I will argue the Auschwitz holocaust claims are unsubstantiated. I will prove the claims are impossible using engineering, chemistry and architectural concepts. I will provide video and periodical testimony of Jews who admitted to lying about Auschwitz. I will provide links and video of scientists who made these tests and their testimony of findings. I will provide interpretive arguments based on the existing evidence that are inductively stronger arguments than the Auschwitz Holocaust arguments.

I'm open to the standard set of rules, but I demand the arguments be structured with discipline or I will not waste my time arguing. If you don't have the energy or the discipline it takes to be formal with me, don't bother even trying to challenge me. I propose that written arguments themselves must follow these rules:

1. Each person must make an argument that declares the writer's position on the argument at hand.

2. Each argument must have a set of clearly defined premises that illustrate the argument's line of reasoning.

3. Each premise must be supported with evidence that validates the argument's premise.

4. Each argument must end in a conclusion that can be deductively drawn from the premises or end in an inductively strong conclusion that can be drawn from the premises.

Why do Holocaust deniers/revisionists studeously avoid engaging historians with degrees in Holocaust Studies?

The Irving vs. Lipstadt trial addressed that question magnificently.

The debate topic is ill-defined at present.


I will argue the Auschwitz holocaust claims are unsubstantiated. I will prove the claims are impossible using engineering, chemistry and architectural concepts.

Which "Auschwitz holocaust claims" are you referring to, specifically? And who has made the claims?

From your opening post, I can't tell whether you're disputing that the holocaust as a whole occurred, or just some minor issues about Auschwitz, or a major claim such as that Auschwitz was a Nazi death camp that systematically and industrially killed Jews during World War II.

You will need to clarify the terms of your debate.


I will provide video and periodical testimony of Jews who admitted to lying about Auschwitz. I will provide links and video of scientists who made these tests and their testimony of findings. I will provide interpretive arguments based on the existing evidence that are inductively stronger arguments than the Auschwitz Holocaust arguments.

This sounds to me like you wish to limit the debate to minor points of dispute involving individual accounts of happenings at Auschwitz, or something along those lines. In other words, it strikes me as a nit-picking exercise, with you dishonestly seeking to imply that minor contradictions in accounts from different sources, or perhaps proven faults in some accounts, somehow invalidate the overall accepted historical fact that I have outlined (i.e. that Auschwitz was a death camp, etc.)

On the matter of your proposed conditions for this debate...


1. Each person must make an argument that declares the writer's position on the argument at hand.

You mean personal opinion?

Are you aware that in a Formal Debate it is quite common for one side to advocate for an argument that they would not personally support?

It seems to me that you're suggesting limiting this debate only to "True Believers". If so, I suggest you lay your own cards on the table up front. Tell us your personal views, and we'll see if anybody wants to line up as your opponent on the basis of their opposing personal views.


2. Each argument must have a set of clearly defined premises that illustrate the argument's line of reasoning.

3. Each premise must be supported with evidence that validates the argument's premise.

4. Each argument must end in a conclusion that can be deductively drawn from the premises or end in an inductively strong conclusion that can be drawn from the premises.

Such things are normal in debates.

Only people who want to cause problems would ever come up with this as a debate issue for everyone already knows the truth. To subject anyone to the notion that this Holocaust didn't happen would be a waste of time and only shows who you really are, a very uneducated, uninformed and biased person who likes starting fights to get others reactions. Your efforts are in vein , to me, for I wouldn't debate this issue as to it happening, because it did, but why people like you want to think it didn't and only want to keep bringing this nonsense up.

Your OP is an insult to the intelligence of the members and viewers of SciForums. You presume that we do not share the objections raised by Xotica and James R. You're off to a ragged start, with a high burden of establishing that there is anything at all up for debate.

You say I will argue the Auschwitz holocaust claims are unsubstantiated without defining what constitutes substantiation. You need to establish what that means, in addition to answering Xotica and James R.

I can't believe this is even being allowed to continue. Racist comments bring a ban. Homophobic comments bring a ban. Equating the atrocities of Stalinism to atheism brings a ban.

Holocaust denial and Nazi sympathizing? An arm around the shoulder, a playful chuck under the chin, and a platform.

Awesome.

Will both parties in this debate agree to accept the testimony of Rudolf Hoss as valid evidence?

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

Mod Hat — Action Note

One post deleted for insulting content and making no contribution to the general discussion.

I can't believe this is even being allowed to continue. Racist comments bring a ban. Homophobic comments bring a ban. Equating the atrocities of Stalinism to atheism brings a ban.

Holocaust denial and Nazi sympathizing? An arm around the shoulder, a playful chuck under the chin, and a platform.

Awesome.

Since my comment on this was moderated into deletion. I will simply +1 JDawg.

I began overbroad on purpose. Now that I'm considering all potential claims, that would be a mess. So in order to keep things clarified I will pick one of the more popular claims that Auschwitz was used as a gas chamber to kill Jews.

I will argue:
The claim that Auschwitz was used by Nazis as a gassing facility to systematically kill Jews does not hold up under scientific scrutiny.

I want to add a rule regarding statements made in the formal arguments, where a statement is a premise or conclusion. The rule is based on one used in many court rooms. If a statement does not have supporting evidence, it may be removed from the record and is no longer admissible.

Empirically Challenging A Statement
Any statement may be challenged on the grounds that it is not empirically supported. The party making the statement gets three chances for each challenge to come up with supporting evidence. If they use all three chances, they may not use the statement or any statement implying the same meaning again. Any statement or argument that follows from a removed premise or conclusion will have to be reworded to not follow or it must be removed as well. No removed statements can be used in the final argument and concluding remarks or the argument will be put in pending for removal until the statement is stricken from the argument. A 24 hour deletion warning will be issued when a restricted statement is reused.

A judge will decide when a statement is supported with evidence or not. A judge issues warnings.

I want to add a rule regarding statements made in the formal arguments, where a statement is a premise or conclusion. The rule is based on one used in many court rooms. If a statement does not have supporting evidence, it may be removed from the record and is no longer admissible.
Courts of law also accept eyewitness testimony as evidence.

Do you accept verbal testimony from Nazi officers at their trials...or testimony published in their own autobiography?

Courts of law also accept eyewitness testimony as evidence.

Do you accept verbal testimony from Nazi officers at their trials...or testimony published in their own autobiography?

My guess is no...That is, if it goes against his "theory".

My guess is no...That is, if it goes against his "theory".
Both parties have to agree on what constitutes evidence...regardless of their beliefs.

I suspect 99% of the debate will revolve around that alone.

Courts of law also accept eyewitness testimony as evidence.

Do you accept verbal testimony from Nazi officers at their trials...or testimony published in their own autobiography?

Testimony is not as reliable as the scientific analysis.

I will examine any verbal evidence. If I feel the evidence is not supported, I will demand empirical evidence. If the evidence can't be supported empirically, then I would assume it would be thrown out. Science is concerned with facts, not beliefs.

LMAO...Just after my last post, that came to mind...Or WIKI.

I'm unaware of any Wikipedia pages that support holocaust denial. Their pages on Auschwitz, Zyklon B, Leuchter, Zundel - all support the mainstream historical view that Auschwitz was a death camp, that it had gas chambers that used Zyklon B, and all attempts to prove otherwise have been discredited. The Talk tab on their Auschwitz page shows numerous attempts by denialists to edit it, but they have all been removed.

YouTube is the shit.

Indeed. Sometimes YouTube hosts documentaries of great educational value. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrycN8xL478&feature=autoshare)

I'm unaware of any Wikipedia pages that support holocaust denial. Their pages on Auschwitz, Zyklon B, Leuchter, Zundel - all support the mainstream historical view that Auschwitz was a death camp, that it had gas chambers that used Zyklon B, and all attempts to prove otherwise have been discredited. The Talk tab on their Auschwitz page shows numerous attempts by denialists to edit it, but they have all been removed.

OK that just came off the top of my head...

But, I was just generalizing.

I hear of people using youtube as a reference, I think WIKI is there as well.

Testimony is not as reliable as the scientific analysis.

I will examine any verbal evidence. If I feel the evidence is not supported, I will demand empirical evidence. If the evidence can't be supported empirically, then I would assume it would be thrown out. Science is concerned with facts, not beliefs.
So even if you read an entire autobiography by the camp's commander...you will not accept his testimony if it seems scientifically implausible?


http://www.amazon.com/Death-Dealer-Memoirs-Kommandant-Auschwitz/dp/0306806983

http://ducis.jhfc.duke.edu/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/death-dealer_0056.pdf

you will not accept his testimony if it seems scientifically implausible

He will not accept the testimony if he doesn't like it.

He will not accept the testimony if he doesn't like it.

That's pretty much the MO of all conspiracy theorists. Ignore the evidence that disproves your crazy theory, and only accept that which possibly might support your insane ramblings.

So even if you read an entire autobiography by the camp's commander...you will not accept his testimony if it seems scientifically implausible?


http://www.amazon.com/Death-Dealer-Memoirs-Kommandant-Auschwitz/dp/0306806983

http://ducis.jhfc.duke.edu/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/death-dealer_0056.pdf

It's a book. With words. Anyone can write words. Apparently there is a journal it is based on. This man claims he gassed people in Auschwitz. In order to accept as evidence a process proving the journal is not a fraud would have to be established.

We need a link to the scientific process involved proving the physical journals exists. We need proof of the identity of the said writer of the journal. And, the connection must be proved between the two. Do you have a link to this proof?

I'm willing to consider any evidence, but won't agree to accept all evidence until it's fully established as authentic and relevant to the debate.

It's a book. With words. Anyone can write words. Apparently there is a journal it is based on. This man claims he gassed people in Auschwitz. In order to accept as evidence a process proving the journal is not a fraud would have to be established.

We need a link to the scientific process involved proving the physical journals exists. We need proof of the identity of the said writer of the journal. And, the connection must be proved between the two.
Does this mean you want to see the original manuscript written in a Polish prison? Or hold it in your hands? Or see film footage of Rudolf Hoss actually writing it?

He was hanged for his crimes in 1947 so you wont be able to speak to him personally.

What evidence will you accept that anyone during WWII actually existed?

I will argue:
The claim that Auschwitz was used by Nazis as a gassing facility to systematically kill Jews does not hold up under scientific scrutiny.
You are arguing the Holocaust revisionism of Zundel, Faurisson, Leuchter, Irving, et. al. Your proposed arguments have already been heard, adjudicated, and dismissed in a high court of law.

The High Court Of Justice - Queen’s Bench Division - London
David Irving vs Penguin Books Ltd and Deborah E. Lipstadt (2000)

The entire judgement (333 pages) of High Court Judge Charles Gray can be accessed here: Decisions: EWHC QB 115 (11th April, 2000) (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2000/115.html)

Section VII pertains to Auschwitz. Section XIII denotes the Court Findings On Justifications.

Section XIII conclusion of the Court regarding the gassing of Jews at Auschwitz:



Conclusion

13.91 Having considered the various arguments advanced by Irving to assail the effect of the convergent evidence relied on by the Defendants, it is my conclusion that no objective, fair-minded historian would have serious cause to doubt that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz and that they were operated on a substantial scale to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews.

Does this mean you want to see the original manuscript written in a Polish prison? Or hold it in your hands? Or see film footage of Rudolf Hoss actually writing it?

He was hanged for his crimes in 1947 so you wont be able to speak to him personally.

What evidence will you accept that anyone during WWII actually existed?

What I would like to see this:

- each original page in a pdf
- English translation respectively
- expert analysis of the physical journal, hand writing analysis, scientific dating, fingerprint analyses, dna if possible, etc.
- I want some physical evidence that this man actually existed, dna from his grave, photos in uniform, his name attached, authentic tests of photos, etc.
- I want some physical proof that connects the journal to him.

I may even ask for more later if I have left some gaps. You know Hitler's Diary was bullshit. That's why I am suspicious of book like this.

You are arguing the Holocaust revisionism of Zundel, Faurisson, Leuchter, Irving, et. al. Your proposed arguments have already been heard, adjudicated, and dismissed in a high court of law.

The High Court Of Justice - Queen’s Bench Division - London
David Irving vs Penguin Books Ltd and Deborah E. Lipstadt (2000)

The entire judgement (333 pages) of High Court Judge Charles Gray can be accessed here: Decisions: EWHC QB 115 (11th April, 2000) (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2000/115.html)

Section VII pertains to Auschwitz. Section XIII denotes the Court Findings On Justifications.

Section XIII conclusion of the Court regarding the gassing of Jews at Auschwitz:
Your link is not scientific, it is judicial. There is a difference. This is not LawForums, it is SciForums.

