Holocaust denial legislation is driven by a desire to stigmatize dissent(fivesix)

Author: PREZ-HILTON

Posts

Total: 83
Topic's author
#1
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
Hello all, fivesix am looking for a serious contender for his debate 'Holocaust-denial legislation is driven more by a desire to criminalise thus stigmatise dissent than by a desire to mitigate harm, resulting from Holocaust denial, to individual Jews.' (https://www.debateart.com/debates/4119-holocaust-denial-legislation-is-driven-more-by-a-desire-to-criminalise-thus-stigmatise-dissent-than-by-a-desire-to-mitigate-harm-resulting-from-holocaust-denial-to-individual-jews)
fivesix will create a new debate when he find a serious contender.

Here is fivesix's argument if you want to hash out some stuff in this thread as well.

Good day and good luck to my opponent, Sir.Lancelot.

I begin by introducing the nation to most recently outlaw Holocaust denial: Canada. Trying to find the first source of the push for this effort has been challenging. One of the earliest mentions I can find online is here http://bit.ly/3xeg2w6, page 17:

In September 1997, at the opening of B'nai Brith Canada's International Symposium on Hate on the Internet, co-chair Lawrence Hart, stated that,

"The Internet may be seen as a great equalizer of information and disinformation, allowing Holocaust educators and Holocaust deniers to share the same legitimacy through search engines, bringing this pernicious form of antisemitism, racism and hate directly into the homes of children researching their history projects."
So here we have, 26 years ago, the internet, a tool of mass communication, being predicted to be "a great equalizer of information and disinformation". Yet today any dissenting views on the Holocaust are censored or buried across the internet, with many people unable to articulate a precise point of a Holocaust denier. They know they exist, but they know not what they say; and this pattern is repeated in this area of history, with dissenting views hidden but popular views promoted, even to the point where 'debunking' videos are available when the video or work being debunked is simply 'unavailable' as it is so difficult to find. So I suppose whomever has decided what side is disinformation has come out victorious, and we need not be so worried. Still, Holocaust-denial legislation is being pushed for worldwide, by the UN in 2022[http://bit.ly/3xecE4r] and by NGOs in the United States, arguably the last bastion of freedom of speech worldwide. From the remarks of Christopher Wolf, Founder and Chair, Anti-Defamation League Task Force on Internet Hate[http://bit.ly/3E0v90i]

... that is largely because of the legal framework in my home country, the US. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution establishes freedom of expression and protects virtually all speech, even the most repugnant such as Holocaust denial. The law may be used only if hate speech creates an imminent threat of violence or interferes directly with individuals' legal rights. Unlike in many countries, there is no human right to be free from the indignity of hate speech that can be balanced against another's right to free expression.

I think it is fair to say that under the First Amendment, the US is a de facto a haven for hate speech, essentially free from the strictures of the law, and Internet content can be published in the US and broadcast to the world. Although a former French Minister of Justice loudly said "Stop hiding behind the First Amendment at an OSCE conference on online hate speech," the fact is that the First Amendment and its expansive effects are here to stay.
Mr. Wolf sounds irritated that the First Amendment exists, referring to it as a "haven for hate speech."

Mr. Wolf, it is a haven for free speech, some of which you may consider to be hateful; it is not a haven for hate speech, whatever that actually is.

Would Wolf rather the First Amendment was given an exclusion for Holocaust denial? I can categorically say: yes. He goes on to conclude with suggestions that the alternative to introducing Holocaust-denial legislation where he cannot do it is to censor and override dissenting views:

Instead of the law as a first resort, I urge greater focus on education and counter-speech, and greater involvement of Internet intermediaries. These tools, in the end, have greater potential to combat online Holocaust denial.
This is a key point. Mr. Wolf does not show regard for individual Jews in this essay. Mr. Wolf was the chair of the ADL task force on internet hate. Mr. Wolf mentions 'denial' over 40 times in this essay, while mentioning 'Jew' only 8 times, none of which referring to individual Jews and 3 of which being in this revealing paragraph:

I want to provide a brief code to the discussion earlier at this conference of the appearance on Google Search of "Jew Watch" when the search term Jew was used. You should know that after discussions between the ADL and Google, Google agreed to post a sponsored link adjacent to the Jew Watch search listing pointing out that it is objectionable and providing a discussion of anti-Semitism and a link to an ADL site. This is an example of intermediary cooperation and the use of counter-speech, which should be promoted and expanded.


Topic's author
#2
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
Counter-speech, essentially, is partial censorship via interjection, or prohibiting the display of material without the opposing material, an activity that is promoted in reverse for the story of the WW2 Jewish Holocaust - you can look anywhere for examples of this, and here is one[http://bit.ly/3YHwxN1] - you will find, on third-party (i.e. not Holocaust memorial organisations or pro-Holocaust NGOs) information about how to teach the Holocaust story to children without any mention of information that does not support their story, of which there is plenty, when one is able to find it.

Mr. Wolf reveals his intent repeatedly, perhaps without realising it:

Of course, US-based Internet companies make efforts to comply with local speech codes outside the US, but even where compliance is attempted, the sheer volume of user postings makes compliance difficult to achieve. Especially with an issue as complex as hate speech, technological filters play a limited role.

"the sheer volume of postings" -- at what volume does it become a common opinion? And who is he to decide how 'postings' translate to harm to individual Jews, something he doesn't appear to care about as much as aggressively suppressing any discussion of the Holocaust beyond the scope of the popular narrative. People do not change their opinions when their views are censored and their voices are silenced. Censorship will not reduce harm caused to Jews, especially now, in the digital age, when we are seeing increasing efforts by ADL and the like to silence dissenting voices, meaning only that people are not satisfied by answers they have been given and are still talking about it, spreading their thoughts, 'dissenting', so they say.

I fully believe that censorship cannot result in less harm to individual Jews. There is no benefit to be had with silencing, for example, 37% of millennials and Gen Zers in Holland, a country with Holocaust-denial legislation, who believe that 2 million or fewer Jews were exterminated as part of the Holocaust[http://bit.ly/3K95ohQ] - they are all breaking the law. It is argued repeatedly that 'education' is the key to improving Holocaust knowledge. But what education can be provided? Considering that these students already learn about this topic in school and still deny it happened that way, in a country that has criminalised open disagreement with the established history of this time.

Holocaust memorial museums are persistently uninterested in performing evidence-based research, e.g. forensic excavations and topographical mappings, in my opinion for fear that they will expose discrepancies in a not-so-carefully crafted 'twist of truth' - I can't think of another reason than disorganisation or inconsideration of the dead, other than the potential for imprisonment if they discover something that contradicts the narrative and are forced to publish it in their results. If they want younger people to believe what they say, horror stories and censorship only forces those they want to instruct to focus their curious and skeptical minds on a hunt for answers the museums and Holocaust centres do not or cannot provide, eventually discovering the buried posts of Holocaust revisionism; evidently a great number of these people are been convinced there is something amiss.

