How should the Holocaust be debated?

[Steve F]

Clem asked:

"Do people feel that BB's dodging is an appropriate method for debating the Holocaust?"

It has worked like a charm for the last forty years; if it ain't broke.....don't fix it!

[fountainhead]

For believers, is it the best approach to assume that every revisionist is an anti-Semite purely because he/she doesn't buy the historical record in the manner you do?

In my experience, the biggest obstacle in getting people to critically re-examine the holocaust is getting them past the idea that holocaust revisionists are anti-Semites, neo-Nazis or skinheads, all of which are usually lumped together into one ugly stereotype. A quick perusal of the comments on holocast denial videos on YouTube should make it clear that people's first reaction is usually to assume that revisionists have a violently racist motive for their beliefs. Once they get past that initial reflex action, the revisionist case becomes much stronger. For this reason, I don't think a combative tone would be very helpful. It might help existing revisionists feel better that they've slam-dunked an opponent, but it won't help to spread knowledge. It just adds fuel to the exterminationist narrative that people who question the holocaust are dedicated to 'spreading hate.'

I'm guessing we were all 'believers' at one point in our lives. Ask yourselves what made you change your mind. When you first questioned the holocaust, what style of debate did you want to hear before you made up your mind? At least in my case, I wanted to hear objective analysis of the evidence using sound methods for the sake of preserving history truthfully, without having to worry about a person's possible ulterior motives. You're more likely to convince people when they believe that they have examined the evidence and drawn their own conclusion instead of having it shouted down at them. The evidence speaks for itself. Just need to get people to take a look at it without assuming you made it all up because you're motivated by hatred.

[Blogbuster]

Good points Fountainhead.


BB

[Blogbuster]

Rules/Guidelines

...Associated subjects are bound to come up, be sure there is a tie-in, show the tie-in.

...No 'dodging'. When questioned or challenged on your statements, claims, or assertions, you must respond or leave the thread.

I've shown the tie-in to the associated subject that was brought up via a specific statement made by BB.

I'm trying to figure out just what “historical record” he's talking about so I can find out if there is some specific information in his so-called "historical record."

I questioned / challenged BB on one of his statements.

Will BB respond or leave the thread?

(Why is he so afraid to give two simple yes or no answers to two simple yes or no questions?)


But I would futher like to use BB's dodging to append my questions with his approach as an additional example:

Do people feel that BB's dodging is an appropriate method for debating the Holocaust?

Clem, the comments I made were meant to be a cross section of examples of how the Holocaust appears to be debated/discussed on many forums. They are not statements of belief one way or the other.
The topic is how the forum should be debated, you are asking for proof or justification of these examples, as if they are the goal of the thread, you are not asking questions that are related to the topic of how the Holocaust should be debated.

Now If I chose poor examples, and you wish to criticize that aspect, by all means feel free. But you haven't asked a single relevent question that could or should be dodged.
If you wish to ask me a question specific to the topic, I'm happy to answer.


BB

[rerevisionist]

[1]

JoFo
Before the debate even begins, both sides ought to finally agree on:

a. What constitutes acceptable proof for the claims.
b. Who bears the burden of said proof.
c. Who is credible to provide this proof.

This reminds me of attempts to pin down the 'scientific method'. There's an important place for these rather speculative exercises, but experience suggests you'll get nowhere!

[2] An 'overview' piece is a good idea. Why not get Did Six Million Really Die and update it - translate into American (i.e. viewpoint less British) and add photos and documents and historical discoveries from the forty years since Harwood. Make the text as short as is compatible with discussing, and eliminating, all the usual claims.

[Clem]

BB:

...They are not statements of belief one way or the other... you are not asking questions that are related to the topic of how the Holocaust should be debated.

Yet more mealy-mouthed lame excuses from BB for dodging simple yes or no questions about a related subject that came up as a result of a statement he made.

BB, the forum rules do not limit my questions to statements of belief or specifically to the topic of the thread. As I have pointed out to you:

...Associated subjects are bound to come up, be sure there is a tie-in, show the tie-in.

...No 'dodging'. When questioned or challenged on your statements, claims, or assertions, you must respond or leave the thread.


I've shown the tie-in to the associated subject that was brought up via a specific statement made by BB.

I'm trying to figure out just what “historical record” he's talking about so I can find out if there is some specific information in his so-called "historical record."

I questioned / challenged BB on one of his statements.