There is no science, only text and authority. I'm only interested in scientific proofs, not legal authority.

I'm interested in what it would mean to be proven wrong scientifically on this issue. Do you have links that provide arguments and are backed up with evidence, where that evidence is photographs, film, chemical testing, etc, ?

What I would like to see this:

- each original page in a pdf
- English translation respectively
- expert analysis of the physical journal, hand writing analysis, scientific dating, fingerprint analyses, dna if possible, etc.
- I want some physical evidence that this man actually existed, dna from his grave, photos in uniform, his name attached, authentic tests of photos, etc.
- I want some physical proof that connects the journal to him.

I may even ask for more later if I have left some gaps. You know Hitler's Diary was bullshit. That's why I am suspicious of book like this.

You cheeky bastard, you don't care about the truth. Go to Auchwitz and read their own writings! But stop polluting the internet with your bull shit anti-semitism.

Seriously how is this tread not cesspooled mods?

The logic goes like this

1. People can lie.
2. I wasn't there.
3. Almost everyone who was there is now dead so they can't defend themselves.
3. It sounds too horrible for me to believe with my cushy present day life, therefore,
4. It didn't happen!

You cheeky bastard, you don't care about the truth. Go to Auchwitz and read their own writings! But stop polluting the internet with your bull shit anti-semitism.

I am asking for scientific evidence. How is that anti-Semitic? So, every young person who is born in this world, who is interested in learning about the claims of Auschwitz and asks for scientific evidence is now is a Jew hater? How this connection? I scream evidence, you scream Jew Hater.

Chips Special Person Dictionary
Evidence n. Something that a Jew Hater asks for.

Wow!

You are also Trolling the thread. I have reported you.

I would like to turn this portion of the Proposal into what the courts would call Discovery if that is possible. We have already begun such a discussion. I think this will help decide what evidence both parties will be using to prove or not prove Auschwitz was used for gassing it's prisoners.

So anyone who thinks they have evidence let's gather it and use it for the actual debate. For those of you who have the official people behind this gassing claim at Auschwitz please provide their scientific argument with their evidence links. I don't know who these people are. I just see the message coming from all directions on the Internet. Who is the established scientific authority on Auschwitz gassing? Is there one?

It's harder for me, because I'm supposed to prove that something is not true. It so much like the "I can prove God doesn't exist." dilemma, but not that really.

NO LEGAL CLAIMS that are mere text! That is not science. That is fallacious reasoning, it's called Argument From Authority.

I'm waiting for the one science claim that convinces me.

At this point, I'm tracking down a few of my own links I've found in the past. Not so easy to find for me.

Seriously how is this tread not cesspooled mods?

The logic goes like this

1. People can lie.
2. I wasn't there.
3. Almost everyone who was there is now dead so they can't defend themselves.
3. It sounds too horrible for me to believe with my cushy present day life, therefore,
4. It didn't happen!

My claim is that the gassing at Auschwitz is not supported. I didn't say it didn't happen. Those are two different statements.

There is plenty of evidence available. You should not be concerned with that. It's that scientific arguments are scant for the officially accepted version. Lets gather what we can and look it over.

Here is one link I will be referring to:

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-research/index.html

If anyone finds this link objectionable, let me know.

and this one:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1946Hoess.html

I can't believe this is even being allowed to continue. Racist comments bring a ban. Homophobic comments bring a ban. Equating the atrocities of Stalinism to atheism brings a ban. Holocaust denial and Nazi sympathizing? An arm around the shoulder, a playful chuck under the chin, and a platform. Awesome.* * * * NOTE FROM A MODERATOR * * * *

He's hardly getting an arm around the shoulder. But in the USA Holocaust denialism and Nazi sympathizing are not illegal, as they are in many European countries. We take the wise counsel of Justice Brandeis: The best disinfectant is sunshine.

Or as I rephrase it: Let the cockroaches walk on top of the linoleum, where we can keep an eye on them.

American cities grant parade permits to Nazi organizations. The streets are lined with citizens who shout insults and throw rotten fruit at them. Isn't this better than forcing them to meet secretly in basements? This way they can't delude themselves into believing that they have lots of sympathizers who are merely being persecuted by the government.

My quintessential example of why Europe is wrong about this: When the creeps finally got organized enough to hold a Holocaust Denial Festival, they had to hold it in fucking Tehran, where the government supports their delusion for political reasons. This allowed them to feel like there's overwhelming support for their lunacy, but it can't be openly expressed in Europe.

Wouldn't it have been so much better to allow this event to take place in Vienna, Budapest, Paris, Copenhagen, Prague, Amsterdam, Warszaw, Rome, etc.? Every time they walked out of the conference hall to get a drink or use the restroom, they would have had to walk past a group of tattooed concentration camp survivors, scowling at them.
What I would like to see this: - each original page in a pdf - English translation respectively - expert analysis of the physical journal, hand writing analysis, scientific dating, fingerprint analyses, dna if possible, etc. - I want some physical evidence that this man actually existed, dna from his grave, photos in uniform, his name attached, authentic tests of photos, etc. - I want some physical proof that connects the journal to him. - I may even ask for more later if I have left some gaps. You know Hitler's Diary was bullshit. That's why I am suspicious of book like this.* * * * NOTE FROM A MODERATOR * * * *

You can't be serious. SciForums is not a place of primary or secondary scholarship. Really good evidence here consists of a link to the footnotes in a Wikipedia article. When it comes to the hard sciences, we actually do have a few professional scientists like James R and Hercules, who can sort the science from the crap. But since this is SciForums, we don't have anyone of that stature to moderate an argument about history or economics.

Just be grateful that the stench of your bullshit is being tolerated here. But don't expect anyone to go to the trouble of traveling to Poland to provide the documentation you're demanding.
Seriously how is this thread not cesspooled mods? The logic goes like this. 1. People can lie. 2. I wasn't there. 3. Almost everyone who was there is now dead so they can't defend themselves. 3. It sounds too horrible for me to believe with my cushy present day life, therefore, 4. It didn't happen!Re-read my quote from Justice Brandeis. Aren't you glad this fellow has identified himself? If he shows up at your door wanting to date your daughter, you'll be ready for him.

This is like so-called "creation science." I'm utterly horrified to learn that so many people I once regarded as sensible fellow citizens have fallen for this crap. But I'm sure glad I know they're out there.

* * * * NOTE FROM A MODERATOR * * * *

He's hardly getting an arm around the shoulder. But in the USA Holocaust denialism and Nazi sympathizing are not illegal, as they are in many European countries. We take the wise counsel of Justice Brandeis: The best disinfectant is sunshine.

Or as I rephrase it: Let the cockroaches walk on top of the linoleum, where we can keep an eye on them.

American cities grant parade permits to Nazi organizations. The streets are lined with citizens who shout insults and throw rotten fruit at them. Isn't this better than forcing them to meet secretly in basements? This way they can't delude themselves into believing that they have lots of sympathizers who are merely being persecuted by the government.

My quintessential example of why Europe is wrong about this: When the creeps finally got organized enough to hold a Holocaust Denial Festival, they had to hold it in fucking Tehran, where the government supports their delusion for political reasons. This allowed them to feel like there's overwhelming support for their lunacy, but it can't be openly expressed in Europe.

Wouldn't it have been so much better to allow this event to take place in Vienna, Budapest, Paris, Copenhagen, Prague, Amsterdam, Warszaw, Rome, etc.? Every time they walked out of the conference hall to get a drink or use the restroom, they would have had to walk past a group of tattooed concentration camp survivors, scowling at them.

* * * * NOTE FROM A...NOT...A...MODERATOR(?) * * * *

If we're talking about his right to get on his soapbox in the park and spout his ignorant bullshit, I'd defend him to the last. Not because I think it's great that people get to annoy me and others with their stupidity, but because the protection of free speech is important. But it's not important just so we can say we have more freedoms than Iran, it's important because what the lack of such freedom implies, and what it inevitably leads to. Our speech is free for our own protection, not for some esoteric ideal. So no, it wouldn't be better for tattooed concentration camp survivors to have to mingle with a new generation of Nazi scumbags as they celebrate their brutal ideology. There's no poetic justice there, only bad memories for those poor people.

The more salient point, though, is that this isn't some free space. This isn't the walkway through the park. This is a social club, one that bans members for being dishonest, crude, foul-mouthed, or bigoted, among other things. And Holocaust denial is a particularly heinous insult, with clear antisemitic implications. I mean, yeah, he's also a Truther, which means it could all just be that he's not so bright, or just attracted to conspiracy theories, but the act itself is enough to warrant a timeout.

Keeping the cockroaches on the linoleum is a great idea if you don't have anything to kill them with. Thankfully, we have a wonderful tool for the cockroaches here. It's called the Banhammer.

Your link is not scientific, it is judicial. There is a difference. This is not LawForums, it is SciForums.
Your malodorous OP premise was fully argued in a high court of law.

It was thoroughly debunked by experts and formally discredited.


There is no science, only text and authority. I'm only interested in scientific proofs, not legal authority.
I applaud the good people here at SciForums who have discerned your agenda and recognize this charade for what it is.

In closing... the prescient post-trial warning of Professor Lipstadt:


" I do not delude myself that, though my battle with Mr Irving may be over, the fight against those who will pervert the historical record for their own political and ideological goals has ended. That battle will continue for as long as history is written. Those of us writing history and those of us who care about truth and memory will have to be ever ready to stand against them."

Moderator note: 29 off-topic posts have been deleted, along with a few posts that have attempted to argue to the proposed topic. Members are advised to read the rules of the Formal Debates subforum before posting here. This subforum is strictly moderated.

---

Notes:

1. steampunk has suggested a debate into a topic surrounding 9/11 conspiracy theories. However, he has stated that he will not debate that matter until after the current matter is settled. So, his Proposal thread on that topic has been put on hold for now. It will be reopened once the current matter is dealt with. This is what steampunk wants.

2. The matter of what will be accepted by steampunk as "scientific evidence" would seem to be a major issue of contention if the current debate gets past the Proposal stage. Therefore, questions probing the suggested "rules" and standards of acceptable evidence have not been deleted, even where people have pointed to specific examples.

It could, of course, be argued that the standard of evidence should form a part of any Debate itself - i.e. since it is likely to be a point of disagreement that may prevent participants from agreeing to debate at all, it should simply be absorbed into the Debate as an issue to be debated. But this is a question for potential participants to settle in this thread.

The matter of what will be accepted by steampunk as "scientific evidence" would seem to be a major issue of contention if the current debate gets past the Proposal stage.

It could, of course, be argued that the standard of evidence should form a part of any Debate itself - i.e. since it is likely to be a point of disagreement that may prevent participants from agreeing to debate at all, it should simply be absorbed into the Debate as an issue to be debated. But this is a question for potential participants to settle in this thread.
You are right to emphasize this. steampunk's theory that there is any debate at all turns on a premise that best evidence can be selectively dismissed. In particular he wants the opponent to set aside the legal record, claiming:

Your link is not scientific, it is judicial. There is a difference. This is not LawForums, it is SciForums.
Wrong. Forensics includes studying best evidence from legal transcripts.

This, steampunk, is your achilles heel. You are pretending that the rules of evidence for a scientist are something less exhaustive than the rules used in court. The opposite is true. Science never ignores best evidence, whereas legal procedure allows that evidence sometimes be overruled under particular constraints of expediency - for example, the expiration of a deadline for filing can bar evidence from court. Obviously that has no bearing here.

Compare what you say above to your claim at post 21

The rule is based on one used in many court rooms. If a statement does not have supporting evidence, it may be removed from the record and is no longer admissible.
You can't have it both ways. You can't, on the one hand, claim that rules of court be applied, and then, on the other, complain that this is not a legal forum therefore the records of legal proceedings are barred.

Further, in post 21 you said

Any statement may be challenged on the grounds that it is not empirically supported.

Proceedings of a legal tribunal are empirical. They are just as authentic as the proceedings of any scientific society, and the empirical evidence they contain speaks for itself. That evidence doesn't need you at all.

Furthermore, in post 21 you say

The party making the statement gets three chances for each challenge to come up with supporting evidence.
This was probably an attempt to suggest that your definition of "empirical evidence" is as broad as the legal definition of "best evidence". But you got called to the carpet on that. Xotica pointed out that, among best evidence available for discovering the facts at issue are transcripts of legal proceedings. Fearing the evidence you just got though advocating above, you said (of this evidence):


There is no science, only text and authority. I'm only interested in scientific proofs, not legal authority.
This is backpedaling from your pretense of defining evidence as courts do.

