Instigator / Pro
13
1500
rating
13
debates
42.31%
won
Topic
#2854
Holocaust Denial should be outlawed in the USA
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 3 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
Pilot
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
18
1506
rating
4
debates
50.0%
won
Description
Should denial of the Holocaust be protected in the United States of America? At least 17 countries have already outright banned it. 80 years after the crime occured, it is it hightime for the USA to follow suit?
Round 1
Xenophobia is antithetical to what the USA represents:
"... all men are created equal ..."
Holocaust-denial is a form of xenophobia, therefore Holocaust-denial is antithetical to our principles. As such, it should be outlawed.
"... silencing Holocaust-denial is against our principle of Freedom of Speech and explicitly allowed by the 1st Amendment ... "
— I imagine my opponent will use this as an argument
The truth is, there are already exceptions to the 1st Amendment. Screaming "fire" (without cause) in a crowded theater is a well-known example. Understand that Holocaust-denial is not political or ideological speech of the sort the Framers intended to protect. As a matter of fact, it's outright denial of a basic historical fact involving the most widescale, organized, pre-meditated mass-murder in human history. Considered on that point alone, it is already clear how the Holocaust, and by extension refusal to acknowledge it, are exceptions to the general sphere of global politics (not just our own).
Our allies in Europe have long since recognized that a most extreme, inflexibly-literal interpretation of Freedom of Speech must submit to the harsh reality that allowing a mockery of the worst crime ever, yet in the memory of many still alive, is necessarily a step forwards towards ripening an environment that would encourage it to take place again.
Let my opponent contradict me on this point, if they so dare. Otherwise, they must concede that their position promotes, more than it deters, a repeat of the Holocaust. Hope for any shred of the Freedom of Speech we both love would itself suffer and die in the general slaughter. Enduring the lies and delusions of what used to be a mob of murderers, but which has since evolved into a global web of interconnected racemongers, is self-defeating behavior based on an inherently incoherent ideology that would have us sacrifice Freedom in the name of Freedom.
Holocaust-denial should be illegalized because it is a most sure defense against repeating the worst mistake of history, is itself contrary to the spirit of the Freedom of Speech many mistakenly reference in evidence of its legitimacy, and many of our allies, no less freedom-loving than ourselves, have already taken this extremely fundamental and basic step to preserve civilization.
Thank you for reading my opening arguments, and I hand the floor over to my opponent.
My opponent neglected to post the definitions of some key terms that are, or may be pertinent to the discussion at hand. I'd like to post some of those definitions now to help keep these descriptions crystal clear throughout this discussion.
Hol·o·caust de·ni·al
noun
noun: Holocaust denial
- the belief or assertion that the Holocaust did not happen or was greatly exaggerated.
outlawed
/ˈoutˌlôd/
adjective
- made illegal; banned."an outlawed extremist group"
hate speech
: speech expressing hatred of a particular group of people.
It seems to me something of a scandal that it is even necessary to debate these issues two centuries after Voltaire defended the right of free expression for views he detested. It is a poor service to the memory of the victims of the holocaust to adopt a central doctrine of their murderers. -Noam Chomsky.
In a trial, or debate, it goes without saying that most people would not consider the verdict or judgement to be a valid judgement if either the defense or the plaintiff were barred from being involved in the trial or debate before it even took place. Whether you would consider holocaust deniers to be on the side of the plaintiff or the defense, what is happening when we outlaw holocaust denial is we are disallowing the survivors and their families the chance to answer to the accusations of holocaust deniers, or the survivors chance to hold holocaust deniers accountable for their molestation of historical truths in the arena of social judgment where a valid judgement is crucially needed. If we want the truth of history to be untainted by the purposeful political propaganda of holocaust deniers, and we want that judgement to be universally considered a valid judgement, then we will never get that without both sides being allowed to enter the arena.
We can probably all accept that the primary reason for outlawing holocaust denial is to hopefully curb antisemitism. Unfortunately, when it comes to the holocaust and antisemitism as a whole, the trial may be ongoing for the foreseeable future. My opponent mentioned the fact that at least 17 countries have outlawed holocaust denial, and it is indeed a fact. But what is most unfortunate about those efforts to curb holocaust denial and antisemitism as a whole is that there is absolutely no evidence that they are effective at curbing antisemitism at all. Mein Kampf was almost instantly put on the best sellers list in Germany as soon as it was made available again since its banning after WW2. It can be argued that he reason for that is because historians and teachers want to demonstrate the mindset of nazism and how it lead to such a destructive political movement. In all fairness, it is probably accurate to assume that the reason for hitlers book being such a hot item in Germany is specifically for the purpose of exemplifying the evil that lead to the holocaust. At least one would hope, but the truth remains to be seen. Germany is indeed one of the countries that has made holocaust denial a crime.
One would hope that if they go ahead and infringe on people's freedom of speech for the purpose of curbing antisemitism that they'd find objective proof that their policy would yield results. That was the hope in Germany when they outlawed holocaust denial. Not surprisingly, Germany outlawed swastikas and any reverence to the nazis or hitler. Even so much as putting your hand up to portray a nazi salute is punishable with jail time. But unfortunately, a study has shown that one fourth of Germans still have antisemitic sentiments. If we were looking for indisputable proof that outlawing holocaust denial would curb antisemitism then don't look for that proof in Germany. Not only is holocaust denial illegal, but any reverence to the nazis or hitler, or brandishing any nazi symbols are also illegal. And yet they still struggle with the problem of antisemitism.
Even when we consider the margin of error in this study, it's difficult to claim that antisemitism is a present and influential factor in German society just as it is in the US. There still exists political movements in Germany that espouse all the very same "ideals" as the nazis. The only difference between those groups and the nazis is the name and their inability to swear allegiance to hitler or flash any swastikas, or publicly deny the holocaust happened because German law forbids it. But we can certainly guesstimate that those antisemitic political groups do hold the same hideous beliefs as American nazi sympathizers, and they also surely have holocaust deniers within their ranks.
Round 2
Does citing the anti-Semite Voltaire bolster my opponent's case? Evidently not. Noam Chomsky is gravely mistaken here.
Exemplifying Holocaust-denial as denial of the freedom of survivors to "answer to the accusations" is a neat tactic, I admit. Perhaps we should in fact encourage Holocaust-denial in order to give them more opportunities to exercise this "freedom"? Perhaps libel, slander, and all manner of vicious attempts to distort the truth and attack victims' character should be allowed in the name of Freedom of Speech?
