CreateDebate


Debate Info

11
15
Yes. It's an insult to victims No. Truth needs no law
Debate Score:26
Arguments:29
Total Votes:26
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes. It's an insult to victims (10)
 
 No. Truth needs no law (13)

Debate Creator

JimFour7(76) pic



Should questioning the holocaust be a crime?

No other historical event is illegal to critically examine. The accepted view protected by law is that a policy of mass killing of prisoners resulted in a holocaust. An opposing view asserts that no such policy existed and deaths were a result of a typhus outbreak and the holocaust was invented to distract from real atrocities.

Yes. It's an insult to victims

Side Score: 11
VS.

No. Truth needs no law

Side Score: 15
1 point

What holocaust ;)

Side: Yes. It's an insult to victims
Grenache(5376) Clarified
1 point

You know, that song by Gwen Stefani. ........................................

Side: Yes. It's an insult to victims
1 point

What song ?

Side: Yes. It's an insult to victims
2 points

Hello J:

Wow.. I thought you were just a regular right winger.. But, now I see that you're a holocaust denier.... Ain't nothing I can say about that, cepting it's NOT illegal to say so..

By the way, if they were so gentle in the "work" camps, WHY did they have to tattoo numbers on their arms???

excon

Jew

Side: No. Truth needs no law
JimFour7(76) Disputed
1 point

Several countries created laws to protect the agreed upon version of history. People are in prison as we speak for simply asking questions. I take personal offense being lied to, even by long dead people with an agenda relying on the world believing in a manufactured version of events. So many hard facts have fizzled into myths, that tattoos of numbers is suspect as well.

Side: No. Truth needs no law
excon(4058) Disputed
2 points

So many hard facts have fizzled into myths, that tattoos of numbers is suspect as well.

Hello again, Jim:

That there are nations who'll put you in jail for speaking, has NOTHING to do with me or my country.. WE don't do that, and this is where both you and I live..

Secondarily, I was born during WW II. My family was MURDERED by the Nazis.. I SAW the tattooed numbers on people's arms with my own eyes..

Nonetheless, I suspect that won't matter to you. After all, I'm part of the conspiracy. Look.. I will NOT convince you that the holocaust happened.. But, I will NOT let your lies go by unanswered..

excon

Jew

Side: Yes. It's an insult to victims
marcusmoon(253) Disputed
1 point

Jim,

Absolutely, it is important to actually question the usual narrative AND question the counternarrative. This is useless, however without critical thinking.

The operative word here is thinking.

While I think it is stupid for insisting the Holocaust is a fiction to be a crime, that is partly because laws against ignorance and stupidity are always destined to fail.

In your case, a law against saying the holocaust did not happen is there primarily to protect you and other conspiracy theorists from looking too foolish in public to remain employable. People won't hire flat-earthers for the same set of reasons.

Racism is not nearly as big a problem to society as bad thinking of any kind.

That said, I don't put Holocaust denial in any special category of bad thinking, denial of evidence, or drawing conclusions without evidence.

It is neither more silly nor less silly than insisting:

- That the earth is flat

- That the world was made by a deity's command in 6 days

- That Mohammed flew on a magical animal to have the Quran dictated to him

- That completion of Scientology courses confers supernatural powers

- That our souls are endlessly reincarnated until we achieve "enlightenment"

- That descendants of Abraham are YHWH's favorites and he actually gave them a particular parcel of Middle Eastern real estate

etc., ad nauseum.

Side: No. Truth needs no law
2 points

Let the lunatics speak. It makes it easier to figure out who to not listen to.

Side: No. Truth needs no law
JimFour7(76) Disputed
1 point

Eldon,

Precisely. Even lunatics have the right to critically examine the evidence and form their own conclusions without fear of prosecution.

Side: No. Truth needs no law
1 point

A lot of respectable investigators have meticulously examined the official narrative of an extermination policy. And concluded it was not possible. Logistically impossible to gas and cremate millions. Prison work camps were not death camps. Bombing raids destroyed supply chains to the camps, exacerbating a typhus outbreak which was responsible for many deaths. The corpses were interred in mass graves to minimize spreading of the lice. Every single german camp was regularly inspected by the red cross. The diary of anne frank was written years after the war. Zyclon b is a delouser. The time, manpower and resources to cremate millions of captured workers is ridiculous.

Side: No. Truth needs no law
marcusmoon(253) Clarified
2 points

Jim,

I cannot tell if you are being ironical. Some of your claims are patently silly.

For example, your claim that it is Logistically impossible to gas and cremate millions is patently ridiculous.

This is evidenced by the fact that far more than 10 million cattle are killed, butchered, and shipped each year in the US. According to the Humane society, more than 17 million cattle were slaughtered in 1950, but the annual number has pretty consistently exceeded 32 million since 1965. (http://www.humanesociety.org/news/resources/research/stats slaughtertotals.html)

- The Nazis only had to kill and dispose of 10 million over the course of over 5 years. That averages less than 2 million per year. Logistical child's play compared to 17 million cattle in a single year.

- There were 22 main concentration camps (with 900 to 1200 satellite support camps.) This divides the 2 million annually to less than 100,000 per year per main site. That is only 300 corpses per day, IF we assume the actual killing only happened at the main camps.

The support camps could easily ensure things like fuel for the ovens was available and shipped, etc..