It's a fundamental fallacy to claim that science operates under anything other than best evidence. And since, in the case of crimes more than 60 years old, the best evidence available today includes the evidence authenticated in court, under rules designed to reject any evidence which might be tainted, no honest scientist would ever contemplate throwing any of it out.

Therein lies the rub. You can't pretend to appeal to science by rejecting best evidence. And the evidence you expect to admit into debate has not even been subjected to verification and authentication already done by the courts. So why should anyone cater to you, just to give you a handicap, so you can trot out an argument for Holocaust denial that simply ignores best evidence?

There's no credibility, no merit whatsoever to this pretense of proof. It's frivolous, manipulative and dishonest. Until you can man up to the hard cold facts as we best know them to be true, you're just playing on shock appeal and a false sense of authority.

The standard of proof, is best evidence, period, no matter what pretense you are operating under.

Your malodorous OP premise was fully argued in a high court of law.

It was thoroughly debunked by experts and formally discredited.

You see my claim can't be debunked, because it inherently demands the claim that gas was used to systematically kill prisoners in Auschwitz. You are confused. I am seeking answers, I haven't posited anything in the affirmative. You see, the burden is on the believers here, it's yet to be scientifically satisfied at this point with a science link.

I'm willing to except evidence from this so-called high court of law of yours, only when it's scientific.

The problem is that the link you gave is only text, which will not qualify as an empirically based argument. An empirically based argument has to prove exactly how the Nazis gassed people in Auschwitz. If your hearing is indeed the official and authoritative voice on the Auschwitz gas chambers then we can glean some expert facts from those hearings. Experts facts must exist in order for your hearing to be authoritative on the matter. We will need physical measurement from Auschwitz. I don't see those measurements at this link you provided.

Please show the link where this following Auschwitz measurements:


How many people does you hearing claim to be gassed in Auschwitz?
How many people maximum fit in the gas chamber?
How long does it take to gas those people?
How long does it take to clear out the gas chamber before workers can enter?
How long does it take to drag the bodies to the ovens?
How many bodies can fit in the ovens?
How long does it take to cremate those bodies now in the ovens?

Based on the facts above, we will deduce how much time it takes to gas and burn the claimed number of people your high court claims was gassed and burned. This measurement of time will reveal to us one aspect of whether your hearing is authoritative or not authoritative, whether we are dealing with science or judicial hokus pokus.

If you refuse to show the links in this measurement evidence your source is not authoritative or scientific. I will not accept it as evidence. This is not the argument to push your claim. I will accept it as evidence if these facts can be gleaned from it. These facts are necessary to prove the claim you believe.

What I would like to see this:

- each original page in a pdf
- English translation respectively
- expert analysis of the physical journal, hand writing analysis, scientific dating, fingerprint analyses, dna if possible, etc.
- I want some physical evidence that this man actually existed, dna from his grave, photos in uniform, his name attached, authentic tests of photos, etc.
- I want some physical proof that connects the journal to him.

Under these conditions you would not even be able to prove that WWII actually happened. Even if somebody drove a WWII tank to your home and parked it on the front lawn you would only be able to examine it and establish that it was indeed...a tank.

Anything beyond that would have to rely on human testimony in written or verbal form. Your not going to be able to dig up graves and do your own dna tests to establish that the authors of this testimony in fact existed.

Establishing historical truth is very different from establishing scientific truths.

The laws of physics can be tested right NOW, or at any time...their proofs are not limited to the past.

Even still, if you reject all human testimony the burden of proof then falls on you to prove that this testimony is a deliberate fabrication involving a co-ordinated objective among dozens of different sources.

If your hearing is indeed the official and authoritative voice on the Auschwitz gas chambers then we can glean some expert facts from those hearings. Experts facts must exist in order for your hearing to be authoritative on the matter.

Again, expert testimony is just WORDS...which you have already rejected as evidence.

You can't have it both ways. You can't, on the one hand, claim that rules of court be applied, and then, on the other, complain that this is not a legal forum therefore the records of legal proceedings are barred.

Are trying to force me into a false dichotomy? Don't limit yourself. There are multitudes of ways to do things.

Under these conditions you would not even be able to prove that WWII actually happened. Even if somebody drove a WWII tank to your home and parked it on the front lawn you would only be able to examine it and establish that it was indeed...a tank.

Anything beyond that would have to rely on human testimony in written or verbal form. Your not going to be able to dig up graves and do your own dna tests to establish that the authors of this testimony in fact existed.

Establishing historical truth is very different from establishing scientific truths.

The laws of physics can be tested right NOW, or at any time...their proofs are not limited to the past.

Even still, if you reject all human testimony the burden of proof then falls on you to prove that this testimony is a deliberate fabrication involving a co-ordinated objective among dozens of different sources.

It appears we have some evidence from Nuremberg trial. This establishes his identity.

I don't know how we jump to book from there.

It quite interesting what he said to prosecutor at the tail of the trial. He claimed he had no idea the horror was going on, but demanded to the prosecutor that he was responsible for everything because of his position. He took the blame like a good man. I actually believe he was telling the truth. I think the claims of the gassing horrors were false and that's he didn't know about the horrors. In his diaries, he hated to see the prisoners treated badly. Some people rise to ranks in positions in order to protect the weak, where that position could be taken by someone who would be worse toward the people. I think he was this kind of person.

What I would like to see this:

- each original page in a pdf
Fair enough.


- English translation respectively
Wait--what?! Why do you need a translation?


- expert analysis of the physical journal, hand writing analysis,
And presumably you are conversant in the science of graphology?


scientific dating,
And presumably you are fluent in relevant methodologies? I'm requesting some credentials, by the way--and pdfs are not satisfactory: I will need original copies of ALL diplomas or notarized copies. (I'll forward you a mailing address.)


fingerprint analyses,
Ditto.


dna if possible, etc.
Ditto.


- I want some physical evidence that this man actually existed, dna from his grave, photos in uniform, his name attached, authentic tests of photos, etc.
Will such "evidence" be adequate? I'm sure his remains can be excavated at your behest.


- I want some physical proof that connects the journal to him.

I may even ask for more later if I have left some gaps. You know Hitler's Diary was bullshit. That's why I am suspicious of book like this.
Umm... LOL?

“
Originally Posted by Aqueous Id

You can't have it both ways. You can't, on the one hand, claim that rules of court be applied, and then, on the other, complain that this is not a legal forum therefore the records of legal proceedings are barred.
”
Are trying to force me into a false dichotomy? Don't limit yourself. There are multitudes of ways to do things.


You've forced yourself into a more overtly false position by pretending that court proceedings are not subject to scientific review of a crime.

You've forced yourself into a more overtly false position by pretending that court proceedings are not subject to scientific review of a crime.

Aqueous, I only wanted to use Discovery as way to help describe introducing evidence here that may be used. I didn't mean to say let's bring in all the general rules of a standard courtroom. I'm just thinking, why don't we lay on the table what each other has, when we agree with that, make our best arguments about what it means. Best argument wins. I'm already saying I'm arguing the negative of the popular that people were systematically murdered with gas at Auschwitz. If the evidence I seek to see shows up, I'll drop this debate and concede I'm proven wrong. It's not here yet. I also need a challenger or I may be put on the SciPogrom list. The PsuedenReign. The Trail of Tears. All because I asked for evidence.

Aqueous, I only wanted to use Discovery as way to help describe introducing evidence here that may be used.
Discovery is a legal term. It includes what the law calls "production of documents". Among the best authenticated of documents are the ones that have already been reviewed i court and found to be authentic. Your prior statement was a blanket denial of Xotica's court proceedings on grounds that it's not "scientific". This paints you into a corner, one of equivocation.


I didn't mean to say let's bring in all the general rules of a standard courtroom.
Maybe that's seriously flawed thinking. Courts use rules of evidence. Documents have to proven genuine for example. That work has been done. Xotica generously went to the trouble to lead us to it. Why balk at it? You require us to presume that your few unauthenticated sources outweigh the volumes already propounded in the courts, already established as authentic.

There's more to be learned from legal procedure than you allude to. The law books are full of guidance about how standards of proof arise, how and when facts distinguish from law, what to do when facts are controverted, when the criteria for deciding the truth of a controverted fact engages, and how to apply the criteria - for example, by application of the reasonableness test. Resonableness generally means "when a reasonable jurist would come to the same conclusion".

I'm just thinking, why don't we lay on the table what each other has, when we agree with that, make our best arguments about what it means. Best argument wins.
You argued against the court proceedings Xotica brought in. I responded as I did because, under the reasonableness test, any fair minded jurist would want to know what those records contain. Furthermore, I were sitting on a jury and I believed that one side was withholding facts from me that I considered relevant, I would become suspicious enough of the proceedings to lock the jury if necessary, if that's what I thought it took to preserve justice.

If your motive is only to discover the truth yourself, then you are free to read the transcripts and come to your own conclusion. I don't need to, because I had a friend who escaped Auschwitz as a child with the few surviving members of his family. His memories are so vivid, so detailed, and the survivors were so traumatized, that the full scope of that kind of evidence completely corroborates the accounts seen in the military film footage and the huge body of evidence such as this particular proceeding Xotica is talking about.

Of course in a court room setting I could not appear as a witness because I would only be producing hearsay. However, that's valid here because hearsay - like the materials you want to use - are about as far as one can conveniently reach to lay one's hands on some kind of facts. But what Xotica offers, which surpasses that, is evidence which has already been purged of hearsay. That's another reason why it's so valuable and you shouldn't be trying to dismiss it. Not if you're intent is honesty.

Your link is not scientific, it is judicial. There is a difference. This is not LawForums, it is SciForums.

There is no science, only text and authority. I'm only interested in scientific proofs, not legal authority.

I'm interested in what it would mean to be proven wrong scientifically on this issue. Do you have links that provide arguments and are backed up with evidence, where that evidence is photographs, film, chemical testing, etc, ?

I did not read the court transcript, however....

Scientific evidence is largely if not wholely a matter of observation and experience.

Court decissions are largely based on testimony, which is based on observation and experience.., usually limited to first person accounts.

About the only real difference is that in science the subject being examined is usually something that can be experimentally reproduced. Observed at different times by different individuals, under controlled conditions... While a legal decission, very often involves conditions or events that, if recreated would likely result in a second legal proceeding.

First person accounts of events, cannot be dismissed when dealing with subject matter that one cannot or would not recreate.

It seems to me that the whole proposal is one that cannot be the subject of a strict scientific examination. No one is going to recreate the conditions that existed.

While there may be a debate somewhere in here, there seems no reasonable expectation that any "scientifically" based debate can be made... Except perhaps a debate arguing that a scientific debate cannot be made...

I am not interested in debating the issue and already regret having even read this far through the thread.., and then posting even this...

Courts use rules of evidence. Documents have to proven genuine for example. That work has been done. Xotica generously went to the trouble to lead us to it. Why balk at it? You require us to presume that your few unauthenticated sources outweigh the volumes already propounded in the courts, already established as authentic.

You and Xotica are trying to trap with a well known logical fallacy that is Argument From Authority. In science, it is fair game to demand the reasoning process and evidence one uses come to their conclusion.

In order to be taken serious by the scientific community you must be open with your testing method and the evidence used in your testing method. In order to move beyond mere theory and come to fact, your evidence and testing must be done by others and the same results must be produced.

In order to do that in this specific case, we need very little info. We will need links to the information asked for in the questions below. With this small amount of info we can test the validity of the claims involving supposed gassing at Auschwitz.


How many people does you hearing claim to be gassed in Auschwitz?
How many people maximum fit in the gas chamber?
How long does it take to gas those people?
How long does it take to clear out the gas chamber before workers can enter?
How long does it take to drag the bodies to the ovens?
How many bodies can fit in the ovens?
How long does it take to cremate those bodies now in the ovens?

Now if you refuse to provide that small amount of data so we could repeat the testing and come to identical finding, you have stepped out of the realm of science.

Steampunk, are you planning on relying on Leuchter at all?

How many people does you hearing claim to be gassed in Auschwitz?
How many people maximum fit in the gas chamber?
How long does it take to gas those people?
How long does it take to clear out the gas chamber before workers can enter?
How long does it take to drag the bodies to the ovens?
How many bodies can fit in the ovens?
How long does it take to cremate those bodies now in the ovens?


In the list above you have already overstepped the boundaries of your own proposal...which deals strictly with mass murder by poison gas, not with cremation.

If you had read the PDF link I posted of Rudolf Hoss's autobiography he specifically notes that most bodies were either buried in mass graves or burned in open pits. He describes multiple gassing chambers, how living prisoners were used to drag out and dispose of the dead, and many other details of how people died from many other causes.