Acknowledging that there are limits to this freedom is the first step out of this labyrinth of cognitive confusion. Holocaust-denial is not an "opportunity" for victims to exercise their "freedom". Rather, it is a thinly-veiled threat against all their freedoms, not just Freedom of Speech ... or freedom to be harassed and personally attacked as liars. Entertaining Holocaust-deniers is in practice entertaining those who want to subvert our own freedoms, and it is in practice where the limits of freedoms are determined by governments.
Video-recording is not permitted in the Supreme Court despite Freedom of the Press, because in practice only cherry-picked cuts would be seen by the public that would completely (and deliberately) misrepresent the actual process in the service of political propaganda, undermining trust in the entire government. Eventually this would result in chaos and inevitably, violence to all freedoms, including the very Freedom of the Press recording was supposed to exemplify.
Note that Mein Kampf becoming a best-seller in Germany after being censored for a lifetime is probably due to the Streisand effect. This is the phenomenon where trying to prevent people from seeing something only makes them more curious to see it, even those who otherwise would have had zero interest in it. It is absolutely no measure or indication whatsoever of anti-Semitism in Germany.
Evidence that banning Holocaust-denial is effective is the fact that Germany has not yet devolved into a second Nazi state, and will remain unable to do so as long as Holocaust-denial remains a crime. Kryptonite is to Superman what banning Holocaust-denial is to Nazism. According to my opponent's statistics, the fight to eradicate anti-Semitism is still ongoing, so this fear is not completely unfounded.
For Nazism to be necromanced into a mainstream ideology, Holocaust-denial must be allowed. Suppose that this were to take place. Then it would be undeniable that those who revived it would have paraded their attacks on the truth in the name of Freedom of Speech, and pointed to my opponent as a vanguard of freedom and liberty; dare I say, a Nazi hero.
I challenge Con to explicitly deny this.
Libel and slander are not aspects of my argument, nor are they legal according to the US constitution. My opponent had the opportunity to provide a definition of holocaust denial that better fits their argument, but pro neglected to do so. The definition of holocaust denial which was not disputed by pro does not encompass the terms "libel", or "slander". If my opponent wanted to cite a definition of holocaust denial that does include libel and slander, or create a debate that does include those things, they had the opportunity to do that. Libel and slander are not legal forms of expression and my argument is not made to allow those forms of expression to be made without legal consequences. Anybody who engages in libel or slander should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The ACLU has represented holocaust deniers in court because of their firm commitment to freedom of expression, even when it's considered taboo. They do not represent people who commit slander or libel.
Simply questioning the methods of data compiling or the reliability of first hand accounts of the extent of the holocaust is not a form of slander or libel. However unlikely it would be for a holocaust denier to uncover valid evidence that brings into question the extent of the holocaust, it doesn't warrant outright banning. This is especially so because the more sophisticated an analysis of questioning whether the holocaust happened as is documented, then the more sophisticated a rebuttal to those misguided attempts will be forthcoming. And I'm sure we can all agree that the evidence will always outshine the historical revisionists.
My opponent asserts that since there are legal limitations to freedom of speech, then it should logically follow that there should be more, like banning holocaust denial. This ignores the reasoning as to why certain forms of expression are indeed illegal. Inciting riots or causing a panic are obviously dangerous to property and the safety of citizens. Calls for violence are also illegal for logical reasons. But the lack of evidence of the effectiveness of banning holocaust denial, it cannot be argued that a total banning of holocaust denial has any sort of logical reasoning for being banned like other forms of banned expressions have.
This brings me to the most damming aspect of pro's argument. Pro offers us nothing in the way of what it is they hope to accomplish by outlawing holocaust denial. Pro does offer the concept of making sure survivors and Jewish descendants are not exposed to unjustified offensive rhetoric. But unfortunately for pro, that is not a guaranteed right that the citizens of the US are allotted, and it's not necessarily known if only banning holocaust denial would achieve that goal alone. We could also work with the hope of oppressing antisemitism with this banning, but pro has a serious lack of anything in that regard in their argument. The only thing pro did to not drop my point about how Germany is still reeling from antisemitic feelings even though they do have a banning of holocaust denial is pro offers us this: **"Evidence that banning Holocaust-denial is effective is the fact that Germany has not yet devolved into a second Nazi state, and will remain unable to do so as long as Holocaust-denial remains a crime".***That retort is ripe with assumptions and speculation, but no evidence to back it up. How do we know Germany will not succumb to national socialist ideology in the near future? That rebuttal also totally ignores the fact that antisemitism is still a frightening influence in German politics and social life, but also is still on the rise. Germany is indeed one of the countries that has made holocaust denial a crime, and as I've said, we shouldn't look to them to find any evidence of the effectiveness of banning holocaust denial, because there's none to be had there.
Holocaust denial is egregious in every manner, but what about nazi sympathizers and antisemites who wholly accept that the holocaust happened as is written and universally accepted? But instead, they'll argue that the work that the nazis started was not completed, and we must continue that work? Not only is that even worse than simple holocaust denial, it is not holocaust denial itself. Therefore, that type of rhetoric would not be banned. There would need to be other forms of legal mandates put into place to thwart the attempts of nazi sympathizers who will obviously just simply not deny the holocaust happened if holocaust denial became banned. My opponent really wants this discussion to be more broadly about our freedom of speech, and about hate speech in general, but pro should only be arguing about the merits of banning holocaust denial alone. Pro will not be able to make a complete argument without the more broad aspects of freedom of speech and hate speech. That should be taken into account by anybody voting on this debate because the title and description of this debate is specifically about holocaust denial only.
Thank you for reading this. I will now send it back to pro.
Round 3
Need I redefine "Holocaust-denial" in order to win this debate via a semantic angle? Of course not! I shall demonstrate that my position is the correct one based entirely on its merits alone.
The assertion that Holocaust-denial does not encompass libel and slander ignores reality while hyperfocusing on definitions and technicalities. Admittedly, neither the words "libel" nor "slander" appear anywhere in the defintion we have both agreed upon. Can we therefore extrapolate from this into the conclusion that Holocaust-denial does not imply libel? If one were to point out that the definition of "gas" in the dictionary does not contain the word "murder", and try to use this as proof that gas is incapable of killing anyone, I can say with certainty that we would all laugh at them.
