Holocaust debate challenge accepted

[Uncle]

micfranklin and Jaaaman have both accepted my challenge to debate the so-called "holocaust". If it is acceptable by the powers that be I would like this debate to include all three of us, with each having 5 posts. I think this would be fair, even though it does bend the rules just slightly.

They will both be posting in defense of the "holocaust" and I will be posting against it. For my side I will attempt to prove that not even two million jews died during WWII and no evidence of an actual "holocaust" as the world knows it against the jews ever happened. micfranklin and Jaaamans responsibility will be to give evidence of at least 2 million jews dying, (by any and all means) and to give evidence that there existed an actual design by Germany to eradicate all jews from Germany by killing them.

I say let this game begin.

[Uncle]

My apologies to everyone. I am going to have to put this debate and this board on hold for awhile. My exwife kidnapped my son and until I get him home safely I am not going to be able to function in a debate or much else. If you want to consider this a concession, (am hoping you don't), then so be it. Thank you.

[Stoner]

Good luck, Uncle.

[lily]

Uncle, I wish you the best of luck getting your son home safely.

[bobbylien]

Maybe its all for the best that you don't get him back.

[ViolaLee]

Maybe its all for the best that you don't get him back.
I was thinking the same thing. Maybe his mom won't be teaching him all the hate and prejudice that Uncle seems to believe in.

[Deadshot]

Uncle if you do return and wish to debate, I would love to be included. As a student of the Holocaust, it's what I did my Senior paper on for my History degree, I'd be thrilled to hear your arguement and then explain to you how you are wrong.

[Jaaaman]

Uncle if you do return and wish to debate, I would love to be included. As a student of the Holocaust, it's what I did my Senior paper on for my History degree, I'd be thrilled to hear your arguement and then explain to you how you are wrong.


Uncle believes there was no holocaust Deadshot... and he says that he can prove it. :dizzy:

[Deadshot]

Uncle if you do return and wish to debate, I would love to be included. As a student of the Holocaust, it's what I did my Senior paper on for my History degree, I'd be thrilled to hear your arguement and then explain to you how you are wrong.


Uncle believes there was no holocaust Deadshot... and he says that he can prove it. :dizzy:


Yeah, I know. That's why I'm curious to see his "proof." I don't know what he's got but I've got damn near a library myself about the Holocaust.

It's always fun bringing in light into the darkness...:thumbsup:

[Uncle]

Uncle if you do return and wish to debate, I would love to be included. As a student of the Holocaust, it's what I did my Senior paper on for my History degree, I'd be thrilled to hear your arguement and then explain to you how you are wrong.

Works for me, tough KC, (JDL?) guy. See if one of your cohorts, (mcfranklin or Jaaaamal) is willing to give up their seat and I will gladly fight you in this debate. Truth is, I have spent years looking for someone who can educate me and make me once again believe as you now believe. Are you that one, with your "senior" papers? I want evidence and proof, cop- nothing more or less. My bet is you cant deliver it. Lets do this thing.

Ten posts against my five and I get the first and the last. Agreeable?
Two million dead jews by design is all you have to prove. I have to prove that two million did not die by Aryan design (genocide).

One last thing for the mods, no one is allowed to vote who has not been a member in the last 60 days.[hr]My first post on this topic/debate:[hr]My first post, (am down to 4 against your 10): Where is the evidence that TWO, ( not 6 million) million jews were murdered with intent by Germany/Germans? Where is the EVIDENCE that jewish genocide was intended or pre-programed? No simple rhetoric is allowed. Nor is circumstantial evidence. This is based on facts and proven EVIDENCE.

[Truth_and_Power]

LOL he's going for the "it was just some slavery and a few missed meals" defense

[Deadshot]

Lets do this thing.

[/color]Two million dead jews by design is all you have to prove. I have to prove that two million did not die by Aryan design (genocide).

One last thing for the mods, no one is allowed to vote who has not been a member in the last 60 days.[hr]My first post on this topic/debate:[hr]My first post, (am down to 4 against your 10): Where is the evidence that TWO, ( not 6 million) million jews were murdered with intent by Germany/Germans? Where is the EVIDENCE that jewish genocide was intended or pre-programed? No simple rhetoric is allowed. Nor is circumstantial evidence. This is based on facts and proven EVIDENCE.


[color=#0000FF]What is acceptable evidence? Because, obviously, you have disregarded or ignored 99.9% of the history textbooks, the U.S. Government's testimony's and pictures as well as many Nazis and Germans themselves. How could we have a debate if you will not accept what is common knowledge?

[exigent]

What is acceptable evidence? Because, obviously, you have disregarded or ignored 99.9% of the history textbooks, the U.S. Government's testimony's and pictures as well as many Nazis and Germans themselves. How could we have a debate if you will not accept what is common knowledge?


That appears to be his plan...to set the bar REEEAAALLYY low.