Steampunk, are you planning on relying on Leuchter at all?

Leuchter's financial supporters led the way. No one had attempted to test claims using a scientific method.. Unfortunately Leuchter did not follow a strict enough scientific protocol. I will not suggest using his direct evidence. But his methods and reasoning are certainly close to the methods that one must use to make the proof that the gassing claims are true. He has been very useful to those who demand that science be used to test the claims.

There was an attempt to do chemical tests in the proper way that would be acceptable by the scientific community. I provided that link. But the test itself of chemicals does not create a empirically strong argument, which is needed to establish the claims of the gassing at Auschwitz.

We will be needing the physical evidence used and the method used to interpret that evidence used to come to an authoritative number of gas victims. Xotica and AuquiusID are balking at providing this information regarding their so-all judicial authoritative source. I'm guessing it doesn't exist, because they are asking me to have a faith-based reasoning attitude instead. This is not ChristForums, it's SciForums.

How many people does you hearing claim to be gassed in Auschwitz?
How many people maximum fit in the gas chamber?
How long does it take to gas those people?
How long does it take to clear out the gas chamber before workers can enter?
How long does it take to drag the bodies to the ovens?
How many bodies can fit in the ovens?
How long does it take to cremate those bodies now in the ovens?


In the list above you have already overstepped the boundaries of your own proposal...which deals strictly with mass murder by poison gas, not with cremation.

If you had read the PDF link I posted of Rudolf Hoss's autobiography he specifically notes that most bodies were either buried in mass graves or burned in open pits. He describes multiple gassing chambers, how living prisoners were used to drag out and dispose of the dead, and many other details of how people died from many other causes.

I have not accepted this autobiography as evidence, because it cannot be taken serious as fact. You have not proven that the statements used in the book are connected to his identify and what he actually said.. You are taking this book as Gospel and Gospel is not for scientists, it is for the religious. Anyone can put words in his mouth by writing a word on page. I can believe something in there, but I won't use with much confidence here or claim it has much strength.

On the other hand, we do have Nuremberg. It was filmed. Do you have evidence of him making these claims in the hearing?

Another thing, no one has provided the authoritative link to the specifics on the gas facts and scientific reasoning used to come to a conclusion. Right now, The best attempts have been to things that cover a multitude of off-topic claims or textual argument only, not science based arguments.

What are your authoritative claims about Auschwitz gassings? Who made them? Exactly what are their quoted findings? And where is the evidence they used? And where is the empirical argument representing their stating authoritative conclusion. Please point this out specifically, and quit stalling.

I'm guessing you guys don't have this. I'm left with a google search that just haphazard bunch of unreliable leads.

In order to have proper discovery, we need this evidence clearly identified. Clear identification is not a several hundred page book or link to text of 100000 words to sift through. Point out exactly! Why is it taking you so long? I'm impatient and I'm ready to dismiss this pursuit because this evidence is not being produced, which means there is no argument to challenge.

First off, this is not the actual debate, but only the proposal thread. Review the rules if necessary, http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=74142

You and a challenger are to use this thread to set the terms for the actual debate thread.

I think the only member interested in engaging you in this debate (at least formally) is James R. So you ought to concentrate on settling the terms with him. I think so far your conditions are wildly unreasonable, but that's for him to decide.

There was an attempt to do chemical tests in the proper way that would be acceptable by the scientific community. I provided that link. But the test itself of chemicals does not create a empirically strong argument, which is needed to establish the claims of the gassing at Auschwitz.
So by your standards, unequivocaly demonstrating the presence of cyanide residues both in the gas chambers and in the crematoriums, does not constitute strong emperical evidence of the gassing a that location?

Which leads us to this next bit:

Another thing, no one has provided the authoritative link to the specifics on the gas facts and scientific reasoning used to come to a conclusion. Right now, The best attempts have been to things that cover a multitude of off-topic claims or textual argument only, not science based arguments.
You've discussed disclosure, but I'm left wondering what "Specifics on the gas facts" do you want? What reasoning do you want to see? What conclusions are you questioning?

To be frank, so far all I've seen from you is a bunch of equivocation and obfuscation. That and you ruling out certain lines of evidence as 'inadmissable' when it seems to be inconvenient for you.

You go on about specific claims and the lack there of, yet you yourself have made none.

This is the proposal thread. It is for clarifying what it is you're proposing. If you want to discuss anything else, than I suggest you create the discussion thread.

First off, this is not the actual debate, but only the proposal thread. Review the rules if necessary, http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=74142

You and a challenger are to use this thread to set the terms for the actual debate thread.

I think the only member interested in engaging you in this debate (at least formally) is James R. So you ought to concentrate on settling the terms with him. I think so far your conditions are wildly unreasonable, but that's for him to decide.

I proposed preliminary fact finding period for this aspect of the proposal thread, I think I have excellent grounding for doing so:
- Allows the community to be involved in fact gathering, which is better than just limiting it to two people during the debate.
- Our arguments will have more maturity later using preliminary fact finding period vs. trying a cheap surprise with the opponent.
- It is also possible to weed out a debate that should never happen because one party has no knowledge of a fact that creates an imminent defeat (It is being suggested by Xotica now that this true, but Xotica has yet to quote or directly reference the specific scientific substation of the Auschwitz gas claims in this so-called authoritative hearing.)

So by your standards, unequivocaly demonstrating the presence of cyanide residues both in the gas chambers and in the crematoriums, does not constitute strong emperical evidence of the gassing a that location?

I am accepting it as evidence. I will argue it's not enough to prove the Auschwitz gas claims. That's all my opponent needs to know at this point. If my opponent thinks they can defeat such an argument, then they should feel comfortable with me agreeing to allow that evidence. If they don't want this evidence, I would consider removing it, but probably won't agree with that without a damn good reason.



Which leads us to this next bit:

You've discussed disclosure, but I'm left wondering what "Specifics on the gas facts" do you want? What reasoning do you want to see? What conclusions are you questioning?

To be frank, so far all I've seen from you is a bunch of equivocation and obfuscation. That and you ruling out certain lines of evidence as 'inadmissable' when it seems to be inconvenient for you.

How about the official scientific reasoning and the evidence used to come to that conclusion. Does that even exist? I think obfuscation is on the part of those who believe the Auschwitz claims are scientifically based, but won't provide direct quotes and scientific argument from the people making these so called authoritative claims.

At this point:
- No one has established the authority on Auschwitz gas claims.
- No one has provided the direct evidence used and scientific argument for Auschwitz gassing claims that circulate the Internet and are spattered about historical texts.

Perhaps you have the links to the official authority on the issue and the specific scientific argument they make? If so, offer it as evidence by quoting the scientific argument and providing a link. Please do not say, it's here and expect me to read 1 million words until I get to some point that the text doesn't' even have what they assume is scientific proof. That' what people have been doing. Wasting my time. I'm not reading anything, I will follow quotes with a link provided. i will not follow links that have irrelevant quotes. I am sick of the Trolling references.

Your argument that I am disallowing things on the basis of "Inconvenience reasoning". I never stipulated 'inconvenience reasoning', then went on to deny using said reasoning. I used authentication reasoning. The item I'm refusing at this point is Rudolf Hoess autobiography. My grounding is that I want proof that it is his actual book.

So far there is no link to the science behind this authentication proof. Only authoritative claims. I'm not a Believer, I'm a Knower. Knower's need verifiable facts. I am accepting film testimony of Rudolf at Nuremberg, not scribblings on a page stamped with the Authority across the page. I've defined some ways to prove this book really could be his autobiography, but I am open to any other claims that would identify it as really his. Until then, it will be an inconvenience to push such things without proper grounding.



You go on about specific claims and the lack there of, yet you yourself have made none.


My claim is the scientific evidence is lacking to support the claim. So, burden of proof is on the believers here. The ones who believe it exist, but can't point it out. James offered me a chance to be educated on the issue instead banning outright. Here I am everyone. Where is the scientific argument on Auschwitz gassing in quotes? Who is this authority. Educate me.


This is the proposal thread. It is for clarifying what it is you're proposing. If you want to discuss anything else, than I suggest you create the discussion thread.

We are gathering evidence. You are breaking the rules at this time by saying all that you have said, yet you want me to follow them? I gave up on the fact that people were going to follow the rules by book in this thread. when the first comment was out of line and not removed when I reported it. That was Xotica. Because Xotica wanted to participate I thought providing evidence for the debate was fair way to included people's comments. I don't think that is out line at all. I think it's a fair compromise.

I am accepting it as evidence. I will argue it's not enough to prove the Auschwitz gas claims. That's all my opponent needs to know at this point.
If you truely intend to pursue the idea of 'discovery', then the onus is on you to divulge your evidence, especially given that you appear to expect others to do the same.


I am accepting it as evidence. I will argue it's not enough to prove the Auschwitz gas claims. That's all my opponent needs to know at this point. If my opponent thinks they can defeat such an argument, then they should feel comfortable with me agreeing to allow that evidence. If they don't want this evidence, I would consider removing it, but probably won't agree with that without a damn good reason.
So you're agreeing to allow the evidence that cyanide gas residues were present both in the gas chambers and in the crematoriums?


How about the official scientific reasoning and the evidence used to come to that conclusion.
What conclusion?

Every debate I have ever heard (outside of politics) has a single clear, concise point, with one person arguing for that statement and another arguing against it.

Examples relevant to this 'discussion' might be:
"Zyklon-B was not used in the death chambers for homocide."
Or:
"The Cyanide residues present in the 'death chambers' are the result of delousing operations."

Or something similar. So far, you have provided with nothing upon which a coherent discussion can be founded.


At this point:
- No one has established the authority on Auschwitz gas claims.
- No one has provided the direct evidence used and scientific argument for Auschwitz gassing claims that circulate the Internet and are spattered about historical texts.
You have yet to provide a coherent basis upon which to found a discusssion.


Perhaps you have the links to the official authority on the issue and the specific scientific argument they make? If so, offer it as evidence by quoting the scientific argument and providing a link.
I have done some reading on the matter.


Please do not say, it's here and expect me to read 1 million words until I get to some point that the text doesn't' even have what they assume is scientific proof. That' what people have been doing. Wasting my time. I'm not reading anything, I will follow quotes with a link provided. i will not follow links that have irrelevant quotes.
You want to be spoonfed?


I am sick of the Trolling references.
Many members of this community are sick of your trolling.


Your argument that I am disallowing things on the basis of "Inconvenience reasoning". I never stipulated 'inconvenience reasoning', then went on to deny using said reasoning. I used authentication reasoning. The item I'm refusing at this point is Rudolf Hoess autobiography. My grounding is that I want proof that it is his actual book.
Pohtatoe - Pohtahto.


So far there is no link to the science behind this authentication proof. Only authoritative claims. I'm not a Believer, I'm a Knower. Knower's need verifiable facts. I am accepting film testimony of Rudolf at Nuremberg, not scribblings on a page stamped with the Authority across the page. I've defined some ways to prove this book really could be his autobiography, but I am open to any other claims that would identify it as really his. Until then, it will be an inconvenience to push such things without proper grounding.
So, for example, photographs of signed copies of orders, and disused Zyklon-B canisters would be unacceptable to you as evidence, because you, personally, have no means to examine their veracity?


My claim is the scientific evidence is lacking to support the claim. So, burden of proof is on the believers here. The ones who believe it exist, but can't point it out.
You're the one making what, on the face of it, is an extraordinary claim QED the burden of proof is actually on you.


We are gathering evidence. You are breaking the rules at this time by saying all that you have said, yet you want me to follow them? I gave up on the fact that people were going to follow the rules by book in this thread. when the first comment was out of line and not removed when I reported it. That was Xotica. Because Xotica wanted to participate I thought providing evidence for the debate was fair way to included people's comments. I don't think that is out line at all. I think it's a fair compromise.
I'm not breaking any rules here.

My first post was to ask you to clarify a point relevant to the topic, under the conditions you yourself have set. My subsequent post was to ask you to clarify certain points in your response, and pointed out some of the shortcomings in your responses thus far.

Until you clarify which claims it is you want addressed, you make it effectively impossible for anybody to engage you in a reaosnable and structured discussion.

steampunk:


I will argue:
The claim that Auschwitz was used by Nazis as a gassing facility to systematically kill Jews does not hold up under scientific scrutiny.

I am provisionally willing to debate you on this specific topic, provided that we can agree as to the rules and other matters surrounding the debate format.

From your posts in this thread, it seems to me that your main line of argument will be to demand impossibly high standards of "scientific evidence", such as to permit you to ignore all evidence that speaks against your side of the argument.

So, I need to ask you a few questions regarding "scientific scrutiny".

