How should the Holocaust be debated?

[Blogbuster]

Question?

How should the Holocaust or Holohoax, depending on your belief, be debated? By this question I don't mean the arena, i.e. an electronic bulletin board, forum or blog, I'm meaning stylistically? For revisionists, should an aggressive "The Holocaust is a fraud" approach be taken? Or should one simply deal with historical reference and fact?

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?

Is the Holocaust Controversies approach reasonable? Or is it over the top?

What about Berg? His style is repetitive and aggressive, is it reasonable? Or does reason even matter?

I would love to hear people’s thoughts on this.


BB

[Haldan]

This all depends on what the style is of the individual writer. A good recipe is always to include the addition of facts and sources.
Really, can anybody imagine Kakavia without olive oil and garlic? I can't.
-haldan

[Carolyn Yeager]

Question?
How should the Holocaust or Holohoax, depending on your belief, be debated? By this question I don't mean the arena, i.e. an electronic bulletin board, forum or blog, I'm meaning stylistically? For revisionists, should an aggressive "The Holocaust is a fraud" approach be taken? Or should one simply deal with historical reference and fact?

The biggest problems I see with the 'Holo' debate are lying (presenting false evidence or "facts"), purposefully confusing the issue under discussion, and dodging (not answering questions or acknowledging a point made by the opponent). Formal debate rules are supposed to prevent this. Having a moderator here on Codoh Forum helps to control these problems, but human nature is what it is, and the moderator doesn't want to end up with no "debaters" at all.

It's my opinion that it is believers who, while they are polite here, are much more often disingenuous. One gets very tired of dealing with people like that. So basically, lack of honest intentions is the only real problem. One can quickly run out of patience with another who is perceived as dishonest.

[Hannover]

How to debate the so called 'holocaust'?

That's easy.

Tell the truth, it's easier to remember. Clearly, the path that the 'holocaust' profiteers did not take.

- Hannover

[Clem]

BB:

Is the Holocaust Controversies approach reasonable?

How can you even ask if maliciously obfuscating and telling flat-out lies is a reasonable approach? It may be “reasonable” from their standpoint of desperately trying to perpetuate their sinking ship of lies in any way possible, but in their case, “reasonable” is not honest or ethical or moral in any way.


BB:

What about Berg? His style is repetitive and aggressive, is it reasonable?

Have you not noticed how afraid the holohoaxers are of debating him?

Doesn't that fact speak for itself?


BB:

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?

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?

If it has allegedly been proven (and thus in the “historical record”), then where is the so-called “proof” and what are the names of the forensic experts who have endorsed it?

[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.

Too many debates are derailed because these sticking points. As far as style, I have always admired Butz's approach to the subject.

Jofo

[borjastick]

I think that debating on any forum or in any situation with hardline traditionalists is almost certain to get nowhere, due to the fact that whatever proof is put in front of them they refute. They simply have no intention of changing their position. From Wiesel to Muhlencamp they are so entrenched that they have nowhere to get back to without looking so fantastically dumb. Can you imagine an articulate moderated debate between Wiesel and Yeager? He wouldn't last five minutes.

The debate, which I believe is being won by us, is best fought with common sense and facts delivered in a friendly but firm way to those who are not certain in their mind about the issue. To sow the seeds of doubt is far more fruitful than a full on argument with a hardliner who has no intention of opening his mind to see the truth.

We also need to stop infighting on our side of the debate, which sometimes is laced with a certain snobbery.

[delafeld]

I usually try to concentrate on debating the small (and not-so-small too) details nowadays. Getting into a general debate on whether the holocaust happened, why germans were so evil (or some other psychological questions) , where ALL the jews went etc. doesn't work for me. If I can prove that krema 1 in Auschwitz could not have functioned as a gas chamber because of lack of ventilation (and/or heating, logistics etc) there's already a big hole in the story.

[Blogbuster]

Clem,
you asked the following: Just what “historical record” are you talking about? The Wiki definition of revisinisiom is as follows:


Historical revisionism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the denial and distortion of well-established historical facts, see Historical revisionism (negationism).

