Instigator / Con
14
1420
rating
398
debates
44.1%
won
Topic
#2438
I'm on trial/What is the problem you see with me?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 6 votes and with 28 points ahead, the winner is...
Barney
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
42
1815
rating
53
debates
100.0%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Here you air your disputes involving the debates I been in with you or with anyone. The topics, the premises, debates that you've seen me in, let's discuss them. Hopefully everybody gets a chance, gets a turn at this as I plan to do several of these trials/confrontations.
Now this is still in the spirit of contest. As you try to prove your points valid, I will render my points to refute and or correct yours.
So in regards to the way I argue or why I made a particular point, said a particular thing, came up with a particular topic, even personal views, here's the opportunity to challenge it all in this challenge. You can question, challenge a challenge, etc.
For clarity or questions, Please send a message or comment prior to accepting debate.
Round 1
Well I'm now on the stand. What is your case?
Going to keep this brief...
The Southern Poverty Law Center identifies several harms people seek to do by denying it :
I. Holocaust Denial:
You (Mall), are a holocaust denier [1].
- Some proponents and influencers within organized Holocaust denial seek to rehabilitate the Nazi regime, hoping to open the ideology of national socialism to new, broader audiences.
- Holocaust denial delegitimizes the suffering of Jews, and exacerbates intergenerational traumas by denying Holocaust history, and codifies antisemitic propaganda under the guise of academic research.
- Deniers promote conspiracy theories about Jewish-controlled governments and media by attempting to undermine a history of horrific suffering. Their denials provide a foundation for much of the antisemitism permeating the radical right.
- Deniers misrepresent anti-hate campaigns and legislation as evidence that Jews control the mainstream media.
Due to these terrible things, organized holocaust deniers are considered hate groups (not that you alone are a group, but if you got together with your friends and formed something like Holocaust Deniers For Trump, which seems a likely ambition, you would be part of a hate group).
II. Eugenics Denial:
Adding to it, you also deny eugenics is a bad thing. When confronted with forced sterilizations of minorities, you replied [2]:“Good genes, what's wrong with that?”
Forced eugenics is a form of genocide. As identified by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, genocide includes [3]:
- Killing members of the group
- Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
- Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
- Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
- Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
Conclusion:
To any voter, if the above are indeed problems, I should win this debate.
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/2397-present-proof-that-adolf-hitler-was-a-racist?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=37
- https://www.ushmm.org/genocide-prevention/learn-about-genocide-and-other-mass-atrocities/what-is-genocide
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/2397-present-proof-that-adolf-hitler-was-a-racist?argument_number=2
Round 2
"You (Mall), are a holocaust denier [1]"
Your proof of that *****in your own words****** is what?
"Due to these terrible things, organized holocaust deniers are considered hate groups (not that you alone are a group, but if you got together with your friends and formed something like Holocaust Deniers For Trump, which seems a likely ambition, you would be part of a hate group)."
You're making an accusation towards me which I could take as a character assassination, but let's say I survived as I got out of sight in time. I won't count this as a hit towards me.
You have to prove I've denied anything other what was purported to be evidence of something.
I deny it when you say water is dry when it's proven that it's wet.
As far as I'm concerned, you haven't proven anything but show how you feel about people.
You make accusations about political figures as well as anyone on the opposite side of your viewpoint.
"Adding to it, you also deny eugenics is a bad thing. When confronted with forced sterilizations of minorities, you replied [2]:
“Good genes, what's wrong with that?” "
Now I see why you're just throwing the word "denial" around.
Let me give some helpful information here. When a question is asked, it doesn't automatically mean rejection.
This is why I'm not seeing proof of any denial . Please get off this high assumption cloud to get down to some land to get your feet grounded.
Please have a substantial basis.
Just because proof is requested, it doesn't mean all opposition by default. I may be opposed to you being able to prove something. When you fail to prove something, I don't have to view that something as false.
"Forced eugenics is a form of genocide. As identified by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, genocide includes [3]:"
So eugenics is not about arranging gene pair-ups but killing people like abortions. You should think about what something actually is before taking somebody else's word for it.
That's another problem with your so called sources. You lose your own mind, cognitive ability to give it to somebody else to think for you.
A conventional socialized mind is a terrible thing to waste not. It's a great sin.
The win will be subject to the largest echo.
At this point, you can come up with something else.
I don't care to go on a merry go round.
Pro believes “The win will be subject to the largest echo” this is however not how Burden of Proof works, especially not in any type of trial as he has requested. To use an analogy: Charles Manson does not become innocent if he can scream ‘REEEEE’ louder than the prosecutor.
I. Holocaust Denial:
The harms of holocaust denial have not been challenged. Extend.
“Your proof of that *****in your own words****** is what?”
I don’t need my own words, when I have literally your own words, denying the holocaust [1]:
I. Holocaust Denial:
The harms of holocaust denial have not been challenged. Extend.
“Your proof of that *****in your own words****** is what?”
I don’t need my own words, when I have literally your own words, denying the holocaust [1]:
“I yet stand not convinced of any purported evidence.”
Said evidence being such things as “the death of 67-78% of all European Jews” [2].
“You have to prove I've denied anything”
See above.
“As far as I'm concerned, you haven't proven anything”
Another denial of the mountain of previously cited evidence [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8].
“I'm not seeing proof of any denial”
See above.
II. Eugenics Denial:
Pro has not offered any defense of his positive view on eugenics taken to the extreme of genocide. Instead, he merely complains that I have sources. Extend.
III. “Mr. Hitler”
Pro being unable to defend the previous two, has asked me to “come up with something else.” While I am not one for Gish Galloping away into the sunset, his defense of the apparently poor misunderstood “Mr. Hitler” ties in closely with the theme I’m exploring for this morality trail.