1. Will you agree to accept as persuasive evidence of historians who have relied on primary sources such as Nazi documents, statements on the record made by Nazi officers and other officials, statements made by prisoners at Auschwitz, and the like?

2. Will you demand the production of primary sources, and if so what evidence will you require to establish the authenticity of a primary source used in argument?

3. Will you only accept evidence from qualified "scientists" (e.g. in terms of those primary sources)?

4. Do you intend to rely on scientific analyses carried out long after the events in question? If so, what kinds of credentials do you consider qualifies a scientist or other person (e.g. historian) to give a reliable account of Auschwitz, possibly decades after 1945?

5. Will you accept any eyewitness accounts as appropriate evidence in this debate?

6. Will you allow arguments on the basis of an accumulation of evidence? i.e. facts A, B and C together to point to conclusion X, even though A, B or C alone may be insufficient to establish X?

---
As to your earlier comments:


Empirically Challenging A Statement
[I]Any statement may be challenged on the grounds that it is not empirically supported. The party making the statement gets three chances for each challenge to come up with supporting evidence. [snip]

This goes to the question of what will be accepted as "supporting evidence". In that regard, I direct you to the questions above.


A judge will decide when a statement is supported with evidence or not. A judge issues warnings.

You seem to be proposing that an independent referee or arbiter be appointed for this debate. Is that necessary? The ultimate judge of whether a debater has a good point or not is the audience, is it not?

And if there is a judge, who will write the strict rules that he must follow to decide what constitutes "evidence"?

Possibly this is an issue we can deal with once we're past some of the more fundamental matters I have raised, so we can come back to it later if you like.


I will examine any verbal evidence. If I feel the evidence is not supported, I will demand empirical evidence.

How can you do an experiment on the Auschwitz of the 1940s now?


It's a book. With words. Anyone can write words. Apparently there is a journal it is based on. This man claims he gassed people in Auschwitz. In order to accept as evidence a process proving the journal is not a fraud would have to be established.

And the books that you cite by David Irving and others will also be books with words. In order to accept those, by your own standards some proof that there is no fraud will be required. How are you going to establish your side of the argument?


What I would like to see this:

- each original page in a pdf
- English translation respectively
- expert analysis of the physical journal, hand writing analysis, scientific dating, fingerprint analyses, dna if possible, etc.
- I want some physical evidence that this man actually existed, dna from his grave, photos in uniform, his name attached, authentic tests of photos, etc.
- I want some physical proof that connects the journal to him.

You'll never get that on a discussion forum. What you seem to want is actual physical access to primary sources. Apparently, nothing less is good enough for you.

You need to contact the institutions who hold the journals if you want to go down this path.


I may even ask for more later if I have left some gaps. You know Hitler's Diary was bullshit. That's why I am suspicious of book like this.

The Hitler diaries were very quickly confirmed as a fraud, and were suspected from the start. I don't think you're very good at sorting reliable evidence from unreliable evidence, despite all your bluff and bluster about having high scientific standards etc. You're not really a scientific thinker at all; you're just a guy with a bad case of confirmation bias.


Your link is not scientific, it is judicial. There is a difference. This is not LawForums, it is SciForums.

There is no science, only text and authority. I'm only interested in scientific proofs, not legal authority.

Courts of law (as in this case) call expert witnesses all the time. A legal judgment summarises the evidence that has been put to the court and then decides the legal issue at hand on the basis of all the available evidence, scientific and otherwise.


So anyone who thinks they have evidence let's gather it and use it for the actual debate. For those of you who have the official people behind this gassing claim at Auschwitz please provide their scientific argument with their evidence links. I don't know who these people are. I just see the message coming from all directions on the Internet. Who is the established scientific authority on Auschwitz gassing? Is there one?

You must have such an authority in mind, or else you won't be able to establish your own side of the argument.

Recall that this was the very first question I asked you: tell me what sources you will rely on. And so far, there's been almost nothing from you - I count two links.

Anyway, I'll wait for your response to the questions above.

Proposal: I would like to argue that Sciforums doesn't exist, and it is just a figment of my imagination. If it existed, surely there wasn't even serious consideration of debating such a stupid topic.

#2 rule of the internet: Don't feed the troll!

Another thing, no one has provided the authoritative link to the specifics on the gas facts and scientific reasoning used to come to a conclusion.

....

What are your authoritative claims about Auschwitz gassings? Who made them? Exactly what are their quoted findings? And where is the evidence they used? And where is the empirical argument representing their stating authoritative conclusion. Please point this out specifically, and quit stalling.

These are all matters for the Debate itself (if it happens). They are inappropriate for the Proposal thread.

These "gas claims" you intend to dispute are not clear, anyway. But that can also be dealt with in the Debate context.


At this point:
- No one has established the authority on Auschwitz gas claims.
- No one has provided the direct evidence used and scientific argument for Auschwitz gassing claims that circulate the Internet and are spattered about historical texts.

All we're doing here is determining (a) whether anybody will agree to debate your topic; and (b) if so, what the rules of the Debate will be.

Nobody will attempt to establish anything here on the topic itself.

You still seem to be confused about how this subforum operates. The rules are in a sticky thread on the forum topic list. Go and read them.


James offered me a chance to be educated on the issue instead banning outright. Here I am everyone. Where is the scientific argument on Auschwitz gassing in quotes? Who is this authority. Educate me.

We'll get to that if the debate ever gets off the ground.

Moderator note: 2 posts have been deleted for attempting to debate the topic in the Proposal thread.

---

If you people really can't restrain yourselves, why not open a separate thread in the History forum and post links to evidences for the Holocaust (or gassing at Auschwitz or whatver)?

You have yet to provide a coherent basis upon which to found a discusssion.

James R. defined that for me by threatening to ban me. But, he said I must back up my position and perhaps I could get some help understaing where I have gone wrong.

My original comment, I know was sloppy, but paraphrased was 'Auschwitz stuff is bullshit'. I was asked to back that up. I have clarified it. I have not changed the intial meaning of that comment, only spiffed it up from it's ruggedness.
I have stated that I am scientific thinker. We won't claim things are true unless we have the evidence.
So, here I am. Where is the evidence? Why can't you provide it? You act like the Christians who think the onus is on the Atheists that we must disprove God exists. I know that argument,and if that is all you want to make this, you only mean to troll and you are refusing to help anyone understand the initial scientific argument used to determine the gassing occurred at Auschwitz.

I have made several claims here which helps define my position, here are a few:

- The Auschwitz gas claims are not scientifically supported.
- No one can provide a link to the authoritative scientific source to these claims.
- No one has provided a link quoting the scientific argument on the Auschwitz gas killings.


I have provided some evidence to use to argue my position.
- Chemical testing links.
- Nuremburg Trials


I have to agreed to admitting:
- American film of the Nazi Camps containing prisoners

I have disagreed with using the Rudolf autobiography on grounds that no proof has yet been provided that it is authentic. I open to accepting it with a convincing authenticity proof.
I am not accept Lleuchter's finding, because it's not officially accepted by the scientific community.

I am open to accept evidence that would support a scientific claim that Auschwitz gas killings really did occur, so you might as well stop your shitty attitude with me.



So, for example, photographs of signed copies of orders, and disused Zyklon-B canisters would be unacceptable to you as evidence, because you, personally, have no means to examine their veracity?

I never said I wouldn't except this sort of evidence.

If anyone is ready to argue accepts my rules. Please say so. I want to get this over with.

I need an opponent, and my opponent and I need a judge. Remember, my rule that the judge can have statements restricted from the argument if they are not empirically supported. I will not allow court decisions to replace scientific proofs either.

It's a book. With words. Anyone can write words. Apparently there is a journal it is based on. This man claims he gassed people in Auschwitz. In order to accept as evidence a process proving the journal is not a fraud would have to be established.

We need a link to the scientific process involved proving the physical journals exists. We need proof of the identity of the said writer of the journal. And, the connection must be proved between the two. Do you have a link to this proof?

I'm willing to consider any evidence, but won't agree to accept all evidence until it's fully established as authentic and relevant to the debate.

what about the information witold pelicki brought out of the camp?

This is just ridiculous.

How about you two just debate, and a moderator decides if the evidence/arguments are valid as you go along? You're never going to agree on it otherwise. Just go in guns blazing and let a moderator sort it out as you go.

Or, you know, you could do what should have been done days ago, and ban steampunk for hate speech.

James R. defined that for me by threatening to ban me. But, he said I must back up my position and perhaps I could get some help understaing where I have gone wrong.
I've given you some indications, but either you've glossed over it, or ignored it completely.


My original comment, I know was sloppy, but paraphrased was 'Auschwitz stuff is bullshit'.
I'm aware of that. Although I haven't commented until recently, I've been following this thread since you first posted it, but therein lies the problem, at least from my perspective anyway.

Do you not believe that Zyklon-B was used in the capacity it is claimed to have been?
Do you not believe that 1.2 million people (According to Hoess anyway) were killed there?
Do you not believe that Auschwitz was capable of processing that many prisoners?

All I have asked you is what precisely it is about the Auschwitz claims that you don't believe. In my opinion, that point needs to be clarified before any reasonable debate can occur.


I was asked to back that up.
Of course you have, you have made what, on the face of it, is an extraordinary claim and provided precidely zero evidence to support it.


I have clarified it. I have not changed the intial meaning of that comment, only spiffed it up from it's ruggedness.
I don't think you have clarified it sufficiently, James on the other hand seems willing to accept:
"The claim that Auschwitz was used by Nazis as a gassing facility to systematically kill Jews does not hold up under scientific scrutiny."
Personally, I think that's too broad a topic to be able to be debated effectively.


I have stated that I am scientific thinker. We won't claim things are true unless we have the evidence.
That's nice. Do you see my tagline? Under my username? Do you know what that means?


So, here I am. Where is the evidence? Why can't you provide it?
This is a logical fallacy, the specific name escapes me, for the moment. But this is directly analagous to asking for a definitive text proving modern tectonic theory or evolution, and then claiming victory when none is forthcoming. This is precisely the tactic that creationists use, including your unwilling to read through texts containing evidence, and your insistence on being spoonfed soundbytes.


I have made several claims here which helps define my position, here are a few:

- The Auschwitz gas claims are not scientifically supported.
Which gas claims?


- No one can provide a link to the authoritative scientific source to these claims.
- No one has provided a link quoting the scientific argument on the Auschwitz gas killings.
See above.


I have disagreed with using the Rudolf autobiography on grounds that no proof has yet been provided that it is authentic. I open to accepting it with a convincing authenticity proof.
Right, and given that he is dead, what standard of proof do you require as to its authenticity that might be able to be met here at sciforums.


I am not accept Lleuchter's finding, because it's not officially accepted by the scientific community.
It's not that it's not 'officially accepted by the scientific community', it's more like that his hypothesis has been tested by the scientific community and rejected as being false (IE his work has been effectively debunked).


I am open to accept evidence that would support a scientific claim that Auschwitz gas killings really did occur, so you might as well stop your shitty attitude with me.
I've tried to offer you advice, and so far all you have done is dismiss it as a shitty attitude.

Maybe you should re-examine yours?

You're never going to agree on it otherwise. Just go in guns blazing and let a moderator sort it out as you go.

I'm not even willing to entertain the though if he can't put forward a cogent topic or question for debate.

If anyone is ready to argue accepts my rules. Please say so. I want to get this over with. I need an opponent, and my opponent and I need a judge. Remember, my rule that the judge can have statements restricted from the argument if they are not empirically supported. I will not allow court decisions to replace scientific proofs either.Some things are so vile and repulsive that no one wants to get too close to them.

It's utterly unbelievable that an educated human being from a Western country, living in a time when Auschwitz survivors are still alive, many years after the post-Perestroika governments of the former Soviet bloc (including, specifically, Poland) have opened up the records of their countries' WWII Nazi-occupied governments to scholars from all over the world, can make such a patently ignorant assertion and pretend to be serious about it.

In other words, no one really believes that you are serious about this. It simply has to be a very tasteless attempt at humor, or a childish prank. If you were serious, no one would want to get too close to you for fear of being associated with you. And no one would want to read this tripe because it would be literally nauseating.

If you want to be a pariah, write back in a few years and tell us how it's working out. You're clearly not going to find anyone who wants to play along and pretend that this is a serious debate.

steampunk:

I am provisionally willing to debate you on this specific topic, provided that we can agree as to the rules and other matters surrounding the debate format.

From your posts in this thread, it seems to me that your main line of argument will be to demand impossibly high standards of "scientific evidence", such as to permit you to ignore all evidence that speaks against your side of the argument.

