The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The Holocaust actually happened

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 532 times Debate No: 70242
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




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.



I will prove why it is impossible to debate on this subject Look this is something that .000009 percent of the population agree with so I am going to call your argument and the topic abusive because this is something that is accepted as truth by all people and the only ones who claim not to know of such events are lying to promote public outbursts.

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.
Debate Round No. 1


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.


Abusive and unarguable mean kind of the same thing Abusive meaning there is obviously a side in which the resolution favors making it very hard or impossible to win on the other side hence my dilemma. The reason I jumped to unarguable is because that's essentially what this topic is because everyone involved agrees it happened there is physical evidence proving it and the naysayers are unquotable and unreliable. The reason this argument doesn't work is because the aff (my opponent) is so heavily stacked with info and sources that I the Negative have no choice but to agree hence the abusive and unarguable Kritik.

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.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Unitomic 1 year ago
Well ummm.... I guess this is one way to score a quick win
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SNP1 1 year ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con purposefully didn't debate the topic.