Reality is often cruel and as she so often does to all of us, once again gets in the way of my opponent's idealism. Because Holocaust-denial implicitly accuses all victims of the Holocaust of lying, it is libel and slander, despite these words not appearing in the definition. Asserting that the Holocaust did not happen is necessarily asserting that either all victims are lying, some or lying and some are mistaken, or somehow every last one of the millions are mistaken. Frankly, we can easily rule out the possibility that anyone believes the latter.
Let me take this opportunity to reiterate a fantastic statement of my opponents' which we can all agree upon:
"Anybody who engages in libel or slander should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law."
This is tantamount to a concession that Holocaust-denial should be prosecuted, because we've already established that Holocaust-denial is libel and slander.
Objectively speaking, it is not "unlikely" that evidence against the extent of the Holocaust could be found, but impossible. The most infamous event in world history with thousands of surviving victims in the age of global media cannot be "evidenced" to have been meaningfully exaggerated, much less by a random Holocaust-denier. Assume for the sake of argument at least that backwards time-travel is impossible, so nobody can go back to stop it from having occured.
Suppose that there were a group of malcontent individuals hell-bent on demonstrating that the writing of the Constitution never happened and in fact, the Constitution is a hoax and does not actually exist wherever it's claimed to be preserved now. It is completely up to your imagination what their motives and purposes are for this hypothetical, because in any case this is effectively treason. To meditate upon this for a mere 2 seconds will bring this fact to light, because while at first glance it seems to be a silly exercise of Freedom of Speech, it is in reality a threat to the foundations of democracy in the USA.
Surely my opponent can draw the line somewhere else, if they disagree where I have drawn it myself. Understanding what they think is an abuse of a freedom is important for us to not talk over each other in this debate. Apparently "inciting riots", "causing a panic", and endangering "property" and "safety of citizens" do cross the line for them. Clearly it is lost on Con that Holocaust-denial necessarily leads to all of those things, just as "Constitution-denial" would. Obviously the first people to be blamed, once a critical mass of the population has been duped into becoming Holocaust-deniers, are the very victims of the Holocaust themselves. Let us not entertain fantasies about fighting deniers with the pen, with eloquent arguments and fluid quill strokes, while they laugh at us and continue to spew their brainwashing propaganda upon the masses who are too busy with family, work and other responsibilities to perform a critical analysis of either side.
Or, we sacrifice the reputation of the victims, and indeed again their very safety from harassment and violence, in the name of an excessively-idealistic Freedom of Speech. Have we to abandon all reason and stick to the letter of the law, while trampling its spirit underfoot?
Examples of things that are to be accomplished by banning Holocaust-denial include pushing anti-Semitism deeper underground out of sight of highly impressionable children, and guaranteeing that Nazism of the denier-type at least never gains a foothold in public political life. Holding slanderers accountable is by my opponents' own admission a worthwhile goal, and this would protect the reputation of the many yet-living victims.
To claim that my point about Germany was "ripe with assumptions and speculation" is to mischaracterize it. Should Germany turn Nazi again, the ban on Holocaust-denial would be dropped. Under no circumstances would Nazis punish someone for Holocaust-denial, so this is I feel an irrefutable argument. Or does Con deny that a ban on Holocaust-denial is proof that Nazis are not in power? Legalizing Holocaust-denial is a step towards Nazism, not neutral towards or opposed to it.
My opponent argues that holocaust denial is "brainwashing propaganda upon the masses who are too busy with family, work and other responsibilities to perform a critical analysis of either side". This is a misguided and slightly offensive assertion. It's an argument that basically claims that "the masses" are too busy with their own lives to do anything about the rise of anti-semitism. So, unless you, the reader, were raised by wolves and were discovered under a rock, and taught to read just in time to be involved in this discussion, then you can consider yourself an entity of "the masses". So what pro is now saying is that YOU, the reader are too preoccupied with your daily life and familial duties to be able to do anything about the rise of nazism and antisemitism. Pro also claims that YOU, the reader are susceptible to propaganda and will not be able to help but capitulate to the rhetoric of holocaust denial no matter how obscenely absurd it may be. And because of that, you should be stripped of your responsibility to apply and enforce ethical and moral values and place that responsibility solely in the hands of the government.
This next tactic I'm going to employ may backfire on me very badly, but here goes anyway. Let us extend some empathy to the holocaust deniers themselves. It's probably (hopefully) impossible for you to be able to justify antisemitism or holocaust denial simply by using your skill for empathy. But if those holocaust deniers are dedicated to their families and jobs and the people they love, it may be hard for you to deny that at least those are righteous ideals that you actually share with those holocaust deniers, the very people you abhor (again, hopefully). If those holocaust deniers are capable of launching a propaganda machine that is capable of brainwashing all the silly masses, and they can do so while being dedicated to their families and jobs and the people they love, then who is pro to claim that you yourself are not capable of seeing through their rouse and understanding that they are full of shit? All the while doing so with the responsibility of your family, work, and everyone you love hanging over you. I get the feeling you'll be able to cope with this task with ease.
Pro's argument also carelessly disregards the power of social movements. There are many people who are actively involved in keeping nazism and antisemitism in the lowest dungeons of social taboos, along with other forms of hate and racism. And they too are capable of doing this while the responsibilities and stresses of their daily lives still loom over them. Pro says this won't work, and we should just let the government do it. Pro is plainly saying that we are too busy to be able to effectively cope with enforcing the ideals and morals we are dedicated to.
I pointed out how questioning the methods of data compilation and first hand accounts is not slander or libel, and it is not the type of expression that is restricted in the US. At no point in this discussion have I conceded that holocaust denial is inherently slander or libel, especially since it was I who posted the description of holocaust denial, and pro has openly accepted that description. If a legal form of expression is seen to cause social angst, is it up to the government to stop it from happening, or do some responsibilities fall on society themselves to resist it? So far, the government mandates that were put in place to resist nazism in Germany have proven to be absolutely useless (a point pro hopes will just go away).