In historiography, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event. Though the word revisionism is sometimes used in a negative way, constant revision of history is part of the normal scholarly process of writing history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism


Hence there would be no need to revise a belief structure if some historical records failed to exist. Now I am not debating with you or anyone else on beliefs about the Holocaust being factual or a hoax, my question is about how the topic should be debated.

I thought that was reasonably clear in my post.

Not looking for any holocaust controversy here just interested in understanding the varied view points.
BB

[Clem]

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 and/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?

[White Wolf]

What I would like to see is a basic laymans introduction booklet to the Holocaust.

One that brings up the issues and the real facts without getting too technical to lose the interest of the masses.

A member of SF recently put together a booklet that lays out the liberal arguements and the proper WN response. It's an invaluable tool to newer members who are not accustome to debating.

Perhaps a simpler book for Holy-Hoax revisionism beginners might be in order. One that explains things without getting technical and confusing to a potential fence-sitter or new believer. In the past I have refrred people to the Holocaust Handbook Series, especially Giant With Feet Of Clay, Hoax Of The 20th Century and the book Did Six Million Really Die.

But something even more simpiler would be best. Kind of like a primer, maybe digital with links to the more complicated information for those who wish to delve into the hard stuff.

There are many great writers in the movement, perhaps one of them would step up and get the ball rolling.

Remember though, simple (brainwashed) minds need simple watered down facts. Explain the How and Why (or in most cases the Why Not) each issue and leave it for them to investigate.

Just my two cents, adjusted for inflation, .082 cents.

[Haldan]

I agree !
Sadly I think this is actually needed. A friend to me once said something like this:

"I've been checking your website often to read more of you articles.
Sadly, I cannot read things well without getting side tracked,
so I often just skim them. You know, I think you should put them all into one file,
like an executable, and call it The Revisionist Handbook 101 (or something similar)" - Mercenary666

I believe he may be on to something here.

-haldan

What I would like to see is a basic laymans introduction booklet to the Holocaust.

One that brings up the issues and the real facts without getting too technical to lose the interest of the masses.

A member of SF recently put together a booklet that lays out the liberal arguements and the proper WN response. It's an invaluable tool to newer members who are not accustome to debating.

Perhaps a simpler book for Holy-Hoax revisionism beginners might be in order. One that explains things without getting technical and confusing to a potential fence-sitter or new believer. In the past I have refrred people to the Holocaust Handbook Series, especially Giant With Feet Of Clay, Hoax Of The 20th Century and the book Did Six Million Really Die.

But something even more simpiler would be best. Kind of like a primer, maybe digital with links to the more complicated information for those who wish to delve into the hard stuff.

There are many great writers in the movement, perhaps one of them would step up and get the ball rolling.

Remember though, simple (brainwashed) minds need simple watered down facts. Explain the How and Why (or in most cases the Why Not) each issue and leave it for them to investigate.

Just my two cents, adjusted for inflation, .082 cents.

[Blogbuster]

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 and/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?

Clem, why is the historical record mine? I clearly stated that the argument of whether the Holocaust is factual or a hoax is not the topic of this thread. Rather its about how the topic should be debated.

But I would futher like to use your insistence to append my original question with your approach as an additional example:

Do people feel that Clems method of diverting one topic to something completely different, to be an appropriate method for debating the Holocaust?


By the way, some interesting view points from the other posters.

BB

[Clem]

What's wrong BB, are simple yes or no questions too hard for you to understand?

Is it the "yes" part, or the "no" part that is giving you trouble?

BB, you "answered" my questions first with a non-answer and then with a question.

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 and/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?

CY:

The biggest problems I see with the 'Holo' debate are lying (presenting false evidence or "facts"), purposefully confusing the issue under discussion, and dodging (not answering questions or acknowledging a point made by the opponent).

It's my opinion that it is believers who, while they are polite here, are much more often disingenuous. One gets very tired of dealing with people like that. So basically, lack of honest intentions is the only real problem. One can quickly run out of patience with another who is perceived as dishonest.

Carolyn, you described BB to a T.

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

Or will he continue to dodge them?

[Clem]

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?