fivesix

• Desire is subjective, yes
  

The debate is about *the desire* that drives the legislation to come into effect, *not the reason* for it to come into effect. i.e. the motive behind the introduction of legislation. Please note in this regard by "desire" I mean the mission (an ambition or purpose that is assumed by a person or group[https://www.wordnik.com/words/mission]) of NGOs (non-governmental organisations) who lobby for the introduction of such legislation via the creation thereof by a governmental authority.

• They who?  So far, all you've said is NGOs.
  

NGOs (non-governmental organisations) who lobby for the introduction of such legislation via the creation thereof by a governmental authority

• And I say anybody who says they prove another's human's desire for a fact is a fool.
  

• False and a real miscomprehenion about how debate works.  All SirLancelot has to do is argue that you can't know the actual desires of many different  lobbyists in many different lands, much less prove that those desire are all in sync, and you are toast.  The contender only has to establish that you can't prove your claim true, the contender doesn't have to prove that the reverse of your claim is true.  A contender only has to  argue that no evidence proves the Earth is flat, the contender does not also have to prove the Earth is round.
  

• Right, so any examples of Holocaust Denial Legislation that was never driven by the desires of lobbyists disproves your overgeneralization.  Clearly, some Holocaust Denial Legislation is NOT driven by the desires you claim.
  

• Doesn't matter.  So long as you can't prove Chinese Holocaust denial legislation was driven by the desires of lobbyists, your argument is dispoved.
  

• So far,  all you've talked about is the US and Canada.  No such in the US.  No such NGO in Canada.
  

Russia specifically  outlaws denying "the crimes of Nazism."  China is generic.   You didn't say, "Some Holocaust Denial legislation,"  you said "Holocaust Denial legislation" That is, you have stated  you  can prove the true desires of NGOs as a universal fact or general principle when it comes to Holocaust Denial legislation.  So far, we haven't found Holocaust Denial laws sponsored by NGO in US, UK, Canada, Russia, and China.

Your proposition will inevitably result in an extension that isn't quantifiable. That is, "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," focuses on the juxtaposition of "desire," as opposed to the consequences of the legislation. The outline/structure of your proposition can be reduced simply to this "X is driven more by a desire to Y than by a desire to Z." What oromagi is telling you--at least in part--is that unless you can provide telepathic evidence as to how you can observe someone's, anyone's, or everyone's "desires," especially in the absence of explicit statement, it is impossible to validate your affirmation.

With that said, I agree with what I believe you're trying to state. The proposition is just worded in a manner that places a near impossible task on you. If worded like this, "Holocaust-Denial legislation (will or is made to) criminalize, and thus stigmatize dissent as opposed to mitigate harm resulting from Holocaust denial to individual Jews" you can avoid any onus on your part to quantify that which you can't.

If Hitler was in power, the Halocaust would get repeated.

• Well, if you continue to fail to specify any NGO, I think the nullification of your premise is your fault.  Once specified, then you have to investigate the emotional state of the employees running those NGOs and prove "Desire to stigmatize."  Then you've got connect those NGOs to enough speficific legislation to reasonably represent all "Holocaust denial legislation."
  

• I do think it works much differently in other countries:
  
• Kevin Waugh, as already discussed, is the Canadian MP who introduced the Canadian bill without any mention of any lobying group.
  
• Vladamir Putin signed the Law Against Rehabilitation of Nazism in 2014 without any apparent petitions or lobby.
  
• The 2018  Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Heroes and Martyrs  was introduced by tje Five Heroes of Langya Mountain without any apparant regard for petitions or lobbyist
  

I will ask you a clear cut question.

You live in Germany right now. Hitler is running for the same position as back in WW1, with the same political standpoint, and beliefs. 

Would you support him?

Doesn't matter.  If he's a democrat or republican; I don't want millions of dead Jews, so I'm not voting for him.  Parties shouldn't matter.

I'm just going to assume your pro Hitler.

Quick google search buddy;

Who wrote Mein Kampf?

Answer: Adolf Hitler

You can't use a book written by the same dude you are trying to defend. 

That is superbly biased. 

There is something called an outside source. 

Guys, I think we found our Kanye for the website. 

Dude.........

A book written by Adolf Hitler is of course going to be saying good things about......Adolf Hitler.

If Hitler was alive today, would you support him?  Your dodging the question.

I have a positive opinion on Lincoln because he freed the slaves.  If he ran for public office today, he might be a democrat ore republican; it doesn't matter to me; he freed the slaves and I like him for that.  It doesn't matter if he is dead or alive.

Whether or not someone is alive has no bearing on your opinion of them.  If my dad died tomorrow, in a week, I'm going to have a positive feeling about him because he raised me since I was a baby.

You didn't answer the question.  Do you or do you not support Hitler?

Are you pro Hitler?

I'm glad Hitler is dead and his ideology is only accepted by the fringe of society.

How so?  He blamed Jews for the economic problems of Nazi Germany, so the Germans voted to kill the Jews.  I don't agree with it, but it's what happened.

Pro's Case:

• Canada is one of the first countries to try and outlaw Holocaust denial.
  

He promised death for Jews and the Nazis voted for him.

Well you can deny history all you want, but history is history.

You don't think the desires of unidentified lobbyists is a subjective standard?

You about to pull a Kanye?

Hitler was a good leader in many specs, if you ignore that he was one of the biggest racists and genociders in human history.

• yeah.  First to give up loses the match.  That's how most contests work.
  

Your path to victory has opened.

Boop, indeed.

• false.  I am hashing out what your wrote in Round 1 (i.e.  NGO's secret desires, Canadian legistlation)  I've made no presumptions.
  

every line you wrote

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.

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.
  

Shouldn't the application of law not be based upon the ability of the individual to pay.

But solely upon the precise interpretation of law.