This survey reveals the troubling and unwavering desire to try to hit numbers of 100% across the board for Holocaust acceptance. This is impossible. Even increasing the numbers is going to be unlikely unless they start to bring out new evidence that counters what the censored/buried revisonist movement has been working on for decades, in the dark to most, including a large proportion of those surveyed answering positively to the questions, I argue, for I know many of them cannot have stumbled across the opposite side of the discussion - it is something that must be sought out, never presented. And if millennials and Gen Zers aren't so easily convinced there is something wrong with the story, what made them answer '2 million or fewer' despite that in school they are bashed over the head with '6 million'? I'll tell you what: hard, objective science and logical deduction, something that resonates in the minds of the youth. It's not hate. It's debate. And NGOs such as ADL do not want debate.

Even with censorship and name-calling ("hatemongers", "neo-Nazis", etc), the revisionist arguments start to leak out. If it is hate, I am confused - subjectively, of course - for I have not found one hateful revisionist in all my time studying this topic. Those who use the word 'hate' are infinitely more aggressive and rude and illogical in their words than those who don't. So without censorship on this topic - could there be more harm to individual Jews? Potentially. It's not easy to know. It is a wide-ranging topic with so much controversy. But I do believe open and accepted debate on the matter should never be criminalised or stigmatised, for it pushes discussions underground and they become siloed in camps, resulting in anger and possibly violent reactions to what these people understandably consider unwarranted suppression of their human rights, namely articles 2, 19 and 26.2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
Hypothetically, if the Holocaust were a lie, which I and most revisionists I have encountered argue is a ridiculous notion, considering the ambiguity and breadth of meaning of the term, would individual Jews be responsible for that? I and most other reasonable persons would not say so. It would be at the very least a lesson to be learned from and not let happen again.

It is almost impossible to predict what would happen. But it is clear to me that the goal of criminalisation is to suppress dissent rather than mitigate harm. There is desire to mitigate harm, inherently of this effort, to individual Jews, at the very least because those making the effort are Jews, who it can be expected do not wish to be harmed as result of Holocaust denial, and at the most to all Jews; but my argument is that this is not the foremost desire: if indeed it was, all discussion of the Holocaust would be either open and free or fully criminalised, not only the dissenting side, considering the unavoidable reality of the persistence of Holocaust denial across ethnicities, nationalities and ages, giving credit to legitimate doubt, not hate - unless, of course, everybody who dissents is hateful, and it is irrational to believe such a thing when one knows just how many people can be counted in the definition "Holocaust denier."

See here an article by revisionist Thomas Dalton, PhD.: http://bit.ly/3K4PDsm where he presents the results, originally posted on Techpedia[http://bit.ly/3RRBtN4][http://bit.ly/3RQ7S6S] of demographical research to attempt to count and gauge Holocaust denial worldwide. I believe the original source is survey commissioned by ADL, which is summarised here by region[http://bit.ly/3YLl3Ie] and here by summary[http://bit.ly/3YHwNeX]

Note that some countries are at such a low figure that it would be ludicrous to consider denial legislation in them and surely it would be counterproductive to introduce it to government, further marginalising Jews who exist there as extreme minority groups. But: is that the foremost rationale for Jewish NGOs not having attempted this? After all, they aren't stopping with their attempts to do this. Since 2012[https://bit.ly/3HLwFEs] it has been criminalised in five countries, with bills pending in the Brazilian congress for a sixth. Israel pushes it at the UN.[https://bit.ly/3DZgN01] Surely if this continues this will cause issues for the minority groups of Jews in the plethora of countries whose populations do not generally believe the Holocaust happened and is fairly described by history? For it does seem like a waste of time to introduce such legislation in a country whose population disagrees with the premise of such; in effect, to bring such an idea to a country, you say you think they are 'lost' or 'not getting it' or 'not educated.'

And that begs the question: are those in the countries in which denial laws exist more educated somehow than those in which it doesn't? A crude correlation, perhaps, but one worth mentioning.

Still, education is not working. Especially when people are thrown into cells in Germany simply for being an expert witness in a trial of a denier, for example. Yes, simply stating your expert opinion as an expert witness will get you imprisoned if the opinion hints at or forms a conclusion that the Holocaust is not fairly described by history. Seems a tad... unnecessary... if the true goal is to educate and not to censor and conceal and suppress dissent. If the Holocaust did happen the way they say it happened, there should be no fear of people finding out it didn't - but that fear is clear in the active persecution of critical thought in countries such as Germany.

India, for example, is presented at 7% of people who believe the Holocaust happened and is fairly described by history. Even if this figure is inaccurate, the words of ADL et al. would be laughable here. 93% hatemongers. 90% hatemongers. Even 50% hatemongers is absolutely ridiculous. And far less ridiculous than the notion of Holocaust denial sounds to those in the countries in which it is censored/suppressed that have never heard the counterarguments to the popular history, I am sure.

Saudi Arabia: 3%
Brazil: 59%
Peru: 39%
South Africa: 20%
Australia: 82%
China: 42%
Russia: 50%
Canada 87%
Turkey: 26%
Poland: 62%
France: 78%
Indonesia: 3%

Now consider some typical statements that attempt to paint a picture of hate and anti-Semitism where there is no logical, fair reason to do so - such statements serve to close the door to open debate and resolution of discrepancy in the popular history:






Topic's author
#3
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
"Holocaust denial is a form of hate speech because it willfully promotes enmity against an identifiable group based on ethnicity and religion."[Raphael Cohen-Almagor, Holocaust Denial is Hate Speech, AMSTERDAM L. F., Fall 2009, at 33, 35; https://bit.ly/3K0guFW, page 6]
"Holocaust Denial is a Form of Hate"[http://bit.ly/3jU6Dab]
"Holocaust denial is an act of hate"[http://bit.ly/3K4v53d]
"The primary motivation for most deniers is anti-Semitism, and for them the Holocaust is an infuriatingly inconvenient fact of history."[Geri J. Yonover, Anti-Semitism and Holocaust Denial in the Academy: A Tort Remedy, 101 DICK. L. REV. 71 (1996);https://bit.ly/3K0guFW]

This type of statement is easy to find online. If disagreement, and objection, and desire to fill gaping holes left behind in history, is driven by a hatred of Jews, and Jewish leaders want this addressed, instead of pushing for legislation criminalising denial would it not be easier to commission a study to examine the claims of some of the more revered among the revisionists - whose arguments are almost completely ignored by mainstream historians - to put to bed their claims or at least objectively render them insignificant? Ignoring their objections and suppressing discussion thereof is not going to help reduce 'denial' and 'hate', and I argue it has gone the other way, in that people are now ignoring these repeated, baseless claims of 'hate' and hunting for the revisionist material they keep calling 'hateful': that it is censored and buried gives it more credibility when those calling it 'hate' repeatedly fail to address it directly. The longer I see this 'hate' propaganda without any seeming desire to attempt to sit down and discuss the revisionist arguments, the more I know attempts to criminalise denial originate in a desire to mitigate harm to popular history, caused by the glaring, unanswered questions on the Holocaust, not in a desire to mitigate harm to any individual, including Jews.