If anybody here were to take the time to read the link I posted in my opening argument, they'd find that even though polls have found that a large portion of German society do have antisemitic attitudes and antisemitism is on the rise, it also shows us that more people in Germany are willing to actively resist nazism and antisemitism. That is a willingness to resist antisemitism without any incentive from the government. It is a willingness of German people to actively resist what those German citizens find to be immoral and abhorrent. Those are self made incentives without the influence of money or power which can and does easily influence government entities. Self made incentives are a kind of incentive that is far more effective than simple government mandates. And since those mandates have proven to be useless, it only makes a total ban on holocaust denial simply a symbolic policy. It's rendered nothing more than a decoration. The only people who actually have the power to do anything about antisemitism, and have the right kind of incentive, are society themselves. A government will not be able to that.
Thank you for reading this. I will now send it back to pro.
Round 4
To claim that my point about Germany was "ripe with assumptions and speculation" is to mischaracterize it. Should Germany turn Nazi again, the ban on Holocaust-denial would be dropped. Under no circumstances would Nazis punish someone for Holocaust-denial, so this is I feel an irrefutable argument. Or does Con deny that a ban on Holocaust-denial is proof that Nazis are not in power? Legalizing Holocaust-denial is a step towards Nazism, not neutral towards or opposed to it.
Ultimately nobody knows whether Germany will succumb to National Socialism in the near future, but my opponent's take on this demonstrates a defeatist attitude toward politics. Can we ever put an end, once and for all, to all violent crime? Imagine allowing murder because it's possible that, in the near future, murder will occur despite the illegality of it. Denial of the Holocaust should be outlawed in spite of how ineffective, at any given time, the enforcement of the ban is. I assume no voter will disagree with me here when I say that a police force doing a terrible job at preventing crime is not evidence that all crime should be legalized. Reality is not The Purge.
Supposedly, 5% of British adults are Holocaust-deniers. This implies that if the number of people who think the Holocaust didn't "finish the job" is a significant proportion of Neo-Nazis, they'd have to comprise a number approaching or exceeding 5%. It's highly unlikely that about 5% of British are anti-Semites yet not Holocaust-deniers, because that would make 10% of Britain anti-Semitic, so assuming these numbers are representative of the USA means we can rest assured that banning Holocaust-denial hits Neo-Nazism where it hurts.
Regarding my comment about brainwashing the masses, I did not mean to imply that anyone is unintelligent. Especially not the German people. The point I was trying to make was, there were tens of millions of otherwise intelligent Germans who succumbed to Nazi propaganda. It's a safe assumption they weren't all stupid, but then again nobody ever suggested that. Rarely does one have time to truly evaluate what they hear, much less an avalanche of lies propagated day-in, day-out from official sources in every aspect of one's life. We must spare the public from this malicious burden. Anyone interested in the intellectual pursuit of historical study of the Holocaust would not be prevented by the law I propose in any way.
You propose, as a thought experiment, that I sympathize with Holocaust-deniers who are "dedicated to their families and jobs and the people they love." But what evidence is there that Holocaust-deniers are actually functioning members of society? Don't make me laugh.
Even I admit that I am not immune to propaganda, and would appreciate a bare-minimum attempt by my government to restrict rampant lies, libel, and slander from being published as fact by the media, whether mainstream or from some corner of the dark web. The conspiracy theorists are not special in the eyes of defamation laws, after all.
Nazism had its beginnings as a social movement, so it is highly amusing that my opponent would charge me with disregarding the power of social movements. Educating people on why Holocaust-deniers are wrong is not sufficient, because by giving them a platform we have already conceded half the battle. Vaccine-deniers are not debated publicly on TV, are they? Nazism and Holocaust-denialism are far worse, and so should not even be debated on the street.
I am still curious whether my cordial opponent shall admit that he would not allow Constitution-denial, because it would be interesting whether they they think there is even any sort of denial at all so outrageous that it should be illegal.
Should denazification have never taken place, and should the government mandates against Nazism today be removed? According to my opponent, yes, because they are "absolutely useless". When we consider the fact that Germany has not turned Nazi again, despite an alleged 1 in 4 Germans being anti-Semitic, we can see that these regulations have actually been successful in the most important way.
The desire of Germans to resist Nazism is all well and good, but if 1 and 4 are already anti-Semitic, official government action must be taken because civilian efforts are not enough.
I return the floor to Con.
In lieu of the fact that my opponent now willfully asserts that their proposal should be implemented even if it can be demonstrated to be ineffective, I do not feel the need to elaborate on this issue until my opponent addresses the fact that their proposal can certainly be shown to be ineffective. I will leave it up to the judges to decide whether it would actually be beneficial to infringe on our liberty and implement my opponents policy just as a symbolic gesture and not for results. I invite my opponent to address the large gaping hole in their argument.
Round 5
No gaping hole exists in my arguments.
Observe how my opponent uses the word "liberty" as code for "liberty to deny Holocaust victims closure, call them liars, and accuse them of fabricating the worst tragedy ever to befall humanity":
I will leave it up to the judges to decide whether it would actually be beneficial to infringe on our liberty and implement my opponents policy just as a symbolic gesture and not for results.
This is liberty?
Constitutionally-guaranteed freedom?
In the words "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" I am supposed to find, hidden away in some dark, web-infested crevice, license to libel?
For sure, I am not accusing my opponent of deliberate deception. Examine how they describe my proposed policy as a "symbolic gesture". Results are lacking, supposedly. Under this assumption, there is no harm in implementing my policy, since again, according to them, it's just a symbolic gesture.
Per my own arguments, it would have positive effects by curbing anti-Semitism.
So my opponent argues against it by claiming it's useless. I argue for it, since it can save milions of lives.
How can one forbid a policy whose aim is to save human lives, based purely on the rationale that they don't think it will be effective?
A building is prepared for demolition. On the off-chance some poor soul is inside, I recommend we yell and give them a chance to escape.
Here we have my opponent refusing to let us do that, and denying whoever may be inside, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Sad ...
1. My opponent insists on arguing against libel regardless of the fact that this discussion is strictly about holocaust denial. My opponent would make a better case if this discussion were about libel only, but unfortunately it is not. My opponent did not object to the definition of holocaust denial that I provided, and it does not include the term libel in any sense. Instead of closing that hole in their argument, pro instead opted to double down on their assertion. Simply questioning the methods of data compilation by allied forces, or first hand descriptions of witnesses and victims of the holocaust is not libel. So pro's argument that holocaust denial is automatically libel holds no water.
