Proposal: Auschwitz Holocaust Claims Are Unsubstantiated

[Fraggle Rocker]

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.

 

[MacGyver1968]

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

 

[Syzygys]

Finally we steamed his punk ass....

 

[James R]

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.

 

[Syzygys]

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

 

[steampunk]

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.

 

[MacGyver1968]

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

 

[Syzygys]

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...

 

[Trippy]

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?

 

[James R]

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?

 

[parmalee]

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):
believe [on the basis of the evidence available] that Zyklon-B was used in the capacity it is claimed to have been.
believe [on the basis of the evidence available] believe that 1.2 million people (According to Hoess anyway) were killed there.
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]

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

 

[James R]

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.

 

[Xotica]

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.

 

[steampunk]

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.

 

[James R]

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?

 

[James R]

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.

 

[steampunk]

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.

 

[Syzygys]

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...

 

[steampunk]

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?