Oh, and with that standard, I guess I wouldn't have an argument would I because you'd have that ability too? Your strategy is transparent to me. You want weak standards because you have weak evidence. You will be protecting an argument that never had to endure scientific scrutiny.

The only way stop the nonsense created from historical lies written by the winners is to rigorously let science determine the facts.



1. Will you agree to accept as persuasive evidence of historians who have relied on primary sources such as Nazi documents, statements on the record made by Nazi officers and other officials, statements made by prisoners at Auschwitz, and the like?

I will except only if it pertains to gassing or is relevant to gassing at Auschwitz. I will except under the condition that it may or may not be fact. If I challenge it, and it cannot be empirically proven, it has no place in this argument.



2. Will you demand the production of primary sources, and if so what evidence will you require to establish the authenticity of a primary source used in argument?

It is not my problem if you cannot substantiate your claims. Don't ask me to have faith in anything you have to say. I will not ask this of you.



3. Will you only accept evidence from qualified "scientists" (e.g. in terms of those primary sources)?


I will provisionally accept evidence from anyone, provided it's relevant to the matter. But that won't stop me from challenging it.



4. Do you intend to rely on scientific analyses carried out long after the events in question? If so, what kinds of credentials do you consider qualifies a scientist or other person (e.g. historian) to give a reliable account of Auschwitz, possibly decades after 1945?

I will accept any analysis provisionally. If it cannot be supported empirically, I will challenge for it's removal.



5. Will you accept any eyewitness accounts as appropriate evidence in this debate?


If you can support your claims empirically and those accounts are relevant, yes.



6. Will you allow arguments on the basis of an accumulation of evidence? i.e. facts A, B and C together to point to conclusion X, even though A, B or C alone may be insufficient to establish X?

Yes. I'm very suspicious of you even mentioning this. I'm warning you, that your whole argument must be this way. And If I find that A is not supported, you can't use B, C or X until you make an acceptable A. I'm not allowing any room for missteps in your arguments. In our PMs, you were having some trouble with that. Remember I asked for evidence and you equated that with racism and anti-Semitism? That doesn't follow. I plan on having this kind of abject reasoning banned from this debate.



You seem to be proposing that an independent referee or arbiter be appointed for this debate. Is that necessary? The ultimate judge of whether a debater has a good point or not is the audience, is it not?


This seems to be your way of saying that you don't want to be put in check and have your statements restricted when you can't provide empirical evidence. I know there is a risk for a bad judge, but I'd rather take that risk, then just let you run your mouth. You want weak standards for evidence and you don't want a judge. You are building your credibility here you realise that? You sound like you are ready to just burst forth with a pack of lies.



And if there is a judge, who will write the strict rules that he must follow to decide what constitutes "evidence"?

I suggest that the judge deny anything that is not empirically represented, with the exception that an explanation can be made for things of the subjective nature. A canister of gas, would require a photograph or else you cannot ever use the phrase 'a canister of gas'. Subjective evidence would be something like introducing a logical fallacy and requiring that an opponent rephrase their argument so it's not in the form of a fallacy.





How can you do an experiment on the Auschwitz of the 1940s now?


We don't need to time travel or perform experiments. We are here to argue with any evidence that has been established and can be linked to on the Internet.



And the books that you cite by David Irving and others will also be books with words. In order to accept those, by your own standards some proof that there is no fraud will be required. How are you going to establish your side of the argument?


James I plan on using things that all have empirical basis. I am baffled to think I could provide you a method to prove the truth a fraud. As books go, subjective things are fine if they fit rational argument, but statement of objective objects must have some empirical correlation to evidence offered. Use any source you want, but I will be there to ask for empirical support.




You must have such an authority in mind, or else you won't be able to establish your own side of the argument.

I very good at detecting bullshit. I'm good at extracting evidence. And when you don't have it, I can make that obvious. My authority is natural law.

I'm not even willing to entertain the though if he can't put forward a cogent topic or question for debate.

I was talking from an evidence standpoint. There's no way he's going to allow any evidence that goes against his argument if he's given veto power, and the debate simply won't happen.

Do you not believe that Zyklon-B was used in the capacity it is claimed to have been?
Do you not believe that 1.2 million people (According to Hoess anyway) were killed there?
Do you not believe that Auschwitz was capable of processing that many prisoners?

All I have asked you is what precisely it is about the Auschwitz claims that you don't believe. In my opinion, that point needs to be clarified before any reasonable debate can occur.


Trippy, you surprise me. This helps. You are the first one to at least establish statements that imply these things occurred.

Now let me tell you how my mind works. Notice how you used the word believe up there? I'm one of those people that don't believe. I'm not fucking joking about this either.

Ok. We have to go to the next step to understand my mind a little further. I separate knowledge from belief. Things I know are things I've experienced through my human senses.

I also gain knowledge through inductive observations. This requires extrapolation. This is where probability comes in for me. Things are for me are probable about the past and future. I may come to know things about the past or future, if they are inductively strong arguments. If something is for the most part true, it's knowledge. If it's not for the most part true and a person thinks it's true, that's what I call belief. Again, I can't do that.

This is where I am with this gassing claim. I haven't the evidence that forms an empirically strong argument that makes me know it's true. Since my mind won't believe things anymore, you probably think I am a bad person. I have to understand it, know it, to say it's true. I can't believe it and say it's true.

So, those questions up there you have asked don't make any sense to me. I have to see the scientific argument to begin to tell you that knowledge of this event is being received in my mind. As I receive facts, it is possible I will know it to be true, if it's inductively strong.

I'm having trouble finding this evidence to your statement above, can you help me see it?

If you can do that, you have to point to the scientific argument made for each one of you statements up there. I don't know where that is at. Why would you just want me to just believe. I don't know how to do that anymore! Belief is for children to me. Santa Clause, Jesus Miracles and UFO's.

When I say these claims are unsubstantiated, this is true from my mind. People are angry because they think I'm actually saying this about reality. Then they call me racist. Then, they refuse to point to science regarding the statements and this indeed is cure to ignorance! So they insult me, threaten to oust me, and associate hatred with me. They are really confused people feeling lot of inner hate at someone who is curious to know the truth that sometimes has a smart mouth, but always a open mind.

Oh, and I think I know something, I get a new piece of information or new insight that make what I knew inductively weak, I realise I was suffering from belief and I was wrong to say that it was true. I admit I have been wrong.

Can't recall the name of that one...
I remember now.
plurium interrogationum
The 'Many questions/complex question' fallacy.
I think.


He keeps bringing up this "appeal to authority" nonsense...
Appeal to authority is only really fallicious if the person being appealed to can not reasonably be considered an authority.

The way it gets bandied about by some posters around here the statement "Newtons laws of motion predict that when you hit a brick wall at 100 mph while not wearing a seatbelt, you are likely to wind up a thin layer spread accross the length and breadth of said wall" is an appeal to authority.


IOW there is not one single person who does not accept many things AS FACT every single freakin' day of their lives "ON AUTHORITY."

So I resist the urge to ask Storm
Whether knowledge is so loose-weave
Of a morning
When deciding whether to leave
Her apartment by the front door
Or a window on the second floor.
Tim Minchin - Storm (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U)

Trippy, you surprise me. This helps. You are the first one to at least establish statements that imply these things occurred.
Then you haven't been paying attention, have you. Because I said much the same thing back here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2946373&postcount=58
And instead of responding to it reasonably, you went off on a tirade about my shitty attitude.


Now let me tell you how my mind works. Notice how you used the word believe up there? I'm one of those people that don't believe. I'm not fucking joking about this either.

Ok. We have to go to the next step to understand my mind a little further. I separate knowledge from belief. Things I know are things I've experienced through my human senses.
be·lief noun \bə-ˈlēf\
a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

On the basis of the emperical evidence freely available to myself, and anyone else who should care to look, I find myself of a state of mind in which I am willing to put trust in certain people, based on what they have said or written, and accept their conclusions on the basis of the evidence presented.

In otherwords (for example):
[I] believe [on the basis of the evidence available] that Zyklon-B was used in the capacity it is claimed to have been.
[I] believe [on the basis of the evidence available] believe that 1.2 million people (According to Hoess anyway) were killed there.
[I] believe [on the basis of the evidence available] that Auschwitz was capable of processing that many prisoners.

Don't try and make my words about something they are not. I'm not talking about having faith, I'm talking about putting trust in specialists in their fields to do their jobs properly, and in their peers to scruitinize their work. Because, as someone who does science for a living, as well as a hobby, I understand that science builds upon previous work. If you want to advance science, you don't neccessarily start with reinventing the wheel.


So, those questions up there you have asked don't make any sense to me. I have to see the scientific argument to begin to tell you that knowledge of this event is being received in my mind. As I receive facts, it is possible I will know it to be true, if it's inductively strong.
Only because you appear to have twisted them to suit whatever purpose your serving.


I'm having trouble finding this evidence to your statement above, can you help me see it?

If you can do that, you have to point to the scientific argument made for each one of you statements up there. I don't know where that is at. Why would you just want me to just believe. I don't know how to do that anymore! Belief is for children to me. Santa Clause, Jesus Miracles and UFO's.
The figure of 1.2 million people came from Hoess at Neuremburg (IIRC).
The evidence for the use of Zyklon B comes from a variety of sources, including analyses performed as recently as the '90s.
The statement regarding the capacity of Auschwitz is based on math, eyewitness testimony, and peer reviewed & published work.

If you want any further depth then that, that would have to wait until any debate proper began, or you got around to opening the discussion thread.

The proposal thread is not the appropriate venue for that discussion.

The proposal thread is for establishing the participants, rules, and topic of the debate.

On the basis of the emperical evidence freely available to myself, and anyone else who should care to look, I find myself of a state of mind in which I am willing to put trust in certain people, based on what they have said or written, and accept their conclusions on the basis of the evidence presented.

And that means you don't know shit, because you believe. You see, me and you are different, I'll take the time and heat to understand. You bow down and kiss ass. You are the type that will march and perform a holocaust or atrocity. I know your type you hypocrite.

Go fuck yourself, I hate ass-kissers.

And that means you don't know shit, because you believe. You see, me and you are different, I'll take the time and heat to understand. You bow down and kiss ass. You are the type that will march and perform a holocaust or atrocity. I know your type you hypocrite.

Go fuck yourself, I hate ass-kissers.

How are you any better trying to argue such a horrible subject just for the sake of arguement?

What surprises me is why would trippy engage with him in any type of intelligent debate??

Thousands of pictures, skulls and eyewitness accounts are obviously not scientific evidence for him, so why take him seriously???

Was this photoshoped or would this count as scientific evidence?:

http://www.worldsfamousphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/410px-einsatzgruppen_killing.jpg

This is the last Jew of Vinnitsa, being killed, before him there were 28 000 others....

Case, thread closed, idiot banned...

steampunk:

We're not making useful progress here. So...

I will debate you on this topic, but I will not accept any of your additional "rules" as suggested in this thread. I propose that we debate according to the Standard Rules for one-on-one debates set out in the sticky thread in this subforum.

The issue of what counts as evidence can be part of the debate, if that's what you want to argue. We'll have it out there, rather than here.

I have one additional request. Because I am very busy at present, I will not be able to meet the posting time limits set out in the standard rules. I will require at most 1 week between posts, with the time actually likely to be shorter than that (i.e. one week from the time of your latest post until my next post is due, unless otherwise agreed between us during the debate).

Do you accept?

Moderator note: We'll be dealing with the "go fuck yourself" statement shortly. This is a breach of the site rules.

And that means you don't know shit, because you believe. You see, me and you are different, I'll take the time and heat to understand. You bow down and kiss ass. You are the type that will march and perform a holocaust or atrocity. I know your type you hypocrite. Go fuck yourself, I hate ass-kissers.Steampunk, you have now crossed the line into personal insults. This is a bannable offense. Do it one more time and you're outta here.

If it hasn't happened already. I haven't read all of my e-mail this morning and there are three more complaints about you.

Guess you'll have to wait 3 days for an answer, James. :)

Finally we steamed his punk ass....

Moderator note: I see that once again there's a lot of off-topic discussion developing here. This material will be purged from the thread when I get to it.

Please bear in mind that the Formal Debates forum is strictly moderated.

Moderator's note: This thread is not for debate, but for setting up a debate...

How ironic, I come back from being eighty-sixed and my post is #86. What a coinkydink.


I will debate you on this topic, but I will not accept any of your additional "rules" as suggested in this thread. I propose that we debate according to the Standard Rules for one-on-one debates set out in the sticky thread in this subforum.