2. Pro did nothing to attack any of the evidence I provided which demonstrates there is a serious lack of evidence that pro's proposal is effective in any manner whatsoever. I provided evidence which suggests that regardless of the strict holocaust denial laws that have been implemented in Germany, still large portions of German society(the majority in fact) have antisemitic attitudes. My opponent neglected to show that German antisemitism is not less than, or even equal to Americans who have antisemitic attitudes. This means my opponent could not give us any valid evidence that their proposal has any desired effect. There still are pro nazi political organizations in Germany that are very influential in German society, including the NDP who tries to appeal to the "common man" to get their message across.
3. Pro believes common working class people who oppose antisemitism and authoritarian sentiments have not the time or power to stop the threat of antisemitism and pro-nazism. Despite the fact that many antisemitic peoples obviously also have jobs and families to provide for, pro somehow believes it is they who are more influential and capable of spreading their heinous message, and those who are not antisemitic are too busy, and too easily persuaded by the unscientific methods of holocaust deniers. Not only is that an offensive assertion, it is most certainly false in every manner. We are not mindless sheep who are persuaded by bullshit artists with trendy catchphrases. We are thoughtful and capable resistors.
4. Regardless of the fact that my opponent did nothing to refute my claims their proposal is ineffective, my opponent chose instead to double down on their proposal by claiming it should be implemented even if it has no desirable affect. Not only does that turn pro's proposal into nothing more than a decorative symbolic policy, it needlessly impedes on peoples liberty. This is the most damaging aspect to pro's argument. I pointed out how antisemitic people can simply go ahead and embrace the true numbers of the holocaust and push a narrative of the holocaust simply being an unfinished job. Since this could be considered the opposite of the desired effect of pro's proposal, it can be argued that pro's proposal would only serve to exacerbate the problem, not help it.
With all the evidence and claims put forward in this discussion, it is my firm belief that the voters of this debate should vote con.
I'd like to personally thank my friend Puachu for allowing me the opportunity to make my case here, and for and interesting discussion. Good luck Puachu, and thanks to those of you who have taken interest in this discussion.
Thanks 😊
I find it disappointing that we cannot give out any points for style when we vote because I feel that it is an important aspect of the debate, and @Puachu does deserve a shout out for that.
The thought steam was as I was reading it. I thought the end decision would be a lot harder. Additionally with my messed up upbringing, I would have left things tied if there was any doubt to either direction.
If I could apply a bonus point over to pro for quality and effort, I would. I definitely saw merit to the greater theme, but with on onus particularly just for the USA, it fell short due to con's rebuttals.
As expected, a very interesting RFD. Did not disappoint. Thought-stream RFDs are the best!
I am surprised that I did not get any points, but I can't complain.
By the way, copy-pasting the same paragraph in 2 different rounds was an accident. I thought I had run out of room so I had saved it to my computer for the next round. Apparently, I had not actually run out of room.
Thank you for the uncomfortably detailed analysis of your vote.
---Expanded RFD (1 of 2)---
Going to write this as a thought stream. It is not all inclusive.
Pro almost immediately challenges the assumed point of dispute of freedom of speech, most notably in saying that not banning the denial would promote a repeat of the genocide (FYI, a common line from neo-nazis is that the hollocaust didn’t happen, but since the jews faked it, they deserve that to happen for real). I got to say, the opening could have been stronger; perhaps with some cited example of repeated crime from denial of crime.
Con opens with definitions (while it may seem like overkill, there was a recent debate on a myth I was unfamiliar with, which due to lacking a primer on it, I really couldn’t properly weigh). Before going into a rather effective quote (please make it more obvious when quoting). Then making a rather nifty point: “disallowing the survivors and their families the chance to answer to the accusations of holocaust deniers, or the survivors chance to hold holocaust deniers accountable” and goes on to make a point about lack of evidence that the laws in 17 countries have actually curbed antisemitism. Then backed this with a study on Germany.
Pro makes a good opening comeback, challenging that con cited an antisemite. Something felt off about this, and it held as pro used a pretty obvious slippery slope and false dilemma that to not ban holocaust denial means it must therefore be encouraged. He gets back on track with going into that we should acknowledge there are limits (intuitively tying things back to his early point about shouting fire in a theater). Pro moves on to explain the success of some antisemitism to attempts to censor it, which would seem to be con’s point rather than his own. He then boldly claims that if not for banning holocaust denial, Germany would have repeated it.
Con of course gets into pro misrepresenting his case, and points out that libel and slander and off topic. Then asserts the benefit of allowing data analysis for verification. He made an interesting assertion that if there is a ban people will work around it to say the good works were not finished… Which much like his request for evidence from his opponent, I would like to see evidence of this happening where the denial is forbidden.
Pro defends that holocaust denial is slander and libel, using a punny gas analogy. And proclaims that accepting libel and something lawsuit worthy is basically a confession of the whole topic (I find this immediately dubious, due to how limited pro’s case on this was in the previous round). He does however make a good point that the first victims of any violence encouraged by deniers would logically be survivors of the original atrocity.
Con’s reply this round opened on a mixed point. Declaring the audience part of the masses pro talked about perhaps unduly poisons the well if believed. I think it goes a bit far with the “raised by wolves” declaration putting words in pro’s mouth. And yet, the language does get his point across quite well… Hence, it’s mixed; or at least my feelings toward it are.
Con goes into a point about comparing the deniers to the masses, ultimately denying that they would be more effective at lying than similar (but non-vile) people seeing through it. This is pretty risky, since it invites statistics on fake news, but we’ll see if that develops or not. Further supporting this he makes a point about positive social movements (while intuitively true, some citation of their impacts would have really solidified this).
---Expanded RFD (2 of 2)---
Pro opens R4 with a copy/paste from his previous closing. Then compares not having it banned to making murder legal ala The Purge. He does do a good counter to con’s point about social movements, with Nazis proving they can be dangerous too (citing the frequency of hate groups would have been very effective here). He ends with a declaration of victory from Germany not repeating the holocaust due to denial being forbidden there, and states that that the con wishes holocaust denial be to legalized over there (and in other countries), which is straying from the resolution of the USA.
Con latches onto pro admitting such a ban would likely be ineffective, and basically rests his case.
Final round…
Got to right away caution pro on the use of quotation marks around things an opponent has not actually written (the italics saved the day, but it’s still dangerous territory).
Pro argues that if their policy would be ineffective, there is no reason not to implement it… Then insists it could potentially save millions of lives. I got to say, this is a powerful piece of rhetoric, and under blindly implemented impact analysis on a spreadsheet it would ultimately win automatically (assuming any chance above zero; which is why sources to warrant points are important).