Carlo Mattogno, Germar Rudolf and Jürgen Graf are some of the more formidable names that are more likely to be attacked as characters than academically or scientifically challenged; a simple search on Amazon or Barnes & Noble will provide you with books about them or debunking them, or books by them not related to the Holocaust - but the original Holocaust-revisionism books written by them are alas unavailable - this is due to Amazon removing these books, not due to their breaking any laws - and you can see that for yourself if you navigate to amazon.com, put a USA ZIP code in, and perform the searches. A summary of this very Amazon action in a video here[http://bit.ly/3RTk6eL]

But when one digs up these books (http://bit.ly/3YK2gxe or http://bit.ly/3HT3lMm) one sees they are objectively scientific and/or critique-based in nature - claims of 'hate' and 'anti-Semitic' are no more than attempts to inhibit people looking for and reading these books lest they make their own decisions after examining both sides of the argument.

---

Back to Canada:

A more recent mention of the attempts to introduce legislation criminalising Holocaust denial is made in this 2022 article[http://bit.ly/3YLlxy3]:

Ottawa, ON – As part of Bill C-19, the Budget Implementation Act, the federal government has taken a stand against antisemitism in Canada by criminalizing Holocaust denial. This is an important development for Canadians, including the Jewish community who, spearheaded by the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, have long been advocating for this change to the criminal code. The cross-party support for criminalizing Holocaust denial demonstrates the understanding among all parties that antisemitism is an insidious threat, and more tools are needed to fight it.

Antisemitic hate crimes, the use of symbols of hate, and incidents of Holocaust denial and distortion are on the rise in Canada. Making Holocaust denial a criminal offence will raise public awareness of these dangers and provide the necessary legal tools to prosecute those who peddle this pernicious form of antisemitism.
Exactly how long they have been advocating for this change is not clear.

"Denying the Holocaust is a reliable predictor of radicalization and an indication that antisemitism is on the rise," said Gail Adelson-Marcovitz, Chair of the National Board of Directors of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA). "Rising antisemitism should be a concern for all Canadians because we know that what starts with the Jews never ends with the Jews. When antisemitism is allowed to flourish, it tears at the fabric of society to the detriment of all citizens.
"Holocaust denial is a reliable predictor of radicalisation" - well, of course it is, if the denial is a radical, or unpopular, notion.
"Holocaust denial is an indication that anti-Semitism is on the rise" - well, yes, that would make perfect sense, if 'anti-Semitism' is a label applied to any dissenting view on the story of the Holocaust.

These bloated press statements contradict themselves and, more importantly, are based on the presumption of right vs wrong. Holocaust right; dissent wrong. It's an archaic way of dealing with one of the most important events in modern history; and a typical argument against deniers is so untrue I could weep: "the Holocaust is one of the best documented events in history."

You can perform a web search for this claim and you will see many people saying it; but it simply isn't true. Did you know: approximately one third of all Holocaust victims are attributed to three camps (Sobibor, Treblinka, and Belzec) yet one revisionist claims we have no physical buildings at those sites, no physical evidence at those sites showing a genocide happened there, no bodies of victims, and only a handful of witnesses who claim to have been there when the Soviets arrived at the camps. This is detailed in a 4-hour documentary called "One Third of the Holocaust"[http://bit.ly/3E0uiwh] among other documentaries and books - perhaps if such claims were ridiculous, they should be given an unrestricted public forum so that they may be openly discredited. Instead, videos such as this are censored, blocked or buried from video-sharing websites like Youtube. There is a debunking site here[http://bit.ly/3YIfzy9] which makes decent, albeit presumptory and theoretical for the most part, arguments to the contrary - inspecting both source material and rebuttal should be permitted, so that we may all gain greater knowledge of this historical event through the differing opinions of others, considering that so much of the evidence begs interpretation before it may yield part of a conclusion.

A desire to censor and prevent open discussion on this topic is not only disrespectful to those who died, and to those Jews in existence today with relatives who died or went missing during WW2, but is a moral violation of the freedom to have and hold opinions, political or otherwise, and, more importantly to prevent isolation of groups from discourse, to share said opinions without fear of financial and legal repercussion.

The annual audit of anti-Semitic incidents is a record of reported hate crime incidents suffered my Jews in Canada. The reports are made by B'nai Brith Canada[http://bit.ly/3lqcbto] and are collected from several sources, including policing services and victims.



Topic's author
#4
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
Examining these reports, I begin to doubt the legitimacy of or malicious intent in some of the incident details. I have picked some awkward ones from the year 2000 and you can judge for yourself; indeed you're going to have to, because in the reports there are no citations, references, or any other sources. In the later reports there are pictures, but there are no links to books or newspaper editions.

A student walked in to a Toronto high school classroom and claimed that he would go into a bar mitzvah wearing swastikas and saying Heil Hitler.

The Human Resources Manager at the National offices of B'nai Brith Canada received a phone message stating "This is Mr. Hitler calling about the position you advertised and I'm just... you can call me back and Heil Hitler."

A Quebec judge responded to a synagogue congregation's application for a building permit with the slur "You people took 40 years to get out of the desert and I won't tolerate those kinds of delays here."
One important thing I want to note: hardly any of these anti-Semitic incidents are of a violent nature (as understood by the reporting breakdown by category). Due to the lack of source material to verify their truthfulness, even police reports or incident numbers, I find it telling that harassment incidents far outweigh vandalism incidents. Vandalism is easier to perform and is usually done at night when nobody is able to witness it. Harassment incidents can be fabricated at will ("this happened to a person" or "this happened to me" and there is no way to know it happened via the report - we simply must trust the report (and with it lobby for the creation of laws).


“There are countless unreported incidents, because they are [considered] ‘minor’, but we should be aware that they exist.” - A mother commenting on an antisemitic incident at her son’s sports game. [http://bit.ly/3RUevoB, page 11]

Well, it seems to me that there isn't much more minor than harassment, especially considering the light nature of a lot of these reports. For example, quite a lot of them are jokes about stereotypes. While still considered a hate crime by the victim, these jokes are commonplace across all peoples and are laughed off or ignored as a matter of course: what would be more minor? So I'm not sure what she (if this unnamed mother exists) is referring to with her claim. I do agree when she says there are 'countless' unreported incidents - that is simply because it is not possible to count them, if they even exist.