[ECW]

What is acceptable evidence? Because, obviously, you have disregarded or ignored 99.9% of the history textbooks, the U.S. Government's testimony's and pictures as well as many Nazis and Germans themselves. How could we have a debate if you will not accept what is common knowledge?


That appears to be his plan...to set the bar REEEAAALLYY low.


Citing what you "know" to be common knowledge is how you win this thing. Irrefutable proof consists of photos certified as having been taken at the time, documents from German sources that describe the Final Solution and the bodies from the death camps discovered after the war as well as documentation as to the number of people killed. You have your work cut out for you as Uncle plays defense saying, "You did not prove your assertion." Good luck.

[micfranklin]

My first post, (am down to 4 against your 10): Where is the evidence that TWO, ( not 6 million) million jews were murdered with intent by Germany/Germans? Where is the EVIDENCE that jewish genocide was intended or pre-programed? No simple rhetoric is allowed. Nor is circumstantial evidence. This is based on facts and proven EVIDENCE.

Let me see:
-pictures of Holocaust victims and camps
-tape from the 40s
-testimony from victims
-testimony from the perpetrators
-words straight from WWII veterans
-historic sites in Europe
-museums in America and Europe

Not to mention facts written in history books and specials on National Geographic and the History Channel. This is all common knowledge.

[ViolaLee]

I don't know which makes me feel like crying and then throwing up more. Pictures of the holocaust, or people like Uncle, Islamic terrorists, the KKK and Ahmedinijad, denying it.

http://history.grand-forks.k12.nd.us/ndhistory/LessonImages/Sources/Pictures/holocaust%202.jpg

http://samueljscott.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/holocaust.jpg

http://www.theology.edu/holocaust.jpg

http://www.jhs.gjcs.k12.in.us/staffpages/jschnell/holocaust%20prisoners.jpg

:sadly:

[Deadshot]

What's really sad is that Viola could fill up this site, overload it, with pictures, videos, statements from the Nazi leadership and those of the Allies about what they saw and did and it still wouldn't convince Uncle. :shame:

[Jaaaman]

No... 'uncle' would just say that those picture were 'photoshopped'. He would also say that the statements from the Nazi leadership were 'coerced'. :grrrr:

[ECW]

Then why is anyone bothering to debate him if you are convinced he won't fight fair or won't accept "evidence" you present?

[BoogyMan]

Then why is anyone bothering to debate him if you are convinced he won't fight fair or won't accept "evidence" you present?


I can't help but think it is because 'uncle' is presenting an argument that is so horrendously offensive and false that people feel compelled to respond.

[Achilles]

When is the debate supposed to take place?

[exigent]

Well this is a losing battle for the deniers since Berlin uncovered its holocaust memorial

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4531669.stm

"Today we open a memorial that recalls Nazi Germany's worst, most terrible crime - the attempt to exterminate an entire people," Mr Thierse said.

[Uncle]

2+2= 4. That is "common knowledge." It is a proven mathematical fact and is indisputable.

The world is not flat and we will not fall off the end of it if we travel too far. That is also "common knowledge." And is also an indisputable, proven fact.

However, there was a time when nearly everyone in Europe and throughout most of the world did believe that this world was flat and that we would fall off it if we traveled too far. Of course, although unproven, that belief was considered "common knowledge" at the time. Well, now we know the truth, and "common knowledge" by belief only is not enough when it comes to science, math, history, religion, or most anything else that concerns us. Facts and only facts can convince those who want the truth. Rhetoric and beliefs are not enough in a civilized, intelligent society.

Violas pictures alone do not give credence that jews were slaughtered or that the people in these pictures are even jewish, for, as some people are aware, there were people in the camps who were not jewish. If you will note, in Violas first picture down, the man standing has no tattoos any place visible on his body. His arms are plainly visable and he has nothing tattooed on either of them. Is it not a fact that jews were tattooed on their arms for identification purposes in the camps? Could it be that this person is not jewish, nor are the others who arms are visible in the same photograph? Could this picture have been taken in a barracks for Poles or others who are not jews?

I took the liberty of enlarging the second photograph. Some of the deceased are wearing clothing. But none of them have the 'star of David' on that clothing, (another identifier of jews in the camps). Also, some of the deceased have arms that are bare and of them I see not one tattoo. Could it be that these people are not jews, (at least the ones I mentioned)? BTW. Who are the clothed and nourished people standing around in this picture? They obviously aren't soldiers. Are they prisoners? If so, why do they appear to be healthy? Is it possible that the dead died of Typhus or some other disease and not gassings?

Picture #3: Again, nothing to identify these people as jews.

Picture #4: Not one star of David or anything else that would identify any of these men as jews.

This brings us back to "common knowledge". To Viola and some of the rest of you, her picture postings give evidence to "common knowledge" that these people were jews and that there was a "holocaust". But upon a cursory inspection doubt is cast as to who these people actually were and rather or not even one of them is jewish. These pictures show only that those who take them as "common Knowledge" of a "holocaust" against jews have been well indoctrinated and accept what they are told without question, or even the slightest amount of inspection of the "evidence".