- A single steer weighs 10 times what a person weighs, on average, so handling the dead animals is harder and takes more energy/equipment than handling the dead Gypsy, Jew, homosexual, handicapped person, etc..

- Butchering a steer takes longer than throwing a human corpse into an oven or an open pit.

- The Holocaust victims did not have to be shipped and distributed to stores or distribution centers, whereas the beef does.

- Handling cattle would be more difficult, because unslaughtered cattle do not help to dispose of slaughtered cattle, whereas enslaved prisoners did help to dispose of the corpses of starved or slaughtered camp victims.

- Energy/labor is required to kill every single steer, whereas large numbers of Gypsies, Jews, etc. starved, died of disease, or were worked to death. This would relieve the concentration camp system of some of the killing tasks, easing the logistical burden.

Clearly, the Holocaust was not a particularly difficult logistical challenge.

Side: Yes. It's an insult to victims
JimFour7(76) Disputed
1 point

Marcus,

Citing cattle processing as a comparison to cremating bodies is a stretch. The process involved in a funeral parlor's crematorium would be exactly how they would supposedly do it. If you examine the camps themselves, you'll discover they simply were not equipped for such a massive operation. The gassing of prisoners in chambers designed to look like showers is another example of an easily proven impossibility. Do just a little bit of research.

https://holocaustdeprogrammingcourse.com/

Side: Yes. It's an insult to victims

Absolutely not. Putting someone in jail for questioning anything is draconian. In this particular instance it is also counterproductive, since you are only going to reaffirm their beliefs that there is a conspiracy.

The Holocaust has been cynically used by Zionist Jews to excuse some pretty atrocious behaviour of their own, and I think this might be at the heart of why certain people deny the evidence supporting the Holocaust. There is actually quite a lot of it (evidence, that is), although most of it is documentary. It is possible that the evidence was forged, but given the sheer amount of it and how many different locations it was retrieved from, one would have to deem it significantly improbable.

The Holocaust is but one of many, many historical genocides, some of them far worse and far more recent. My opinion is that the importance of it has been vastly inflated for political purposes. Zionists tend to shoot themselves in the foot here, because although they scoff at everyone who denies their version of history, the cold reality is that the Holocaust occupies a privileged position among historical genocides. That fact alone is enough to create suspicion that perhaps Zionist Jews themselves occupy a privileged position among those who write history.

Side: No. Truth needs no law
excon(4058) Disputed
1 point

Hello N:

Nahhh... I'm a Jew, I'm a Zionist, and I'm a left winger. As such, I hold the view that the Israeli's have been heartless when dealing with the Palestinians.

Jews are NOT monolithic and the holocaust DID happen.

excon

Side: Yes. It's an insult to victims
1 point

I'm a Jew, I'm a Zionist, and I'm a left winger.

I don't know what you've been smoking today Con, but Zionism is a right wing political philosophy which gave birth during the Six Day War to the more contemporary neo-Zionism which became the driving force behind 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. You are not a Jew because you don't believe in or practice Judaism, you are not a Zionist because you aren't on the far right, and you are not a left winger because you are a right wing Democrat. What you may in fact be is a Semite who is confused about his own politics.

Side: No. Truth needs no law
xMathFanx(393) Clarified
1 point

@Nomenclature. Absolutely not. Putting someone in jail for questioning anything is draconian. In this particular instance it is also counterproductive, since you are only going to reaffirm their beliefs that there is a conspiracy.

I'm a bit confused now. I thought your stance was against Freedom of Speech on matters nearly exactly like this?

There is actually quite a lot of it (evidence, that is), although most of it is documentary. It is possible that the evidence was forged, but given the sheer amount of it and how many different locations it was retrieved from, one would have to deem it significantly improbable.

Do you doubt that the Holocaust happened altogether, specific relevant details, or otherwise?

The Holocaust is but one of many, many historical genocides, some of them far worse and far more recent. My opinion is that the importance of it has been vastly inflated for political purposes...he cold reality is that the Holocaust occupies a privileged position among historical genocides

In agreement here. It is not that I think the tragedy of the Holocaust has been at all inflated, rather that there have been many genocides, some of which on a much larger scale (e.g. genocide of the indigenous peoples in the Americas), and most of which go unacknowledged or trivialized in comparison.

Side: Yes. It's an insult to victims
JimFour7(76) Clarified
1 point

The essential element needed to give legitimacy to a Jewish state was convincing the Jewish people the prophecy of a slaughter of 6 million came true, returning the chosen ones to the promised land. No doubt that the documentary evidence proves that many prisoners died in camps. However, an outbreak of a typhus epidemic was responsible. Bombing of supply routes into camps exacerbated an already desperate situation.

Side: Yes. It's an insult to victims
1 point

Freedom of expression means you should be free to say anything, even if it's stupid. It's the job of all the rest of us to see what they're saying is bunk and to speak out against it through our own free expression.

Side: No. Truth needs no law

No, because that would fall under free speech.

However, if you legitimately believe that the holocaust didn't happen, I would question your intelligence level, or the existence of your intelligence at all.

No, it shouldn't be a crime, which is why it isn't. And fortunately for individuals that question the holocaust, stupidity isn't a crime either.

Side: No. Truth needs no law
JimFour7(76) Disputed
1 point

16 European countries have laws against free speech. It applies only to questioning the holocaust. If stupidity was a crime at least they'd never get charged for questioning an historical event. A stupid person would never critically think for themselves to come to their own conclusions.

Side: No. Truth needs no law