On page 6 of the 1989 report, B'nai Brith uses the term "the fantasy world of Holocaust denial." A strange and inconsiderate way to refer to a route of critical thought so purportedly dangerous and hateful. Preventing persons from entering a fantasy world: does this warrant a push for legislation? Remember: an individual, representing B'nai Brith, wrote this; and an individual, representing B'nai Brith, reviewed this; then B'nai Brith published it.
Fast forward to 2021, and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs calls it a "pernicious form of antisemitism."[http://bit.ly/3IeVUAm] Pernicious means, according to Merriam-Webster[http://bit.ly/3RU9Pio], "highly injurious or destructive : DEADLY"

I show this comparison only to highlight the meaninglessness of subjective terms such as 'fantasy world' and 'pernicious' when no specificity is given. It is clearly prudent to omit them; but I argue that they are used at the time of each respective publication for convincing effect: style over substance; manipulative, journalistic, poetic wording that disgraces victims of tragedies such as genocide. I implore you to ask: has this same stylistic approach been used in the potential creation of incident reports? We can't possibly know that; and, I emphasise, we can't know, based on the lack of sources in the reports, and even based on the nature of the reports (e.g. the centre was 'phoned' with information), if they happened or if they happened the way they are written in the reports. See, am I now at risk of being called an 'anti-Semitic incident denier?'

In that same report (1989), on page 3, B'nai Brith make reference to a criminal case involving James Keegstra, who was "found guilty of promoting hatred towards the Jewish community by teaching Holocaust denial and Jewish conspiracy theories to his high school students." On appeal, the conviction was quashed "because of constitutional arguments." As they have not detailed or even specified these, I have found the public record of that case here[http://bit.ly/40PdQJ9] Those "constitutional arguments" are detailed in the case summary and outcome:

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the prosecution of a high school teacher in Alberta for anti-Semitic statements in his class was a reasonable and justifiable limitation on freedom of expression. James Keegstra, a high-school teacher in Alberta, told his class that Jews were evil and doubted the occurrence of the Holocaust. He was charged with willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group, which he objected on the grounds of freedom of expression. The Court upheld Canadian legislation under which the teacher was charged because it did not suffer from vagueness or broadness, and sought to eliminate racism and hatred.

Essentially speaking: in 1989 Canada had the legal provisions in place to criminalise Holocaust denial, albeit in this instance after appeal. If a teacher can be convicted of Holocaust denial, so can any other citizen under the law there; this was not about his being a teacher, rather about his speaking publicly.

So, in round 2 I will try to see, considering that they were already in place, if these legal provisions had any noticeable effect on hate crimes reported by individual Jews (I am counting Jewish businesses as individuals when a report is made by the proprietor, as that is how it is done in the reports). What I want to know is: is there a reasonable rationale for implementing additional legislation to criminalise Holocaust denial, and does that relate to potential harm levied on individual Jews?

Thank you.


Topic's author
#5
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@fivesix
Your thread is up
#6
fivesix
fivesix's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 99
0
1
6
fivesix's avatar
fivesix
0
1
6
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Thanks for that.
#7
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Objectively, PRO's thesis is fatally flawed before any argument is considered.

  • PRO explicitly claims that every "group behind" every piece of Holocaust is driven by the same emotion but such precise cohesion is not only profoundly unlikely but also impossible to prove.  PRO promises that he can prove to our satisfaction that laws prohibiting Holocaust denialism in Israel, Germany, Brazil, Russia, and China are not only alike in originating from non-govermental movement sources but that he will prove that every one of those sources were passionately motivated by an identical set of emotional needs.  The idea that autocrats like Putin and Xi are driven by the same emotional response to Holocaust denialism as the children of the victims of the Holocaust in Israel or the children of the perpetrators of the Holocaust in Germany is patently, manifestly, objectively absurd and untrue.  We don't need argument to know factually that PRO's thesis is not just impossible to prove but impossible prima facie.
    • PRO tries to separate MOTIVE from DESIRE but this distinction is not supported by ordinary usage in the English language.  DRIVEN means "Obsessed; passionately motivated to achieve goals."  Not all who are movivated are DRIVEN but all who are DRIVEN are motivated and so PRO's attempt at making a unsupportable semantic distinction fails.
    • PRO self-contradicts by defining the debate as  "mostly theoretical and statistical."  All statistics are records of observations and therefore emprical evidence while theoretical arguments are by definition non-emprical.  That is, PRO has defined the debate as "mostly non-emperical and empirical" in nature.  In other words, PRO doesn't understand the meaning of at least one of those words.
    • PRO concedes his argument to CON in the definition of the debate.  PRO concedes that if he can prove a desire to stigmatize then " it's a given that there would be harm caused to the Jewish community" but  PRO claims that doesn't prove harm to individuals within that community.  PRO would have it that a proven harm to a forest does not prove harm to any individual tree but that's absurd, at least some individual trees must experience harm for it to be true that the forest is harmed- a forest is no more than a set of individual trees.  Likewise, PRO cannot concede harm to the Jewish Community without conceding harm to some individual Jews. Any Jewish community is no more than a set of individual Jews.
      • PRO ridiculously, falsely claims " also consider that there is no way for a community to collectively report to authorities a hate crime on itself so there is no way to find or gauge statistics on this."  Consider the example of the Klan burning a cross across the street from a Black Church or a noose hanging a school cafeteria or anti-semitic graffitti in a Jewish cemetary- no specific individual was harmed but every individual member of the targeted community experiences the very real harms of intimidation and incitement to violence. Directly contradicting PRO's claims, targeted communities can and do collectively report such incidence to government organizations and government scan and do collect statistics regarding such incidence.  The FBI, for instance, maintain a national database of such intimidations and publishes trends annually.
  • CON has a very simple job here.  CON need only explain that PRO has no hope of documenting the individual sources of every piece of legislation regulating Holocaust denialism and therefore CON has zero chance of submitting evidence of the emotional states of all those tens of thousands of influential people across the world over 8 decades.
    • CON has made an objectively irrational, superficially absurd, impossible to prove generalization about the emotional states of tens of thousands of individuals.  All CON has to do is show that no argument could sustain such a fantastical burden of proof.

#8
fivesix
fivesix's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 99
0
1
6
fivesix's avatar
fivesix
0
1
6
-->
@oromagi
Well I'd love it if somebody would do it.

p.s. read the title of the debate again:

Holocaust-denial legislation is driven more by a desire to criminalise thus stigmatise dissent than by a desire to mitigate harm, resulting from Holocaust denial, to individual Jews.

My claim is that the legislation is driven more by A than it is by B.

We argue why we feel A/B is more likely than A/B as a driving force behind introducing legislation to governments.