Con does not maintain resting their case, but does final defenses. Let’s see, questions are not automatically libel; that Germany even with anti-denial laws is more antisemitic than the USA; an appeal to people being better than they’ve proven to be (tied back to if the audience is part of the masses); and a repeat of the unfinished job point.
There's no hurry at all. Please take your time. I did not mean to come off as demanding or in a rush! I am just really interested in your opinion. And I liked your vote on my first-ever debate here.
Also, I would be more than happy to return the favor, but you don't seem to have any in voting period at the moment.
Just got the final round left to read. However, I have some things to get done today.
" By figuratively speaking, I mean I have heard people call for the death penalty for undocumented immigrants who return after being deported."
I haven't been to the south, so I wouldn't know if this is accurate or out of context. If they were advocating the death penalty to undocumented immigrants THAT COMMIT MURDER, then that's merely supporting the death penalty for murder. Regardless of one's opinion on the death penalty, I think most people think it's okay to advocate the death penalty for murderers. But if you call for killing 11 million undocumented immigrants, you should be called out on it. If someone advocates the death penalty for undocumented immigrants (or if someone advocates the death penalty for Jews), the ideal thing to do wouldn't be to ban their speech, but to counter it with why you don't think undocumented immigrants or Jews deserve the death penalty.
There was this guy with a southern accent that came to my state that did advocate for, "Shooting the Mexicans" on the basis that they were taking his job. I would counter that with the claim that
"in addition to being a worker, every immigrant is also a customer. Workers take jobs, but customers create jobs at a proportional rate. If America's population quadrupled, the demand for jobs would quadruple, but the supply would also quadruple. This is why nobody advocates for banning 20 year olds from working on the basis that they, "take the jobs" of older people. The resident in a country creates their own supply for jobs in addition to being a worker that requires one"
Counterspeech is the best way to deal with extreme ideologies. Banning ideologies is not how America ought to function.
"The gay rights movement began in the 1920s. The immigration controversy began in the 1960s. 8 years is I think an excessively conservative estimate."
If your dates are accurate, I'd believe your numbers over mine. 8 years was a guess because I thought Biden would legalize undocumented immigration similar to how Obama legalized gay marriage. But "immigration controversy" has always been a thing in the US. The Irish used to be discriminated against. Then that died down. Same with the Chinese, the Italians, the Jews, the Mexicans, and now with undocumented immigrants. The anti open borders crowd resembles the communist crowd in that neither side learns from history.
I'll probably cast a vote this weekend.
Quite glad there's a long voting window.
My mistake, I should have clarified that I was referring to the controversy over specifically Hispanic immigration.
Try 1882 bud. Chinese Exclusion Act
"Very few Trump supporters would for instance advocate burning them at the stake because they “broke the law”."
Figuratively speaking, this is more-or-less the case in the southern USA. By figuratively speaking, I mean I have heard people call for the death penalty for undocumented immigrants who return after being deported.
"I imagine undocumented rights are roughly 8 years behind gay rights in the US."
The gay rights movement began in the 1920s. The immigration controversy began in the 1960s. 8 years is I think an excessively conservative estimate.
“ That's somewhat different than abandoning the throne. And their power has been gradually reduced over centuries. They didn't devolve into a political figurehead all at once.”
True, but the monarchs nonetheless consensually gave up power.
“ People complain about lots of things in the US, including poverty. Any hardship could be the spark that ignites such a chain of events.”
In the US, people complain about poverty, but the odds of the Jews being scapegoated for their poverty are slim. Undocumented immigrants might be on the chopping block, but I think people (even devout Trump supporters) have their limits on how harsh they should be towards undocumented immigrants. Very few Trump supporters would for instance advocate burning them at the stake because they “broke the law”. If every law breaker was burned at the stake, America would cease to be the liberty republican the founders intended. If any lawbreaker was burned at the stake, it would violate the 8th amendment. Undocumented immigrants are more likely to be treated better by the government than worse in the future. I imagine undocumented rights are roughly 8 years behind gay rights in the US.
“ People complain about lots of things in the US, including poverty. Any hardship could be the spark that ignites such a chain of events.”
The Bible would be a competitive choice with Mein Kamf. I don’t know what he picked.
If you don’t want to respond out of a need to focus on a debate, that’s understandable.
You make some good points. I will try to respond to a couple, since I'm working on my other debate.
"I’m not a history expert, but the British monarch gave up their power voluntarily I think."
That's somewhat different than abandoning the throne. And their power has been gradually reduced over centuries. They didn't devolve into a political figurehead all at once.
"Germany was extremely impoverished due to the treaty of Versailles, so they would elect anyone to solve their problems, including Hitler. Now, extreme poverty is extremely rare in the US, so it won’t cause the Nazis to get elected, even if their ideology becomes more moderate."
People complain about lots of things in the US, including poverty. Any hardship could be the spark that ignites such a chain of events.
"I haven’t read Mein Kamf and I haven’t read excerpts from it, so I wouldn’t know. But I think your opponent is going to think the book is evil, but that something like the communist manifesto is worse. Regardless, I might vote on it."
Your vote would be appreciated. By the way, I'm already completely certain they are going to use the Bible.
“ That is not true for the eastern half of the globe. Are you only referring to the western half? There have been literal Holocaust-denying presidents in the Middle East.”
I was thinking in the US. But if leaders are elected to countries that deny the Halocaust, you can’t ban all their supporters. Moreover, these leaders haven’t genocide Jews. They merely oppose the state of Israel’s existence.
“ I don't understand how you can say even if Nazis "rise again" they can't commit genocide. What would stop them?”
Because parties change ideologies. It would be like saying in 1880 that it should be illegal to be a democrat because the democrats used to support slavery. When the democrats in 1880 got elected, they didn’t bring back slavery because they knew if they tried, they would lose elections. Anyone running under the Nazi platform has to have views more moderate than in WWII to get elected.
“ That was not the case 100 years ago. Why would it be different today?”
Germany was extremely impoverished due to the treaty of Versailles, so they would elect anyone to solve their problems, including Hitler. Now, extreme poverty is extremely rare in the US, so it won’t cause the Nazis to get elected, even if their ideology becomes more moderate.
“ You can't make a king step down by asking nicely, you know? ”
I think it has happened fairly frequently. I’m not a history expert, but the British monarch gave up their power voluntarily I think.