Pro has come to the defense of “Mr. Hitler” against there being anything wrong with and/or racist about genocide [9]:
“You have to prove I've denied anything”
See above.
“As far as I'm concerned, you haven't proven anything”
Another denial of the mountain of previously cited evidence [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8].
“I'm not seeing proof of any denial”
See above.
II. Eugenics Denial:
Pro has not offered any defense of his positive view on eugenics taken to the extreme of genocide. Instead, he merely complains that I have sources. Extend.
III. “Mr. Hitler”
Pro being unable to defend the previous two, has asked me to “come up with something else.” While I am not one for Gish Galloping away into the sunset, his defense of the apparently poor misunderstood “Mr. Hitler” ties in closely with the theme I’m exploring for this morality trail.
Pro has come to the defense of “Mr. Hitler” against there being anything wrong with and/or racist about genocide [9]:
“I didn't get much if any arguments on proving Mr. Hitler was a "racist".” [sic]
To which, again, see previously cited evidence [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8].
Conclusion:
"Mr. Hitler" alone should carry this debate.
Sources:
Conclusion:
"Mr. Hitler" alone should carry this debate.
Sources:
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/2397-present-proof-that-adolf-hitler-was-a-racist?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=37
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/2397-present-proof-that-adolf-hitler-was-a-racist?argument_number=1
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Rise_of_evil
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nazi_analogies
- https://twitter.com/stevesilberman/status/1307784059167227904
- https://www.history.com/topics/germany/eugenics#section_4
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...#Origin
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_paragraph
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/2397-present-proof-that-adolf-hitler-was-a-racist?argument_number=2
Round 3
" "I don’t need my own words, when I have literally your own words, denying the holocaust [1]:
“I yet stand not convinced of any purported evidence.” "
Where is the word "denial" in what I said?
You're going hard on this STRAWMAN tactic.
I don't have to put words in your mouth to show your points as refuted. All you give is just a bunch of talk with no genuine case.
So because I'm not convinced , by default I reject something?
You have no place to dictate what my personal rejections are.
"Pro has come to the defense of “Mr. Hitler” against there being anything wrong with and/or racist about genocide [9]:"
What have I said in defense of this person?
This whole round was NOTHING but STRAWMAN execution by you.
You're not taking any quotes of what I say specifically to show what you say I'm doing.
It's clear now as I believe I've indicated, everything I say is either ignored or assumed to mean whatever a person thinks it means.
This is why you ask me no questions . You would ask questions to analyze my position for continuity and validation.
This is why you don't ask me questions. I ask you questions as I'm determined to break down your points. I have no fear in verifying to see whether they hold up or not.
I've asked you questions I still have gotten no answers to.
What do you mean when you say eugenics?
Does it consist of gene pairing arrangement? How is it genocide?
You don't answer these questions to avoid getting to truth.
You say I'm in denial due to YOUR interpretation of words I use.
At this point, I'd say debate over. It looks like you're just going to say the same thing over and over.
Typing this from my cellphone...
I. Holocaust Denial:
Pro attempts special pleading, specifying a No True Scotsman fallacy that denials only count as denials if they specifically contain the word “Denial.” By this absurd standard O.J. Simpson never would have denied killing his wife, Donald Trump never would have denied being racist, George Lucas never would have denied that Han Solo shot first, etc. In reality, denials are created by the act of denying things, not the one specific word that wouldn’t make sense in most denials; while I deny pro has made a good argument, grammatically, “I denial pro has made a good argument,” doesn’t make sense (even he didn’t “denial” it in his denial).
Extend.
II. Eugenics Denial:
See above. For questions about basic English, either ask your parents, any teacher, or an English dictionary.
Extend.
III. “Mr. Hitler”
See quotation explicitly denying his racism (apparently there’s nothing even slightly racist about the holocaust!), to implicitly deny his countless wrongdoings (such as the Holocaust!).
Extend.
Round 4
I'm not in denial of anything but your failure in proving so.
So....debate over.
Pro has refused to address my points. Extend all.
Round 5
You have not proved anything but your subjective read.
Th....th......th.......th.......the.....the... that's all folks.
The wheels fallen of this car rounds back.
Conclusion:
Pro acting like a classically cliché neo-Nazi, has both denied the holocaust and insisted there would be nothing with with such eugenics efforts if it did occur (calling genocide only negative in my “subjective read”). He has furthered this by outright stating that “Mr. Hitler” has never been proven to have done anything wrong.
As stated in R1:
To any voter, if the above are indeed problems, I should win this debate.
In future, I do suggest having a tiny bit more detail, such as just naming a contention: Like "Mall defends 'Mr. Hitler', with sources showing that 'Mr. Hitler' was a bad person, this was a valid problem to have against him."
Thank you all for the quality votes!
Minor typo: I wrote pro instead of con when referring to my opponent. Contextually this shouldn't be an issue.
"Your proof of that *****in your own words****** is what?"
I have no idea why but this made me chuckle a little bit. You could've started your round with polite and cordial words but instead you chose to shout at him. LOL
Note: I left this debate alone for five days before accepting.
I don't know how to make this any clearer. You pick whatever you think I do is wrong and build a case for it and I attempt to refute it.
but u can respond
like a roast?
Good luck.
Well , this is an opportunity to make your critique as according to what the description says. I think many of you have points to make about the debates I have . We can confront these things with a direct interaction. Your inquiries are directed at me. We communicate, I'm allowed to make a counter point. It's like moving what's said in the comments to the debate rounds. Moving the fight from outside to the ring.
explain please?
mall be like : o no oromagi's gonna destroy me