. If you can disprove me and prove your point, please do! Then I'll
be quite enlightened!
P.S. Please don't shout at me. I mean shout at your computer. Cyber-shout. Whatever.
So I am going to run a Kritik on the Resolution (saying why the resolution is bad and/or illegitimate)
Firstly I would like to state it is the affirmative burden to prove why the resolution (topic) is not unfair to the Neg if he can do this he wins.
Secondly I will prove why it is impossible to debate on this subject but in order to understand my position we must first dissect the word debate.
Debate- (defined by merriam webster) a discussion between people in which they express different opinions about something
The definition clearly states to a discussion of two people expressing different opinions but when we live in a world in which that is impossible the topic is called abusive and the side showing that should win.
Further proof is the fact that my opponent admitted to the aggressors of the holocaust confessed to the act and one may argue they lied but why? They weren't pressured to say so and my opponent and I agree to it therefore it is fact in the realms of the debate and must be treated as so and if my opponent is to go back on any of his words he is to be disqualified and lose immediately.
I totally see your dilemma, but I have met a few holocaust deniers, and debated them before on other websites. They are more widespread than you think, but I must admit, there aren't too many. I don't quite see the"abusive" point you're making. Is it because you think my topic is unarguable? Believe me, it's definitely arguable. Also, I don't see how you jump from unarguable to abusive. That's a very big leap! for the past week or so I've been debating the same topic. I expected to find a holocaust denier but as that will not happen, I guess we can just call this thing quits.
P.S. I guess I faiiled my "cold and logical" rule in my first argument. oops.
The reason I did this was so that people might stop posting these topics that are useless to argue about because then they aren't even fun.
P.S. just to win this debate- My opponent didn't attack any of my points with any support while I defeated all of his.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SNP1 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con purposefully didn't debate the topic.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.