“ The USA advocated violence in separating from Great Britain, but nobody is complaining about that.”
The violence from the revolutionary war is over. If we let people commit partisan violence, then this would allow people like radical pro lifers to burn down planned parenthood places and it would allow radical pro choicers to burn down pro life places. We can’t have people killing each other over ideological differences. This would break up the US.
“ You have inspired me to start a new debate: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3031-mein-kampf-is-the-most-evil-and-incoherent-book-to-have-ever-been-written”
I haven’t read Mein Kamf and I haven’t read excerpts from it, so I wouldn’t know. But I think your opponent is going to think the book is evil, but that something like the communist manifesto is worse. Regardless, I might vote on it.
"I think the proportion of people scapegoating Jews today are very small. Such people have virtually no chance of starting a new Halocaust."
That is not true for the eastern half of the globe. Are you only referring to the western half? There have been literal Holocaust-denying presidents in the Middle East.
"I’m not willing to be killed by the Nazis for not supporting their ideology, but I don’t think Nazism is going to rise again, or if it does, it can’t genocide whole groups of people as part of their ideology."
I don't understand how you can say even if Nazis "rise again" they can't commit genocide. What would stop them?
"Letting Nazis speak probably will turn more people off to them in the long run"
That was not the case 100 years ago. Why would it be different today?
"similarly to if you think communism is about equality, your more likely to support it than if you read Karl Marx’s writings and see the violence it advocates for."
I haven't read all of Karl Marx's writings but I don't recall seeing anything beyond calls for the violence of the typical "rise up and revolt" nature. You can't make a king step down by asking nicely, you know? Besides, the term "advocating violence" is kind of misleading. The USA advocated violence in separating from Great Britain, but nobody is complaining about that.
"If people interested in Nazism read Mein Kamf, and they see how brutal it is, they often get turned off from it."
You have inspired me to start a new debate: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3031-mein-kampf-is-the-most-evil-and-incoherent-book-to-have-ever-been-written
I am not challenging you to it though, since I believe we are on the same side, but you might be interested if I actually find an opponent.
“ Are you implying nobody is scapegoating Jews today?”
I think the proportion of people scapegoating Jews today are very small. Such people have virtually no chance of starting a new Halocaust. Denying the Halocaust is like denying colonialism(which killed more people than the Halocaust). You’d be wrong if you said colonialism never happened, but it’s your right to say it, either as a joke or if your serious.
“ I was asking, are you willing to be killed by Nazis for not supporting their ideology, since based on your arguments you would have supported their speech which allowed them to rise into power in the first place.”
I’m not willing to be killed by the Nazis for not supporting their ideology, but I don’t think Nazism is going to rise again, or if it does, it can’t genocide whole groups of people as part of their ideology.
Some would say Trump is a Nazi based on his treatment towards undocumented immigrants. I don’t support what Trump supports, but he has the right to say it. It is political suicide to censors popular group like Trump supporters and pointless to censor a small group like Nazis. Letting Nazis speak probably will turn more people off to them in the long run, similarly to if you think communism is about equality, your more likely to support it than if you read Karl Marx’s writings and see the violence it advocates for. If people interested in Nazism read Mein Kamf, and they see how brutal it is, they often get turned off from it.
I've had more time to properly read your comment, and would like to address a couple points you made.
"They came into power because the Treaty of Versailles crippled the German economy and the Germans were willing to vote for anyone promising to bring drastic change to Germany to restore the German economy. The Germans needed a scapegoat (they actually had many scapegoats). If the treaty of Versailles wasn't so cruel to Germany, then there would be no Holocaust"
Are you implying nobody is scapegoating Jews today?
"I don't have to be. I do not support the ideology of Nazism."
I was asking, are you willing to be killed by Nazis for not supporting their ideology, since based on your arguments you would have supported their speech which allowed them to rise into power in the first place.
Very well then. But why so much secrecy about what appears to be a pretty transparent joke? I thought it was funny myself 😁
Want to DM me the joke?
I was kidding. I would tell you the point of the joke (if you don't already get it) but I don't feel that it'd be appropriate given that the debate is still in the voting period.
I disagree with Puachu, but he has the right to his opinion.
"Didn't the Nazis start off as a "small group of people"?"
The Nazis were relatively small, but they didn't come to conduct the Holocaust because they were allowed to convince others, at least not just that by its self. They came into power because the Treaty of Versailles crippled the German economy and the Germans were willing to vote for anyone promising to bring drastic change to Germany to restore the German economy. The Germans needed a scapegoat (they actually had many scapegoats). If the treaty of Versailles wasn't so cruel to Germany, then there would be no Holocaust because the German economy wouldn't have been so wrecked that they wouldn't scapegoat their problems on the Jews. The Nazis would have been this very small German party that virtually no one outside of Germany would know and they wouldn't get to power to conduct the Holocaust had there been no treaty of Versailles that was super harsh to Germany. Given that the world has gotten significantly more peaceful over the last few years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts#:~:text=Wars%20%281%2C000%E2%80%939%2C999%20combat-related%20deaths%20in%20current%20or%20past,%20%2025%2C000%2B%20%209%20more%20rows%20), I think war may be in our past and peace may be what the world is looking to to help save lives and to boost the economy.
"Right. Prisons shouldn't be outlawed just because inevitably, an innocent person will be jailed. But 6 million? At what point do you put your foot down and admit reality has proven the need of an exception to an idealistic policy?"
Well, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples, it states, "Similar to the European Colonization of The Americas, the death toll under the British Empire is estimated to be as high as 150 million.[200][201]". This means that internationally, a typical person was 25x as likely to die from the British Empire(and all the concentration camps that resulted from that) as they were to die as someone who is both a Jewish person and a victim of Hitler's single concentration camp. Yet virtually everyone believes in the right to support colonialism, and not only that, 43% of the British population supports not just the right to support colonialism, but they support colonialism its self (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/shortcuts/2016/jan/20/empire-state-of-mind-why-do-so-many-people-think-colonialism-was-a-good-thing). Are we going to outlaw the opinions of 43% of the population? That sounds like something a Nazi would do.
"Would you be okay being in the victims' position, and become a martyr for "freedom of speech" at the hands of neo-Nazis?"