Will BB respond or leave the thread?

(Why is he so afraid to give two simple yes or no answers to two simple yes or no questions?)

Well it looks like BB lacks the integrity to answer my questions AND the character to leave the thread.

That is called dodging.

BB, you made the following statement:

For believers, is it the best approach to assume that every revisionist is an anti-Semite purely because he/she doesn't buy the historical record in the manner you do?

To which I replied:

Excuse me? “Not buying the historical record?”

Just what “historical record” are you talking about?


It is a historical fact that not one of the alleged mass graves claimed to exist at Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor and Treblinka has ever been proven to contain so-much-as 1/1,000 of 1% of the alleged buried remains.


BB, can you show us in this “historical record” of yours where we might find a refutation of the above historical fact?


and then added (after you dodged the question):


I didn't ask you for a definition of revisionism BB, I made a very simple statement and asked you a very simple question:


It is a historical fact that not one of the alleged mass graves claimed to exist at Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor and Treblinka has ever been proven to contain so-much-as 1/1,000 of 1% of the alleged buried remains.


BB, can you show us in this “historical record” of yours where we might find a refutation of the above historical fact?

Yes or No?


BB, are you trying to deny or distort the well-established historical fact not one of the alleged mass graves claimed to exist at Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor and Treblinka has ever been proven to contain so-much-as 1/1,000 of 1% of the alleged buried remains?

Yes or No?


Will BB provide the two simple yes or no answers to my simple yes or no questions?

Or will he continue to dodge them?

[Blogbuster]

You win Clem, I have no interest in debating or dialoguing with you. You are the WINNER OF THE DEBATE!!
I lose...



I am however, very interested in the views by everyone else, which is why I started this thread.

BB

[Clem]

BB:

You win Clem, I have no interest in debating or dialoguing with you. You are the WINNER OF THE DEBATE!!
I lose...

There was no "debate" between us BB. You made a statement and I asked you a couple of questions about it and then you dodged them - repeatedly.

Simple as that.

What you really mean BB is you have no interest in giving simple answers to simple questions.

Now will BB have the integrity to follow the rules and leave the thread?

We shall soon see.


Can you believe the incredible amount of time and effort that BB spent trying to mealy-mouth his way out of answering something as simple as a couple of yes or no questions? It never ceases to amaze me the lengths that holohoaxers will go to avoid answering simple questions.

[Blogbuster]

Exactly Clem, everything is how you have stated it without question. Thank you for schooling me and I hope to become a better person one day.


Seems to me I've seen your particular approach before. I think it was was on RODOH and the person was Roberto Muehlenkamp. Are you Roberto?


What do others think of Clems approach? Is this a worthy method of debating the Holocaust?

Does anyone find it to be different than that of the Holocaust Controversies group?

BB

[Clem]

BB:

Thank you for schooling me

My pleasure BB.


Well it looks like BB lacks the integrity to answer my questions AND the character to leave the thread.

That is called dodging.

BB, you made the following statement:

For believers, is it the best approach to assume that every revisionist is an anti-Semite purely because he/she doesn't buy the historical record in the manner you do?

To which I replied:

Excuse me? “Not buying the historical record?”

Just what “historical record” are you talking about?


It is a historical fact that not one of the alleged mass graves claimed to exist at Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor and Treblinka has ever been proven to contain so-much-as 1/1,000 of 1% of the alleged buried remains.


BB, can you show us in this “historical record” of yours where we might find a refutation of the above historical fact?


and then added (after you dodged the question):


I didn't ask you for a definition of revisionism BB, I made a very simple statement and asked you a very simple question:


It is a historical fact that not one of the alleged mass graves claimed to exist at Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor and Treblinka has ever been proven to contain so-much-as 1/1,000 of 1% of the alleged buried remains.


BB, can you show us in this “historical record” of yours where we might find a refutation of the above historical fact?

Yes or No?


BB, are you trying to deny or distort the well-established historical fact not one of the alleged mass graves claimed to exist at Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor and Treblinka has ever been proven to contain so-much-as 1/1,000 of 1% of the alleged buried remains?

Yes or No?


Well, we now know that BB lacks the integrity and character to leave the thread.

How many more times will BB dodge the quesitons?

[Blogbuster]

Clem,
clearly you are only looking only to bait me into a fight.

I made no statements, I posed a series of questions to make an example, and start a dialogue, I never said I believed one way or the other on anything.