Of course it is ludicrous to lump every NGO together and go off on a conspiracy tangent. Not really interested in doing that.

I think you are complicating my debate idea purposely. It's clear what I mean to argue. I already said 'no kritiks' in the rules and that of course includes me so why bother even bringing up ways CON could trump me on a technicality?

I am eternally seeking an objective opponent in these matters. It's tiring.

You are picking apart my whole idea with some sort of anger... here you go... try to read less into things:


PRO explicitly claims that every "group behind" every piece of Holocaust is driven by the same emotion but such precise cohesion is not only profoundly unlikely but also impossible to prove.  PRO promises that he can prove to our satisfaction that laws prohibiting Holocaust denialism in Israel, Germany, Brazil, Russia, and China are not only alike in originating from non-govermental movement sources but that he will prove that every one of those sources were passionately motivated by an identical set of emotional needs.  The idea that autocrats like Putin and Xi are driven by the same emotional response to Holocaust denialism as the children of the victims of the Holocaust in Israel or the children of the perpetrators of the Holocaust in Germany is patently, manifestly, objectively absurd and untrue.  We don't need argument to know factually that PRO's thesis is not just impossible to prove but impossible prima facie.
Fine, don't want to prove anything, just want to debate which is more likely to be the driver. It's impissible to prove; I agree

    • PRO tries to separate MOTIVE from DESIRE but this distinction is not supported by ordinary usage in the English language.  DRIVEN means "Obsessed; passionately motivated to achieve goals."  Not all who are movivated are DRIVEN but all who are DRIVEN are motivated and so PRO's attempt at making a unsupportable semantic distinction fails.
Great
You know, when I made the rules, I set the definitions. Whomever accepts the CON position accepts those definitions. Driven btw here means "pushed forth by" -- as in I am not using an adjective.
Another P.S.: you know the greatest thing about English? No two different words exist that have the same meaning. Motive and desire are distinct; it's as simple as that

    • PRO self-contradicts by defining the debate as  "mostly theoretical and statistical."  All statistics are records of observations and therefore emprical evidence while theoretical arguments are by definition non-emprical.  That is, PRO has defined the debate as "mostly non-emperical and empirical" in nature.  In other words, PRO doesn't understand the meaning of at least one of those words.
My debate; my rules. You know statistics have no meaning on their own, right? And as you said it's not possible to prove this argument; hence the theory with the statistics.

    • PRO concedes his argument to CON in the definition of the debate.  PRO concedes that if he can prove a desire to stigmatize then " it's a given that there would be harm caused to the Jewish community" but  PRO claims that doesn't prove harm to individuals within that community.  PRO would have it that a proven harm to a forest does not prove harm to any individual tree but that's absurd, at least some individual trees must experience harm for it to be true that the forest is harmed- a forest is no more than a set of individual trees.  Likewise, PRO cannot concede harm to the Jewish Community without conceding harm to some individual Jews. Any Jewish community is no more than a set of individual Jews.
You're right with that; CON could get me on that quite readily. There's a weak spot for sure.

      • PRO ridiculously, falsely claims " also consider that there is no way for a community to collectively report to authorities a hate crime on itself so there is no way to find or gauge statistics on this."  Consider the example of the Klan burning a cross across the street from a Black Church or a noose hanging a school cafeteria or anti-semitic graffitti in a Jewish cemetary- no specific individual was harmed but every individual member of the targeted community experiences the very real harms of intimidation and incitement to violence. Directly contradicting PRO's claims, targeted communities can and do collectively report such incidence to government organizations and government scan and do collect statistics regarding such incidence.  The FBI, for instance, maintain a national database of such intimidations and publishes trends annually.
Somebody firebombed my church the other week, say. We all went down to the police station to report it. The constable asks "who's reporting this" and we say "the church is" and he says "no I need a person's name."

Crimes cannot victimise corporations, organisations, or likewise. One possible exception, which doesn't apply to hate crimes, is 'crimes against humanity.'

Somebody can report a hate crime on behalf of a community, but it is that one person reporting it; therefore there is no way for a community to collectively report to authorities a hate crime on itself.

Do you understand what 'hate crime' is?

"very real harms of intimidation" do not exist... either one is intimidated by soimething or one is not - a thing or action cannot 'be intimidating' because each person affected by it will be so in a different way from the next, eventually having one not be intimidated, therefore the thing or action isn't intimidating in the absolute.


  • CON has a very simple job here.  CON need only explain that PRO has no hope of documenting the individual sources of every piece of legislation regulating Holocaust denialism and therefore CON has zero chance of submitting evidence of the emotional states of all those tens of thousands of influential people across the world over 8 decades.
    • CON has made an objectively irrational, superficially absurd, impossible to prove generalization about the emotional states of tens of thousands of individuals.  All CON has to do is show that no argument could sustain such a fantastical burden of proof.

Not really - re-read the title and description, closely this time (I was careful when I wrote it)



#9
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@fivesix

Holocaust-denial legislation is driven more by a desire to criminalise thus stigmatise dissent than by a desire to mitigate harm, resulting from Holocaust denial, to individual Jews.
My claim is that the legislation is driven more by A than it is by B.
  • And yet you failed to offer even one piece of evidence regarding some specific NGO's intent regarding some specific legislation.
We argue why we feel A/B is more likely than A/B as a driving force behind introducing legislation to governme  Of course it is ludicrous to lump every NGO together and go off on a conspiracy tangent. Not really interested in doing that.
  • First you must establish the fact of NGO participation in Holocaust denial legislation, which you won't be able to do in autocracies like Putin's Russia or XI's China.
I think you are complicating my debate idea purposely. It's clear what I mean to argue
  • Yes, you are going to prove to us the monolith that is the emotional states of the non-governmental organizations behind all legislation regulating denialsim.
You are picking apart my whole idea with some sort of anger... here you go... try to read less into things:
  • I see you think you have a handle on my emotional state as well.  How magically perceptive you must imagine yourself.

