It is a fact that 6mil people died in the holocaust

Allowing him to kritik your argument doesn't solve anything.

Well I never said that he couldn't kritik my argument. I have to say, looking back, my argument was pretty poor, not necessarily from a conduct point of view, but actual effectiveness. There are plenty of ways PRO could have easily swept the floor here. For example, he can say "whilst it is true that 17 million people died in the Holocaust, it is still true to say that 6 million people died. After all, 6 million people did die, didn't they". Factually, the statement "6 million people died in the Holocaust" is as factual as "my great aunt died in the Holocaust". Both of them are true, but don't take into account all the other victims, which isn't necessarily an issue.

I don't know what this is supposed to tell me. Your K lacks a RotB, an Impact, and an Alt. As it stands now, your argument is more closely related to a trick.

I understand why people run this kind of stuff against poorly-worded resolutions occasionally (hell, even I have done it) because it makes people write a better res, but the "mil means thousand" stuff is not necessary.

Never said anything about flashiness. I talked about the importance of discussing substantive issues.

http://tiny.cc/Kritik

Written by the man himself.

Have fun with your flashy sword duels. I am sticking with the simple stab to the nape.

If everyone did it, debates would become very boring and would detract from the interesting substantive issues which are part of what make debating an enjoyable experience in the first place.

Why? it is effective.

You shouldn't run "kritiks" like this, Con.

Yeah I can see how this could be seen as a bad faith Kritik, but drlebronski didn't even try to combat it and conceded in the second round.

This debate could have actually been won very easily by the instigator with the use of a kritik. Very easily.

It would most certainly not be wrong for you to argue that the figure is almost double what is in the resolution. That being said, you obviously stumbled onto a poorly worded resolution and obviously @drlebronski was hoping to argue that the holocaust was not overexaggerated like a denier would claim. So even though you would be correct if you argued for he higher number, I personally would not vote on this debate because the instigator obviously misspoke and the resolution was not their intended message. I personally think you should allow the instigator to abort this debate and repost a more properly worded debate.

I agree with you but this debate was mainly on the topic of jews in the holocaust i 100% agree with you about "The holocaust consisted of Jewish, ethnic and religious sterilization, among other things, it was not just a Jewish killing spree." i should have specified it was mainly about jews sorry

"I hope your opponent does not try to argue that the actual agreed upon number is closer to 12million"

The holocaust consisted of Jewish, ethnic and religious sterilisation, among other things, it was not just a Jewish killing spree. Would would be wrong with arguing this?

I know its 12 million i should have specified we were talking about jews

I hope your opponent does not try to argue that the actual agreed upon number is closer to 12million, because that is the actual agreed upon number. Six million Jews were murdered, and close to another six million gentiles (non-Jews) were also murdered.

lol

lol

6 million seems a stretch. Why couldn't it be 5,999,999?