This tells me you don't want the power of a judge to force you to rewrite or remove logical fallacies. That is the point of my additional rules. Considering the subject matter, I can understand why you want less demanding rules.



The issue of what counts as evidence can be part of the debate, if that's what you want to argue. We'll have it out there, rather than here.

Without the additional rules I don't see this as possible. This matter is really is quite irrelevant to me personally, but since you threatened me with a ban, it's forced me to take it way more seriously than initially I would have. I never would have created a debate on this subject otherwise. But I will not retract my statement that the Auschwitz claims are 'bullshit'. It will take time to find a judge we both agree with. Let's skip the judge kicking out evidence rule of mine, because I just want to get this over with.



Do you accept?

I can do better with more skeptical and rigorous demands, but we'll play by your basic set of rules.

I tentatively accept your challenge. First, I want to make sure you accept my clarified argument. I was using the proposal thread to flesh out my argument better. I have re-written it below. I have provided some stipulations to limit false assumptions. Let me know if there is anything you object to or find unclear.

Stipulations

Auschwitz Gassing Claims means, “state sanctioned, systematic gassing of humans at the Auschwitz camp in World War II, where the deceased are disposed of through cremation and mass burning in graves”.

State-sanctioned means, “Ordered by Hitler, Führer, Reichskanzler, chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945."

Systematic Gassing of Humans means, “A planned process carried out at regular intervals where several humans are brought to be killed in a room, where the method of killing is through poisonous gas released in the room.”

Cremation means, “Reduce a dead body to ashes through heating a metal container which contains the body, where a fuel used is the source of heat.”

Mass Burning In Graves means, “A pit dug in the earth where dead bodies are placed and the dead bodies are burned to ashes through the use of fuel placed under, around and/or on the bodies.”

Brainwashing means, "a systematic method of indoctrination through human speech and through media such as books, video and film, where specifically in this argument's context false claims are systematically associated with images (photo/film/diagram), where those images do not empirically support the textual/verbal claims."

Argument
My main argument is in bold and my sub-arguments are in italics, together forming my general argument.

The claim that there was state sanctioned, systematic gassing of humans at the Auschwitz camp in World War II is not empirically proven. Western society has come to believe Auschwitz Gassing Claims as true only because of brainwashing, rather than from an empirical proof. The AGCs spread in Western society are not based on an official empirical proof, whereby those who believe such claims can link to this specific, authoritative, official, empirical argument.

Welcome back SP! I look forward to your debate with James.

I think SP is playing a wordgame. His one sentence main argument doesn't say there was no gassing at all, just that it wasn't state sanctioned because there is no proof of Hitler's order.
And also it wasn't systematic, I guess he thinks it was occasional...

There is no written proof of a state order. The Wansee conference was where they came up with the Endlosung idea, but there are no records of what was actually said.

So maybe SP should clarify just how many gassing occured he thinks...

I think SP is playing a wordgame. His one sentence main argument doesn't say there was no gassing at all, just that it wasn't state sanctioned because there is no proof of Hitler's order.
And also it wasn't systematic, I guess he thinks it was occasional...

There is no written proof of a state order. The Wansee conference was where they came up with the Endlosung idea, but there are no records of what was actually said.

So maybe SP should clarify just how many gassing occured he thinks...
Seems to me he's arguing from a false premise in the first place - isn't the allegation actually that the extermination policy was led by Reichsführer Himmler in early 1941 (EG the mass shooting in Minsk), then confirmed with Hitler in Dec 1941 after the exterminations had been undertaken for some months?

steampunk:


This tells me you don't want the power of a judge to force you to rewrite or remove logical fallacies. That is the point of my additional rules. Considering the subject matter, I can understand why you want less demanding rules.

I will not agree to a "judge". That adds an unnecessary level of complexity to this debate. I say let the readers be the judge of what is or isn't a good or valid argument. Appointing a judge we can both agree on will also take more time, and I can see you stringing the debate out by constant appeals to the judge.


Without the additional rules I don't see this as possible. This matter is really is quite irrelevant to me personally, but since you threatened me with a ban, it's forced me to take it way more seriously than initially I would have. I never would have created a debate on this subject otherwise. But I will not retract my statement that the Auschwitz claims are 'bullshit'.

If you do not agree to a debate on the matter, and you refuse to retract your claim, this will become a moderation issue. That is separate from the current thread, however - we'll get to it if we have to later on.


I tentatively accept your challenge. First, I want to make sure you accept my clarified argument. I was using the proposal thread to flesh out my argument better. I have re-written it below. I have provided some stipulations to limit false assumptions. Let me know if there is anything you object to or find unclear.

Stipulations

Auschwitz Gassing Claims means, “state sanctioned, systematic gassing of humans at the Auschwitz camp in World War II, where the deceased are disposed of through cremation and mass burning in graves”.

I do not care how the bodies were disposed of, for the purposes of this debate. Your core contention that there was no systematic gassing is enough. We don't need to bring in a debate about whether or not bodies were burnt in pits or whatever, as far as I can see.


State-sanctioned means, “Ordered by Hitler, Führer, Reichskanzler, chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945."

I will not accept this definition.

I see that you are trying to rule out all forms of evidence of gassings at Auschwitz by demanding one specific type of proof - an order from Hitler that those gassings occur.

I think it is dishonest to try to limit the terms of the debate to evidence of an order given by Hitler, and I will not debate you on these terms.


Systematic Gassing of Humans means, “A planned process carried out at regular intervals where several humans are brought to be killed in a room, where the method of killing is through poisonous gas released in the room.”

This is fine.


Cremation means, “Reduce a dead body to ashes through heating a metal container which contains the body, where a fuel used is the source of heat.”

Mass Burning In Graves means, “A pit dug in the earth where dead bodies are placed and the dead bodies are burned to ashes through the use of fuel placed under, around and/or on the bodies.”

These are irrelevant.


Brainwashing means, "a systematic method of indoctrination through human speech and through media such as books, video and film, where specifically in this argument's context false claims are systematically associated with images (photo/film/diagram), where those images do not empirically support the textual/verbal claims."

The topic of why people may believe a falsehood is a separate one from the claim I am interested in debating here. I will not debate you on "brainwashing". I will only debate you on the topic of whether there were gassings at Auschwitz.

On the other hand, you are free to argue, if you wish, that all people who believe that there were gassings at Auschwitz have been brainwashed, but only if you can provide appropriate evidence of that which would meet your own vaunted high standards.


Argument
My main argument is in bold and my sub-arguments are in italics, together forming my general argument.

The claim that there was state sanctioned, systematic gassing of humans at the Auschwitz camp in World War II is not empirically proven. Western society has come to believe Auschwitz Gassing Claims as true only because of brainwashing, rather than from an empirical proof. The AGCs spread in Western society are not based on an official empirical proof, whereby those who believe such claims can link to this specific, authoritative, official, empirical argument.

I will only debate the bolded part of this argument. The question of the spread of false information is a sociological issue that is separate from the "empirical" issue of whether or not gassings occurred.

I note once again that you have slipped in the word "official" here - twice! Let me be clear: I will not be restricted to "official" orders from Hitler as my only acceptable evidence that there were gassings at Auschwitz.

Empirical evidence does not have to be "officially" approved. It stands or falls on its own merits.

Are we there yet?

This debate could actually make for an interesting read--if only one participant weren't goofier than Faurisson:

Originally Posted by steampunk
Now let me tell you how my mind works. Notice how you used the word believe up there? I'm one of those people that don't believe. I'm not fucking joking about this either.

Ok. We have to go to the next step to understand my mind a little further. I separate knowledge from belief. Things I know are things I've experienced through my human senses.

Yeah. Sure, kid. So you're (this persona, that is) like one of Verne's more ambitious characters (Nemo to the power of a hundred) crossed with Borge's Funes--is that about right?

But shouldn't you be circumnavigating the globe a few times to establish it's "sphericity"? I mean, I'm sure you haven't "experienced" that through your senses sufficiently enough to arrive at said knowledge, have you?

And then Trippy reminds you how normal folk (including most scientists, I reckon) reconcile "belief" and "knowledge":

Originally Posted by Trippy
be·lief noun \bə-ˈlēf\
a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

On the basis of the empirical evidence freely available to myself, and anyone else who should care to look, I find myself of a state of mind in which I am willing to put trust in certain people, based on what they have said or written, and accept their conclusions on the basis of the evidence presented.

In otherwords (for example):
[i] believe [on the basis of the evidence available] that Zyklon-B was used in the capacity it is claimed to have been.
[i] believe [on the basis of the evidence available] believe that 1.2 million people (According to Hoess anyway) were killed there.
[i] believe [on the basis of the evidence available] that Auschwitz was capable of processing that many prisoners.

Don't try and make my words about something they are not. I'm not talking about having faith, I'm talking about putting trust in specialists in their fields to do their jobs properly, and in their peers to scruitinize their work. Because, as someone who does science for a living, as well as a hobby, I understand that science builds upon previous work. If you want to advance science, you don't neccessarily start with reinventing the wheel.

and SP responds with:

And that means you don't know shit, because you believe. You see, me and you are different, I'll take the time and heat to understand. You bow down and kiss ass. You are the type that will march and perform a holocaust or atrocity. I know your type you hypocrite.

Go fuck yourself, I hate ass-kissers.
Yet he seems to vest a whole lotta authority into (his erroneous understanding of) "logical fallacies," as though "they" are somehow arbiter of veracity.

steampunk:
I do not care how the bodies were disposed of, for the purposes of this debate. Your core contention that there was no systematic gassing is enough. We don't need to bring in a debate about whether or not bodies were burnt in pits or whatever, as far as I can see.

The number of people killed by the gassing is so outrageous, the disposal of this very large number of corpses becomes an integral factor in verifying the truth of the claim. Without it, you have less of an argument to even prove the gassing occurred, which basically indicates the patsy argument you push. You don't even care about evidence that would bolster your claim (only if it were true). If you fail to recognize this significant factor, don't expect me to be your chump. I refuse your challenge until you accept discussion of the disposal of the bodies as relevant.



I see that you are trying to rule out all forms of evidence of gassings at Auschwitz by demanding one specific type of proof - an order from Hitler that those gassings occur.

I think it is dishonest to try to limit the terms of the debate to evidence of an order given by Hitler, and I will not debate you on these terms.

No where have I said or implied "no evidence may be allowed of gassings unless it be an order by Hitler."

Instead you extract that from the statement that says, 'state-sanctioned' means 'an order from Hitler'. To create a strawman or to mix these up is a detraction of credibility on your part.



The topic of why people may believe a falsehood is a separate one from the claim I am interested in debating here. I will not debate you on "brainwashing". I will only debate you on the topic of whether there were gassings at Auschwitz.

Obviously you have missed the fact that my main argument is a negative claim, and my sub-arguments make the affirmative claim. Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy can be made on my part, in that it is nonsense for me to have to prove a negative claim, because the burden is upon the claimant.

Affirmative Claim: The gassings occured.
My Negative Claim: They are not empirically supported.

So, in order to avoid the nonsensical approach Russell pointed out, I must include an argument in the affirmative.

My Affirmative Claim: What the Affirmative argument really represents.

The Auschwitz claims being made are true, in the sense they represent some truth. Do Auschwitz claims correlate with an objective reality? No. Do Auschwitz claims correlate with a subjective reality? Yes. They are brainwashing. I'm not here to argue what things are not. I'm here to argue what things are. I have to something to offer. Now you want to take that away.



I will only debate the bolded part of this argument. The question of the spread of false information is a sociological issue that is separate from the "empirical" issue of whether or not gassing occurred.

As I said before, I'm here to argue what the Auschwitz claims represent. You think they represent mass killing, I say that is unsupported and instead they represent brainwashing.

Things are not so simple to me, nor my arguments.

I compromised to argue with a less demanding set of rules. Now, you want to make up my argument for me? You are telling me what I can and cannot use to support my point.

If anyone else thinks they can take me on, it looks as if James is stalling and really doesn't want to have a debate even by the standard rules. I introduced restrictions that made things more rigorous and demanding, he couldn't live up to them, so I compromised. Now he introduces restrictions on top of the standard rules that I cannot support my argument with things that hurt his argument; that I cannot be affirmative and I cannot use context in my proof. He also has an excuse that he can only make rebuttals once a week. I will accept another challenger, unless he straightens up his act.

I will primarily be using information and argument supplied from these two videos, as well more in my argument:

If these two links don't get your scientific bullshit detectors going, nothing will save you from the lies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D49dihkLg_M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTdB57gamT4

steampunk:

I see you trying to weasel out of this debate.