Fine, don't want to prove anything, just want to debate which is more likely to be the driver. It's impissible to prove; I agree
  • Well, then, that's hashed out to everybody's satisfaction.
You know, when I made the rules, I set the definitions. Whomever accepts the CON position accepts those definitions. Driven btw here means "pushed forth by" -- as in I am not using an adjective.
  • Since you failed to define your terms in the section set aside for defintions,  I am liberty to disbelieve you.
Another P.S.: you know the greatest thing about English? No two different words exist that have the same meaning. Motive and desire are distinct; it's as simple as that
  • Never said they were.  I said you can't define a human DESIRE and then deny you are characterizing motivation. By definition, DRIVEN is motivation, DESIRE is motivation.
My debate; my rules. You know statistics have no meaning on their own, right? And as you said it's not possible to prove this argument; hence the theory with the statistics.
  • Which is not a denial that you contradicted yourself.
    • PRO concedes his argument to CON in the definition of the debate.  PRO concedes that if he can prove a desire to stigmatize then " it's a given that there would be harm caused to the Jewish community" but  PRO claims that doesn't prove harm to individuals within that community.  PRO would have it that a proven harm to a forest does not prove harm to any individual tree but that's absurd, at least some individual trees must experience harm for it to be true that the forest is harmed- a forest is no more than a set of individual trees.  Likewise, PRO cannot concede harm to the Jewish Community without conceding harm to some individual Jews. Any Jewish community is no more than a set of individual Jews.
You're right with that; CON could get me on that quite readily. There's a weak spot for sure.
  • You've already conceded the weakness of your thesis, which is really my only point, here.
Somebody firebombed my church the other week, say. We all went down to the police station to report it. The constable asks "who's reporting this" and we say "the church is" and he says "no I need a person's name."

Crimes cannot victimise corporations, organisations, or likewise. One possible exception, which doesn't apply to hate crimes, is 'crimes against humanity.'
Do you understand what 'hate crime' is? "very real harms of intimidation" do not exist...
  • CON has a very simple job here.  CON need only explain that PRO has no hope of documenting the individual sources of every piece of legislation regulating Holocaust denialism and therefore CON has zero chance of submitting evidence of the emotional states of all those tens of thousands of influential people across the world over 8 decades.
    • CON has made an objectively irrational, superficially absurd, impossible to prove generalization about the emotional states of tens of thousands of individuals.  All CON has to do is show that no argument could sustain such a fantastical burden of proof.
  • Not really - re-read the title and description, closely this time (I was careful when I wrote it)
  • You've already conceded the argument above: 
    • "Fine, don't want to prove anything, just want to debate which is more likely to be the driver. It's impissible to prove; I agree."
#10
fivesix
fivesix's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 99
0
1
6
fivesix's avatar
fivesix
0
1
6
-->
@oromagi
so tired of this tit-for-tat childsplay where you repeatedly demonstrate your unwillingness to concede one point and instead desperately and rudely bend the spoon to fit your initial flawed assessment of the object (in this case my debate TITLE, which you didn't read properly.)

you could just admit you didn't read the debate title. i'm not going to enjoy it, if that's your concern. humility is... lacking

let's have a proper debate on something so I can properly demonstrate your inability to concede a point. propose something now, go on. my debate not good enough for you, propose something now and I will tell you if I know enough about it to continue.

also, serious question: are you liking your own forum posts?

here, btw, my response to your previous line-for-line nitpicking naa-naa commentary:

every line you wrote
hmm. ah
#11
fivesix
fivesix's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 99
0
1
6
fivesix's avatar
fivesix
0
1
6
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot, you are trolling my debate like a 14yo child.

I'm going to assume you're not capable of arguing the position and you didn't want anybody else to do it so you accepted the CON position, waited the absolute max time you could on your round (2 weeks), then wrote something 'succinct' in an attempt to get yourself to giggle.

When I asked you what was up, you ignored me and continued arguing debates and posting in the forums.

Then somebody else came and wrote a comment on the debate, without tagging you, and you responded to them, continuing to ignore me. Which means your lil eyes somehow found their way back to the debate, didn't they. Wonder why...

Then I directly asked you why did you write "boop" and you responded in an intelligent manner, finally:

"Uhh.
My bad."

As if it was an accident, yeah? Is that what you intended there.
You know, trolling used to be entertaining.

I think you might need a shave? Make sure to get the whole neck area, and look up to the ceiling to get your skin taut, just feel with your fingers for the hairs in case you miss any.

Then take a selfie, CTRL-TAB to Reddit, and get it up there, drop trou, and wait for the upvotes to roll in before you get started.

Coward.

#12
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@fivesix
you repeatedly demonstrate your unwillingness to concede one point
  • You haven't made any arguments that I accept as honest or perceptive, so why would I? Quite the opposite, you admitted  that you aren't trying to prove anything, you conceded that claiming no individual harm while acknowledging community harm is irrational and if we re-read your thesis that is your concession.  You made litte case for your attempt to divest motivation, and less for your  hypothetical/statistical blunder.  I don't understand why any rational debater would continue on the subject after such concessions.
you could just admit you didn't read the debate title. i'm not going to enjoy it, if that's your concern. humility is... lacking
  • But that would be a lie.  You have already conceded that I read your thesis more closely than you yourself did.
let's have a proper debate on something so I can properly demonstrate your inability to concede a point. propose something now, go on. my debate not good enough for you, propose something now and I will tell you if I know enough about it to continue.
  • The lack of specificity is the problem here.  What you need to do is some research around your thesis to discover if there is any truth to it.  Can you find one real world example of  holocaust legislation that started with a NGO?  If so, can you really document the internal process of that NGO sufficiently to demonstrate intent?  I am extremely doubtful you could ever document such a claim in any particular much less go on to make that generalization about all holocaust legislation.  You are offering hypotheticals because any actual fact-finding makes you a liar.  You've made CON's job easy because you've claimed to know a fact that is not particularly knowable or particularly true.
So far, you have only mentioned specifics in Canada and the US.  SInce the US has no holocaust legislation, let's set aside US anecdotes as irrelevant.  Let's test your useless theory:  Canada passed holocaust legislation last year.  Let's answer the questions- who was behind that legislation and what drove them?

Fivesix claims that it is hard to find the source for recent holocaust legislation in Canada but that's either lazy or plain lying.

For context, the Muslim population of Canada has nearly tripled in the past two decades while the Jewish populatoin has slightly declined.  Unlike the US, where there are twice as many Jews as Muslims, Canadian Muslims now outnumber Jews 6 to 1.  The Canadian Govt. has documented that a steady rise in anti-semitic crimes that can often be attributed to anti-semetic teachings in a variety of post-secondary schools popular with the booming Muslim youth population.  When tensions rose during the 2021 Israeli-Palestinian crisis, a new, young, and popularly anti-semetic population took the streets and perpetrated more anti-semitic violence in the space of a few weeks than had been seen in Canada over the previous six years- Jewish protesters were stoned in the streets, Jewish houses graffitied and stoned, Jewish businesses burned to the ground.  Student organizations held referendums to ban kosher foods in cafeterias.  Obviously, Canadian legislators felt a lot of pressure to take action but Canadian law regarding such hate crimes is already fairly comprehensive.  One of the most conservative members of Parliament, Kevin Waugh,  introduced a bill specifically addressing falsifying evidence of the Holocaust in public venues, in the hopes of discouraging some of the disinformatin radicalizing Canadian youth.  “Ignorance fuels intolerance so we must continue to teach the truths of the past,” said Waugh. “Education is the safeguard of history. We must face history with courage and boldly call out and confront intolerance wherever it exists. Passage of this bill protects the truth.”  The bill added the following caveats to existing hate-crime legislation:

  • (2.1) Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust
    • (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
    • (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
  • (3.1) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2.1)
    • (a) if they establish that the statements communicated were true;
    • (b) if, in good faith, they expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
    • (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds they believed them to be true; or
    • (d) if, in good faith, they intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of antisemitism toward Jews.
Contrary to fivesix's claims:

  • It is only illegal to make false statements about the Holocaust.  It is perfectly legal to quote other holocaust deniers, deny the holocaust in the name of religion or public interest.   It is only illegal to manufacture false statements about the Holocaust for public consumption.
  • A member of parliament introduced this legislation without any recorded initiation or intervention by any NGO.
  • Waugh introduced the bill as a private member rather than public.  "Public bills pertain to matters that affect the general public or classes of citizens, while private bills pertain to individual matters that affect individuals and organizations, such as claims against the Government."  The Private status of this leglilation specifically disproves fivesix's claim:  Waugh expressed no interest in stigmatizing anti-semetic educators but moved exclusively to mitigate real and urgent harms against Jewish individuals in his constintuency justified, in part, by antisemetic disinformation.
The only real example fivesix offered to support his claim in Round1 was Canadian Holocaust legislation but he presented no facts and demonstrated zero comprehenion of those facts.  When we look at the well documented circumstances driving Conservatives to submit this legislation, fivesix's hypothetical thesis is plainly demonstated to be 100% bullshit.





#13
fivesix
fivesix's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 99
0
1
6
fivesix's avatar
fivesix
0
1
6
-->
@oromagi
Great post. And I actually managed to get through it and pat myself on the back. Not often I have done that to be fair

One major issue with everything you said: the debate is five rounds; and you've read one of my rounds. You think I'm going to make a full argument in the first round? Do you really think I know nothing about this topic. I am so close to knowing Jonny Greenblatt's shoe size at this point. P.S. ADL is a global organisation with a U.S. NGO as its 'head branch' so to speak.

In summary, you won't debate me. Leave it at that then? You are making several presumptions that I am tempted to set straight, but I am not getting into a nitpicking debate on the forum. Either debate me properly or not at all

Debate me on this if I recreate it? And I will leave my first round argument as is, so long as you honour the original title (as in we argue about A versus B and the voters decide; we don't try to 'prove' our side)
#14
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@fivesix
: the debate is five rounds; and you've read one of my rounds. 
Which you posted in forums requesting a hashing out.  Consider your first argument hashed.
#15
fivesix
fivesix's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 99
0
1
6
fivesix's avatar
fivesix
0
1
6
-->
@oromagi
I didn't request any hashing out. Damn you need to learn to read, dude

Check my post count
Can't make new topics
Don't want to spam
So I asked Prez to post it for me instead of me spamming posts to reach post count.
#16
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
I didn't request any hashing out. Damn you need to learn to read, dude
POST#1.  Paragraph #2.

"Here is fivesix's argument if you want to hash out some stuff in this thread as well."



#17
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@oromagi
  • (2.1) Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust
    • (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
    • (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
  • (3.1) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2.1)
    • (a) if they establish that the statements communicated were true;
    • (b) if, in good faith, they expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
    • (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds they believed them to be true; or
    • (d) if, in good faith, they intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of antisemitism toward Jews.
    • How do these caveats undermine the affirmation of the subject's resolution?
    #18
    oromagi
    oromagi's avatar
    Debates: 117
    Posts: 8,696
    8
    10
    11
    oromagi's avatar
    oromagi
    8
    10
    11
    How do these caveats undermine the affirmation of the subject's resolution?
    • This legislation specifically protects dissent. [3.1.c]
    • fivesix defines DESIRE as: 
      • "the mission (an ambition or purpose that is assumed by a person or group of NGOs who lobby for the introduction of such legislation.  In short: the debate does not concern the desire of *government* to create the law, rather that of *the group* behind the introduction of it to government.
        • Conservative Kevin Waugh is straightforward about his mission, "teaching the truth."  There is no evidence of any other individual or group behind Waugh's leglistation.
          • Since no non-governmental mission is indicated, this example contradicts fivesix's generalization.
    • fivesix says Canada's bill is an example showing that non-governmental forces are more driven by a desire to criminalize dissent than to protect Jews but no non-govermental influences are even indicated in the creation of this bill and everything about Waugh's bill prioritizes truth-telling in the public transmission of history rather than suppression of dissent.

    #19
    Athias
    Athias's avatar
    Debates: 20
    Posts: 3,192
    3
    3
    9
    Athias's avatar
    Athias
    3
    3
    9
    -->
    @oromagi
    • This legislation specifically protects dissent. [3.1.c]
    • fivesix defines DESIRE as: 
      • "the mission (an ambition or purpose that is assumed by a person or group of NGOs who lobby for the introduction of such legislation.  In short: the debate does not concern the desire of *government* to create the law, rather that of *the group* behind the introduction of it to government.
        • Conservative Kevin Waugh is straightforward about his mission, "teaching the truth."  There is no evidence of any other individual or group behind Waugh's leglistation.
          • Since no non-governmental mission is indicated, this example contradicts fivesix's generalization.
    • fivesix says Canada's bill is an example showing that non-governmental forces are more driven by a desire to criminalize dissent than to protect Jews but no non-govermental influences are even indicated in the creation of this bill and everything about Waugh's bill prioritizes truth-telling in the public transmission of history rather than suppression of dissent.
    So it is your contention that fivesix's argument suffers not from the position he/she assumes, but his/her generalized and erroneous reference--i.e. Jewish NGO's as opposed to a single legislator, Member of Parliament Kevin Waugh?

    #20
    oromagi
    oromagi's avatar
    Debates: 117
    Posts: 8,696
    8
    10
    11
    oromagi's avatar
    oromagi
    8
    10
    11
    So it is your contention that fivesix's argument suffers not from the position he/she assumes, but his/her generalized and erroneous reference--i.e. Jewish NGO's as opposed to a single legislator, Member of Parliament Kevin Waugh?


    PRO's thesis is fatally flawed for at least five reasons before arguments are  even considered.  PRO lost this debate as soon as soon as he promised to prove the desires of a vaguely defined but widely influential unnamed set of humans.