Your style of debate is no different than those Holocaust Controversies guys.

Anyway you bore me, you win, I'm a dodger or whatever it is you wish to label me that makes you feel good.

BB

[mdmguyon]

In my experience, the biggest obstacle in getting people to critically re-examine the holocaust is getting them past the idea that holocaust revisionists are anti-Semites, neo-Nazis or skinheads

I had never known much about Paul Rassinier before starting to read his "Debunking the Genocide Myth" tonight. I think his style of debating, at least as per indications from the first part of the book, is best. Go as far as you can, consistent with what you believe, in denouncing the Nazis. As much as possible, disavow any motivation you have to make them look good. Ideally, be a survivor of their camps, which you would describe as full of "horrors." And then, after all of that has been established, say, by the way, you don't think they killed anyone in gas chambers or tried to kill all Jews. Starting out by saying "the Holocaust is a hoax" is not going to be very effective. Compassion and empathy for those who experienced the persecutions of the Nazis and for those who can't be expected to believe anything but the mainstream story might go a long way.

[fountainhead]

@mdmguyon
I agree with the tone you're suggesting, though I personally wouldn't want to have to lie in order to debunk another lie.

I forgot to mention the other initial obstacle: Define the Holocaust. I remembered this one just this evening when I admitted my heresy to a very angry friend. The other thing that most people assume about revisionists and makes them too angry to discuss it is that they think we deny that Jews were put in concentration camps and suffered and died, resulting in the photos of piles of bodies. If they think we deny this then of course we're crazy! I asked my other friend who's still pretty much a believer, "What is the first thing you think of when you hear the term "the Holocaust? What images come to mind?" He said, "Sadness...concentration camps...people suffering...behind barbed wire." That's pretty much word for word what he told me. Interesting that he didn't even mention piles of bodies like I expected. We need to say up front that we don't deny the camps, the suffering and the barbed wire.

[Kingfisher]

@fountainhead

What first got me to take Revisionism seriously was the statement on the VHO flyer of what Revisionists do not question. It was totally at odds with the picture of "Holocaust Deniers" I had got from the media.

[Carolyn Yeager]

In my experience, the biggest obstacle in getting people to critically re-examine the holocaust is getting them past the idea that holocaust revisionists are anti-Semites, neo-Nazis or skinheads

I had never known much about Paul Rassinier before starting to read his "Debunking the Genocide Myth" tonight. I think his style of debating, at least as per indications from the first part of the book, is best. Go as far as you can, consistent with what you believe, in denouncing the Nazis. As much as possible, disavow any motivation you have to make them look good. Ideally, be a survivor of their camps, which you would describe as full of "horrors." And then, after all of that has been established, say, by the way, you don't think they killed anyone in gas chambers or tried to kill all Jews. Starting out by saying "the Holocaust is a hoax" is not going to be very effective. Compassion and empathy for those who experienced the persecutions of the Nazis and for those who can't be expected to believe anything but the mainstream story might go a long way.

To fountainhead: Instead of denying that no holocaust revisionists are antisemites, neo-nazis or skinheads ... it's much better to cease stigmatizing people with these names and allowing that they have a right to their views just like everyone else. By your method, you are playing into the Jews' hate campaign, which they cunningly present as being anti-hate.

To mdmguyon: To advise "denouncing the Nazis" as much as you can, and to describe the camps as "full of horrors," you are setting up another hoax in order to undo the first one. Fountainhead is right in saying it is using one lie to debunk another.

I actually think starting right out with "the holocaust is a hoax" IS effective for SOME people. Showing compassion and empathy for those who don't deserve it is not effective in the long run either. You speak of the "persecutions of (by) the Nazis" without realizing that you learned of those persecutions from the Jews themselves. You need to free yourself from many of your misconceptions by wider study. In reality, the Nazis were persecuted from 1920 onwards, and have been ruthlessly persecuted since 1945 to the present, which YOU carry on.

For example, it was the Nazis who freed Germany from the control of the Jewish Rothschild banking cartel that has dominated and ruined all of Europe, including Britain, and of course the U.S. It was the Nazis who brought prosperity back to the German people who had long suffered under the "horrors" of the Versailles Treaty, imposed by Jewish dominated British-French elites. It was the Nazis who worked and sacrificed to protect their own people from foreign intervention and infiltration. The Nazis were the good guys.