Proposal: Auschwitz Holocaust Claims Are Unsubstantiated

[steampunk]

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.

 

[Xotica]

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

The Irving vs. Lipstadt trial addressed that question magnificently.

 

[James R]

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.

 

[Buddha12]

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.

 

[Aqueous Id]

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.

 

[Balerion]

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.

 

[Carcano]

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

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

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat — Action Note

Mod Hat — Action Note

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

 

[Chipz]

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.

 

[steampunk]

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.

 

[steampunk]

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.

 

[Carcano]

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?

 

[Gremmie]

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".

 

[Carcano]

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.

 

[steampunk]

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.

 

[Repo Man]

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.

 

[Repo Man]

YouTube is the shit.

Indeed. Sometimes YouTube hosts documentaries of great educational value.

 

[Gremmie]

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.

 

[Carcano]

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

 

[AlexG]

you will not accept his testimony if it seems scientifically implausible

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