I don't have to be. I do not support the ideology of Nazism. However, your profile says you are a communist, so you don't support the idea of low taxes. However, you still probably support the right of someone to believe in low taxes, even if you disagree with this idea. Similarly, although I don't support Nazism, I support the right to be a Nazi.
"By the way, your vote would be appreciated on this debate."
I read both of your arguments. I feel like my vote is going to be biased, so I'd rather not vote.
That's a bold comment from someone who hasn't yet cast a vote to back it up 😉
We still have several months before the voting is ended on our discussion, so we don't yet know for sure if all of the voters bought my arguments. I also can't say that I wouldn't use the same tactic of challenging my opponent to deny, or admit to something.
Any statement "X speech should be outlawed in the USA" should be outlawed in the USA
Thanks for the thoughtful response, I did not expect such insight. To be honest, I was trying to pressure you into directly answering those questions. I expected you would, because I figured it'd make your case look weaker if you glossed over them. But you interpreted things quite differently! So did the voters, apparently.
Anything that you said does not fall outside of my description of normal debate rhetoric, so nothing you said made me feel that you were being aggressive. I think what fauxlaw was referring to was the statement in the last sentence in your second round in which you said "I challenge Con to explicitly deny this." I can't think of exactly what it was that you were hoping I would explicitly deny, but I don't think I did anyway and just brushed it off as an emotional appeal and normal debate rhetoric. I think I remember you saying something else along those lines at another point, but it didn't make me bat an eye. I also don't think Fauxlaw thought about it that much either because they still split the vote for us on the civility point. I just think they were trying to tell us for future reference that potential voters could view that as taunting and possibly cost you the civility point in the future, but I myself would not be one of those voters that think so, and neither did Fauxlaw.
I would appreciate your opinion on what fauxlaw said here:
"Pro's repeated charges to Con to "explicitly deny" pro arguments, which bordered on unnecessary taunting"
It was not my intention to come off as hostile.
Thank you for taking interest in this discussion, and for the vote.
The typos are okay, haha. No worries.
"Denying the Halocaust by a very small group of people won’t lead to a new Halocaust."
Didn't the Nazis start off as a "small group of people"?
"Moreover, even if it did, just because a policy saves lives doesn’t mean it should be enacted."
Right. Prisons shouldn't be outlawed just because inevitably, an innocent person will be jailed. But 6 million? At what point do you put your foot down and admit reality has proven the need of an exception to an idealistic policy? Do we let people die for pure sentimental value? Would you be okay being in the victims' position, and become a martyr for "freedom of speech" at the hands of neo-Nazis?
"If you want to ban denying the Halocaust, how would you punish it?"
Whatever is effective, I haven't even thought of that.
By the way, your vote would be appreciated on this debate. You seem to have some well thought-out opinions already.
Sorry, I never won any spelling bees and my computer didn't spell check it for me.
Mm - its more the fact that sympathy doesn't make a valid point here. I think you should sympathize with everyone to *some* degree, its more the fact that I don't think your argument was valid regarding the aforementioned rhetoric.
I appreciate that you took the time to read this discussion and vote on it, I just wanted to make sure you know that I would never ask anybody to have sympathy for nazi sympathizers.
I am surprised at some things you said, like suggesting I was approaching a conduct violation for asking my opponent to "explicitly" address certain points (challenges which they repeatedly turned down), but I appreciate the vote either way. Thank you!
Thanks for the vote! I am happy of course that it was cast in my favor but any and all votes are appreciated. Keep them coming!
I really want to respond, but I am stuck on how you mispelled Holocaust 4 out of 5 times in only 6 sentences.
Doesn't really correlate - also you do realize that extending empathy and allowing someone to express and (most likely oppress people based on that belief) are not the same thing? You can outlaw the perspective while extending empathy, I don't even necessarily agree with the resolution, but I think that Puachu won this debate easily - you often made non-sequiturs and this is a perfect example of that. Having more logic doesn't necessarily mean that that logic is more sound.
Denying the Halocaust by a very small group of people won’t lead to a new Halocaust. Moreover, even if it did, just because a policy saves lives doesn’t mean it should be enacted. Forcing western taxpayers to pay $6 trillion a year to pay for food in 3rd world countries would prevent 30 million deaths every decade(Basically preventing a Holocaust every decade). However, this policy would be tyrannical, it would be an infringement of our freedoms and it should not be enacted even if it prevents a Halocaust every decade. Freedom is dangerous as hell but I love it.
If you want to ban denying the Halocaust, how would you punish it?
Just so we're clear, I never asked anybody to have sympathy for nazi sympathizers, nor would I ever do such a thing even for the sake of being a devil's advocate. I was showing that the idea of nazi sympathizers simply being jobless outcasts with no sense of familial structure is a dangerous miscalculation. It is the very reason the nazis were able to eventually become the majority party in Germany because nobody believed a bunch of Ruben country misfits could ever become the majority party in Germany. The German people were complacent and bet against the stupid underdogs and didn't realize their mistake until hitler declared himself the undisputed leader of Germany and outlawed all other opposition parties. I fail to see how rejecting the same foresight the German people wish they hadn't would be beneficial to any of us now by just painting nazi sympathizers as jobless hicks who only live on the outer fringes of society. I asked that we extend some EMPATHY to them by realizing nazi sympathizers also have families and jobs and function as productive citizens also, and if we just assume they'll never be a viable political or social movement because they're just hicks, then we'll be making the same mistake the German people did. We must do the work of deconstructing their supposed political ideals ourselves and not just rely on a government mandate. If we just stand back and let the good people do the work of resisting nazism, then we take ourselves out of the running to be the good people doing that good work. What will happen if ALL the good people just stand by and wait for the good people they are expecting to come up out of nowhere and do all the resisting for us? I'm pretty sure the German people can tell you what will happen!!!!!
Seconded!
If you have the time, it'd be nice if you could slap a vote on this mutha fucka.
A little bit of that cordialness may, or may not be an attempt to swoon the voters into thinking I'm an approachable and sweet person. But yes, it was an enjoyable discussion.
I appreciate it, same to you. This has been my most cordial argument on the internet yet, especially considering the topic.
Thanks for the interesting discussion, and good luck to you.
Bold move, Cotton.
Very well, we've still got a ways to go so this should keep things interesting.
I tried a more emotionally driven approach this time. I hope you'll keep in mind that it is chock full of emotionally driven rhetoric, but none of it is personal. I also keep having to trim the fat out of my arguments to meet the character limit.