    Any debate that offers to prove the emotional state or unstated thought process of another human being (i.e. telepathic evidence) deserves to lose.  
    #21
    Athias
    Athias's avatar
    Debates: 20
    Posts: 3,192
    3
    3
    9
    Athias's avatar
    Athias
    3
    3
    9
    -->
    @oromagi
    Any debate that offers to prove the emotional state or unstated thought process of another human being (i.e. telepathic evidence) deserves to lose.  
    Agreed. The proposition could've been worded better.
    #22
    Sir.Lancelot
    Sir.Lancelot's avatar
    Debates: 182
    Posts: 807
    4
    6
    9
    Sir.Lancelot's avatar
    Sir.Lancelot
    4
    6
    9
    #23
    Sir.Lancelot
    Sir.Lancelot's avatar
    Debates: 182
    Posts: 807
    4
    6
    9
    Sir.Lancelot's avatar
    Sir.Lancelot
    4
    6
    9
    I think you might need a shave? Make sure to get the whole neck area, and look up to the ceiling to get your skin taut, just feel with your fingers for the hairs in case you miss any.

    Then take a selfie, CTRL-TAB to Reddit, and get it up there, drop trou, and wait for the upvotes to roll in before you get started.

    Coward.

    Are your wittle feelings hurt, Five-Head?
    Come back to me when you find your missing hairline. 

    You can call me a coward when you stop hiding behind block like a bitch. Lmao. 
    #24
    oromagi
    oromagi's avatar
    Debates: 117
    Posts: 8,696
    8
    10
    11
    oromagi's avatar
    oromagi
    8
    10
    11
    -->
    @Sir.Lancelot
    Lance-

    If you are open to some unsolicited opinion, I would kill your instigator/neg version and bear down on winning the original contest for a bunch of reasons:

    • fivesix's was first and you accepted.  If abandoned, this is a sure loss but there's lots of time and space to recover and turn this into a win.
    • Dropping the original and offering a reversed copy makes a fuzzy thesis even less clear. 
      • Plus, you have increased your burden to prove that Holocaust legislation is never motivated more by a desire to stigmatize- far more difficult than just skeptically disproving fivesix's overgeneralization.
    • Yes, you've booped you're first round....
      • I sense you are intimidated by the 30,000 character limit but don't be:  all that space didn't do fivesix any favors in the first round.   
      • In fact, if you can deliver a more coherent argument that feels complete, you should enjoy some real advantage.  Concision is an important skill in debate and getting straight to point could leave your opponent looking like he's rambling.
      • Apologize briefly for skipping the first round and then make us forget all about it.
        • All the rest of the debate being equal, you should expect to take a 1 pt hit for conduct for that boop.
          • Embrace your role as underdog and use your eloquence to overcome an early disadvantage.
      • As I've stated above, I think PRO's thesis is a mess and his first round unconvincing.   
        • There's plenty of time allowed to compose.
        • I consider the original debate very winnable by either side- treat it as a push and power on.
    • Remember, that nothing outside of the five rounds of the debate is referenceable-  don't shorthand anything argued in comments or forums.  The argument should be complete within the four rounds left to you.  You still have the advantage of the final round to summarize your argument as cohesively as possible.

    #25
    Sir.Lancelot
    Sir.Lancelot's avatar
    Debates: 182
    Posts: 807
    4
    6
    9
    Sir.Lancelot's avatar
    Sir.Lancelot
    4
    6
    9
    -->
    @oromagi
    The 30,000 character limit makes reading Pro’s entire argument tedious, but too underwhelming to be intimidating because it’s too easy of a debate to win. 

    Truth be told, I was excited about the debate but I completely forgot about it which explains the 1st round boop. 

    I intend to finish it anyway as a courtesy, but if Pro is willing to disabandon it and recreate the debate with everything staying the same, but it being rated, I’d have no objections either. 
    #26
    RationalMadman
    RationalMadman's avatar
    Debates: 574
    Posts: 19,931
    10
    11
    11
    RationalMadman's avatar
    RationalMadman
    10
    11
    11
    -->
    @fivesix
    Lancelot has decided his meaning in life is to mimic the bullies instead of standing up to them. It's one of the less interesting paths of psychological development that one may take.
    #27
    fivesix
    fivesix's avatar
    Debates: 2
    Posts: 99
    0
    1
    6
    fivesix's avatar
    fivesix
    0
    1
    6
    -->
    @oromagi
    I didn't request a hashing out
    #28
    fivesix
    fivesix's avatar
    Debates: 2
    Posts: 99
    0
    1
    6
    fivesix's avatar
    fivesix
    0
    1
    6
    -->
    @RationalMadman
    @oromagi
    @Athias
    @Sir.Lancelot
    i'm not hiding behind a block, you were spamming me with trolling nonsense then deleting your comments in attempts to make me look like I was spamming you.

    I asked you to tell me what was going on, you refused to answer, just acted like a child and pretended I was some moron. then I said I would be blocking you. then I blocked you. not exactly hiding, is it. you had two weeks to make an argument and you failed to do that or even answer me when I asked what was going on.

    you literally commented on the debate then immediately deleted it so I would be bothered by a notification only to find nothing when I went to the debate: that is the type of behaviour you expect me to ignore.

    now you want to attempt to diminish your childishness by offering me a courtesy? what value is a courtesy when all preceding behaviour is the opposite of courteous? it's mockery. from a child switching between childspeak and adultspeak when it suits him. boring; uninspired; and bland.

    there is no way I would debate you after you did what you did. you act like a child, you get treated like one: simple. nobody gets a second chance to waste my time. go wallow in the sandpit you've built around yourself

    I'd also point out: you still haven't apologised for wasting my time; so, why would I consider wasting it on you voluntarily?

    I will however debate anybody else on this topic. including the pedant oromagi, who seems to prefer discussing this and that and picking everything apart to capitalise theoretically on any ambiguity in my diction and implication rather than just being normal and debating the premise: essentially, is it more likely that denial legislation is driven by a will to censor or a will to protect individual Jews from harm? that's it. it's not complicated and you don't need to make it so if my argument is so weak. weak arguments may be destroyed with minimal effort. so prove it and do it instead of acting like it would be so easy to do

    but remember the rules of the debate, namely 'no kritiks' and the fking title, read it again and again and again and we must agree on the rules prior to starting (that's in the description)

    so if you want to do it please review the rules and come back with objections/suggestions.

    Sir.Lancelot I will not be responding to anything else you say to me so don't bother unless you just want to hear yourself talk.

    Cheers all
    #29
    Sir.Lancelot
    Sir.Lancelot's avatar
    Debates: 182
    Posts: 807
    4
    6
    9
    Sir.Lancelot's avatar
    Sir.Lancelot
    4
    6
    9
    Scared?
    #30
    fivesix
    fivesix's avatar
    Debates: 2
    Posts: 99
    0
    1
    6
    fivesix's avatar
    fivesix
    0
    1
    6
    -->
    @oromagi
    oromagi, one more thing, and I said it before, just want to remind you: the debate is five rounds and I finished one round. at character limit. so I don't know why you're wasting time assuming what I know and claiming things to be true or not.