The number of people killed by the gassing is so outrageous, the disposal of this very large number of corpses becomes an integral factor in verifying the truth of the claim. Without it, you have less of an argument to even prove the gassing occurred, which basically indicates the patsy argument you push.

Surely its my problem, and good for you, if I have less to support my argument.

I think the real reason you want this is in that you intend to argue that gassing the numbers that were gassed at Auschwitz would have been logistically impossible. (That, by the way, is a circumstantial argument. I thought you were going to rely on direct evidence.)

Nevertheless, if you think this is the only way you can make your case, I am willing to allow you to argue it.


No where have I said or implied "no evidence may be allowed of gassings unless it be an order by Hitler."

Instead you extract that from the statement that says, 'state-sanctioned' means 'an order from Hitler'. To create a strawman or to mix these up is a detraction of credibility on your part.

I'm going on your previous definition of "state-sanctioned".

But it's ok. If you agree that I won't need documentary evidence of an order from Hitler to satisfy you, then this is not an issue.


Obviously you have missed the fact that my main argument is a negative claim, and my sub-arguments make the affirmative claim. Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy can be made on my part, in that it is nonsense for me to have to prove a negative claim, because the burden is upon the claimant.

Affirmative Claim: The gassings occured.
My Negative Claim: They are not empirically supported.

Every claim can be phrased as a positive or a negative, so the old adage that "you can't prove a negative" is wrong.

But it seems to me that it is you who is dispute the mainstream position here, so the onus is on you to establish the "facts" of your proposed alternate universe.

If you prefer, though, we can change the topic to "Mass gassings occurred at Auschwitz". I will argue the affirmative; you can argue the negative. But, I will require that you go first. You proposed the debate.


The Auschwitz claims being made are true, in the sense they represent some truth. Do Auschwitz claims correlate with an objective reality? No. Do Auschwitz claims correlate with a subjective reality? Yes. They are brainwashing. I'm not here to argue what things are not. I'm here to argue what things are. I have to something to offer. Now you want to take that away.

If you think you can establish brainwashing, that's just fine. I won't take that away from you. I do not think it is relevant, but we can have that out in the debate, too.


I compromised to argue with a less demanding set of rules. Now, you want to make up my argument for me? You are telling me what I can and cannot use to support my point.

As you can see, I am willing to compromise.


If anyone else thinks they can take me on, it looks as if James is stalling and really doesn't want to have a debate even by the standard rules. I introduced restrictions that made things more rigorous and demanding, he couldn't live up to them, so I compromised.

You tried to introduce restrictions to suit yourself, you mean. I didn't fall for them; bad luck for you.

I am ready and willing to have a debate with you. I have made several compromises in this post.


He also has an excuse that he can only make rebuttals once a week.

My time limits are non-negotiable. I have other commitments that are more pressing and important than debating you. I'm sorry if this doesn't suit you.

However, I might also remind you that you have proposed another debate on planes crashing into the World Trade Center on 9/11. If you're so impatient that you'll get bored waiting for me in the current debate, why don't you run the other debate concurrently? There are other posters eager to accept your challenge on that topic.


I will accept another challenger, unless he straightens up his act.

So far, nobody else seems interested in debating you.


I will primarily be using information and argument supplied from these two videos, as well more in my argument:

If these two links don't get your scientific bullshit detectors going, nothing will save you from the lies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D49dihkLg_M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTdB57gamT4

These are for the debate, not the Proposal. I don't need to hear your arguments in advance.

steampunk:
I see you trying to weasel out of this debate.
Let's recap...

Post #1

I will argue the Auschwitz holocaust claims are unsubstantiated.
This is the original gauntlet. Historical revisionism. No qualifiers.

After encountering a plethora of informed members, steampunk initiates damage control...

Post #86

Stipulations

In military parlance, this is known as "shaping the battlefield". True to form, revisionists always demand caps on the evidentiary materials. They cannot successfully argue the Post #1 challenge without artificially constraining the evidentiary/historical record.

I see you trying to weasel out of this debate.

I could give a rats ass whether Auschwitz claims are true or not, but based upon the what's out there, I see it as bullshit. I'm not racist or anti-Semitic, so I don't have an agenda. I never wanted this debate. You blackmailed me into it. You asked me to back up my claims that "Auschwitz was bullshit" or be banned. I wanted controlled moderation while I back up my point, so I picked the Formal Debates forum. Remember I said Auschwitz was bullshit? That is my affirmative claim. But I switched it to be specific. It is brainwashing in my revamped argument. You are the one weaseling out by rejecting my original claim you asked me to back up.



I think the real reason you want this is in that you intend to argue that gassing the numbers that were gassed at Auschwitz would have been logistically impossible. (That, by the way, is a circumstantial argument. I thought you were going to rely on direct evidence.)

Everything will be circumstantial. Who said you can't use direct evidence in a circumstantial argument? We both are forced to argue inductively. Neither of us have the possibility of proving this True or False, so deduction is out.



Every claim can be phrased as a positive or a negative, so the old adage that "you can't prove a negative" is wrong.

You obviously don't know a claim cannot be it's contradiction, so that is bullshit.



But it seems to me that it is you who is dispute the mainstream position here, so the onus is on you to establish the "facts" of your proposed alternate universe.

The mainstream opinion is that they want to use the word fact, but don't want to prove it's a fact. All they do is yell "Racist!!!", "Anti-Semite!!", when any come kicking around the shit they call proof.



If you prefer, though, we can change the topic to "Mass gassings occurred at Auschwitz". I will argue the affirmative; you can argue the negative. But, I will require that you go first. You proposed the debate.

No, that would not bring traffic to your website. I'm trying to help you out here.



If you think you can establish brainwashing, that's just fine. I won't take that away from you. I do not think it is relevant, but we can have that out in the debate, too.
...
I am ready and willing to have a debate with you. I have made several compromises in this post.


No you haven't. You submitted to being more reasonable.

Ok. I'll post the opening thread as soon as I start and finish it.

Moderator note: several more off-topic posts have been deleted. Do I really have to keep reminding you all that the Formal Debates forum is strictly moderated?

Just to confirm, before we close the Proposal thread:

Do you agree to all of the following, steampunk?

* The topic is "The claim that there was systematic gassing of humans at the Auschwitz camp in World War II is not empirically proven."
* You will post the first post of the debate.
* We are using the Standard Rules for Formal Debates as set out in the sticky thread in this subforum.
* The Standard rules are modified as to the time limits, so we will both have up to one week to make our next post after the other person's most recent post.

Just to confirm, before we close the Proposal thread:

Do you agree to all of the following, steampunk?

* The topic is "The claim that there was systematic gassing of humans at the Auschwitz camp in World War II is not empirically proven."
* You will post the first post of the debate.
* We are using the Standard Rules for Formal Debates as set out in the sticky thread in this subforum.
* The Standard rules are modified as to the time limits, so we will both have up to one week to make our next post after the other person's most recent post.

No. My claim is this:

The claim 'state sanctioned, systematic gassing of humans occured at the Auschwitz camp in World War II' is not empirically proven.

I added state-sanctioned, because you claimed it was state sanctioned in the discussion thread and now that I think about it, yes, that seems the official message I've been brainwashed with in my American education.

No. My claim is this:

The claim 'state sanctioned, systematic gassing of humans occured at the Auschwitz camp in World War II' is not empirically proven.

But that is not equivalent with the: "There was no Holocaust, and no Jews died in Auswitz." claim, what you seem to believe. (just don't like to say when cornered)

So you could easily ACKNOWLEDGE that thousands of Jews were gassed in Auswitz, and still be sceptic about the correct numbers or the nature of the order...

Me thinks you are an idiot and everyone is wasting their time trying to convince you, but that is their problem...

P.S.: You also don't know the meaning of empirical: "Empirical data are data produced by an observation or experiment." So an eyewitness' account is empirical...

But that is not equivalent with the: "There was no Holocaust, and no Jews died in Auswitz." claim, what you seem to believe. (just don't like to say when cornered)

I never said there was no holocaust. I never said no Jews died in Auschwitz. My real real argument is too tough for you so you have to make things up?



So you could easily ACKNOWLEDGE that thousands of Jews were gassed in Auswitz, and still be sceptic about the correct numbers or the nature of the order...


I could acknowledge one without the other, yes. But, not easily.



Me thinks you are an idiot and everyone is wasting their time trying to convince you, but that is their problem...

No one here is even close to trying to convince me. It amounts to insultive acts, not educative acts.



P.S.: You also don't know the meaning of empirical: "Empirical data are data produced by an observation or experiment." So an eyewitness' account is empirical...

Hearsay is empirical?

Hearsay is empirical?
hearsay evidence noun
evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath

A hearsay account of an event is not the same thing as an eyewitness account of an event.

An eyewitness account of an even is someone who witnessed it themselves.
A hearsay account of an event is someones account of what an eyewitness observed.

QED your question is a nonsequitir based on a false premise.

There is a limit to stupidity, trolling...

I request as a minimum to close this thread and ban Steampunk's any attempt to discuss any kind of history, Holocaust, 9/11, flying saucers, flying fuck.

When I asked him about the 6 million dead Jews in Auswitz claim, he gave a link to a newspaper from 1919...

I mean seriously... It is obvious there is really no point in debating him, I am actually surprised why Trippy and James are trying...

It is just bad news for Sciforums, because guess what? Now we gonna come up on Google when someone searches for Holocaust denial...

Oh yes, fuckady fuck, anyone who posts after this post...

[very sad face]

Hearsay is empirical?

Hearsay, would be repeating what you heard, as opposed to describing what you observed personnally.

First, person accounts are empirical. Though they are not always accounts of things that can be experimentally confirmed.

So hearsay, or repeating just what you have heard without supporting documentation, may not rise to the level of empirical evidence. While a first person account, unless proven to be inaccurate or false, would be equivalent to empirical evidence.

On a separate note, you earlier claimed to have been brainwashed by your American education. Based on what appears to be your opionions and position on the pending debate, that was a false statement. Were it true, you would not be questioning, that which you seem to be questioning....

Or perhaps you are right, and you have been brainwashed, into believing as you do, a line of reason that seems at odds with.., reason and well documented historical fact.

. . . . NOTE FROM A MODERATOR . . . .

Dear members,

Yes, we have received all of your complaints about this so-called "debate." No, we are not going to dump it in the Cesspool, and no, we are not going to permaban Steampunk. Surely you must all have figured that out by now.

Steampunk has not broken any rules (at least not seriously) so he is still welcome to post on SciForums.

About all we've done is loosen up the rules about personal insults so you can all tell this execrable moron what you think of him and his preposterous insistence that he truly believes what he says about Auschwitz. I know he's just pulling our chains, and you know he's just pulling our chains. But we can't prove it so it doesn't qualify as intellectual dishonesty or some other form of trolling. Therefore, we have no grounds to ban him.

Remember: the measure of a society's commitment to liberty is not how vigorously it defends what it loves. The measure of a society's commitment to liberty is how vigorously it defends what it hates.

We can all hate Steampunk. And by now I'm sure every member of SciForums, their entire families, everyone they work with, and the hapless strangers they meet on the subway, all in fact do hate Steampunk.

So let's show the world how strong our commitment to liberty is. Say what you want about Steampunk and to Steampunk. But please stop filling the Moderators' personal e-mail baskets with notes demanding that we take him out and shoot him. We're not going to do that.

But please stop filling the Moderators' personal e-mail baskets with notes demanding that we take him out and shoot him.

Come on, one can only hope...

Just to think that I was put in the same troll category when I was kicking anti-DP posters' asses and having a little fan WHILE I was still providing arguments (unlike SP) makes me shriver...

But since I am a good sport, I will bet you that he will be banned in less than 3 days and the debate will never take off...

If I win, I will get 3 "get out of jail, I mean ban" passes from the moderators....Deal???

steampunk:


No. My claim is this:

The claim 'state sanctioned, systematic gassing of humans occured at the Auschwitz camp in World War II' is not empirically proven.

I added state-sanctioned, because you claimed it was state sanctioned in the discussion thread and now that I think about it, yes, that seems the official message I've been brainwashed with in my American education.

Ok. Enough pussy-footing around.

You keep wanting to insert irrelevant topics into this debate.

The main point I want to argue is the empirical fact of the gassings at Auschwitz - i.e. your original claim. I know that you want to divert the argument onto the issue of orders from Hitler and so on, but that is a distraction. Nevertheless, if you want to waste words on that part of your topic, you're most welcome to do so.

I accept your topic, as stated above. I assume you accept the other terms I specified in my previous post.

When you get back from your latest ban, I expect you to post your argument in the Debate thread.

This Proposal is now closed. Related threads are here:

Debate thread
Discussion thread