One more question in regards to these pictures: At what camp(s) were they taken and when and by whom? Is it possible that they may have been taken at one of the camps in Germany, (where it has become "common knowledge" - agreed upon by jews and others alike - that there were no gassings)? Or are they from Poland where it is still alleged that gassings took place?


Am curious when the moderator(s) are going to step in and turn this into a debate off as per their rules? I have agreed with two parties to debate this topic and instead I get silly insults from silly people. Are the mods afraid to let this debate happen? Do they fear that I have a chance of winning it? If not, then do as your rules state and let us do this.

[Deadshot]

I tried to ask you, Uncle, just what were acceptable sources, but you never answered.

To be honest if I debate you and begin to quote or give links to articles, like Viola and exigent have done and you simply say "They're wrong" that's not a debate. A debate is more the opinion, it's evidence.

If you want to I kind post pictures from the Eisenhower library that show the General among the dead, dying and rescued that are all Jewish. The General, and future POTUS, states so in both writing and on film.

I can produce evidence from the Nuremberg trials in which convicted Nazi officers, German townspeople and Allied personnel testify, under oath, that Jews were killed in creamatoriums and that there was a Progrom against the Jews.

I can show where evidence has been brought against Poland, France, Beligium, Italy, Germany and a host of other European governments as to their involvement in the Holocaust. Each of those governments, including Germany, acknowledge the Holocaust and their role in it.

There are no Axis governments, nor allies of the Axis who deny their role in the Holocaust.

If you just want to argue numbers, as to whether it was 2 million Jews or 6 million Jews, I really don't give a shit. It was millions of people and they were led to slaughter because they were Jews. If you just want to argue the stats, find someone else.

But, from the posts I"ve seen, you acknowledge the Holocaust you just want to argue the numbers. A futile exercise because those people who died will NEVER be compensated, nor will there families. So suffice to say we agree that the Holocaust took place. I believe that there were 11 million people killed by the Nazis, with 6 million of those being Jews. You argue that there were only 2 million Jew who died.

Can't we just agree that the Nazis were cruel, inhuman bastards that killed millions?

[lily]

Am curious when the moderator(s) are going to step in and turn this into a debate off as per their rules? I have agreed with two parties to debate this topic and instead I get silly insults from silly people. Are the mods afraid to let this debate happen? Do they fear that I have a chance of winning it? If not, then do as your rules state and let us do this.

1. Debates will start in a few days.
2. You have to wait your turn.

[micfranklin]

Uncle, if you don't want to credit Viola's pictures as real then here's something I can offer you. Here's one of the most notorious prison camps where "undesirables" were sent in the Holocaust: Auschwitz.

That's proof enough.

http://www.herodote.net/Images/Auschwitz.jpg

[ViolaLee]

Here's a whole website to answer the questions of holocaust deniers. Whoever has the patience to debate this ugliness, I hope this helps.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/denial1.html

For example this, from The Goebbels Diaries, 1948, pp. 86, 147-148):

February 14, 1942: The Führer once again expressed his determination to clean up the Jews in Europe pitilessly. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness.

March 27, 1942: The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only 40 per cent can be used for forced labor.

I can't even believe this is being questioned. It's really quite outrageous and sickening.[hr]And here is a website with pictures...

http://www.phdn.org/histgen/schmitz/indexeng.html

[Uncle]

Sorry, Viola but the Goebbles Diaries are to some degree considered fakes. You see, afterr WWII, communist Russia forged many, many documents, (some can be found at http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a077.htm ). Because of serious descripencies in the Goebbels Diaries, as well as the way they were 'found", (as well as other valid reasons) honest historians doubt them. Not every historian however claims that they are entirely faked, but there is enough forgery in them to cast doubt on their entire content. That is sad because a piece of valuable history is cast into doubt because of criminal meddling. Supposedly the original type-writen papers (diary) were, in part destroyed and the majority was placed on glass negatives at the order of Goebbels. Strange that he would do that and then store them in a wooden crate wrapped with metal bands considering there was a war going on and bombing could have easily destroyed them. For a forger though, that would be very convenient since glass, unlike paper, could not be dated to it's origin.

Give it another shot, Viola. I am sure you will find something.

Deadshot wrote:
I tried to ask you, Uncle, just what were acceptable sources, but you never answered. Sorry. You got lost in the shuffle. Irrefutable sources. Facts. And anything that has been proved to be such. For instance historical, unaltered documentation. Historical records from Nazi Germany or others showing an intent or the actions of genocide against jews. [b]

To be honest if I debate you and begin to quote or give links to articles, like Viola and exigent have done and you simply say "They're wrong" that's not a debate. A debate is more the opinion, it's evidence. You wont get that from me. Opinion is not evidence and should not be allowed in any debate of this magnitude

If you want to I kind post pictures from the Eisenhower library that show the General among the dead, dying and rescued that are all Jewish. The General, and future POTUS, states so in both writing and on film. That would be fine. Fair warning: I have most likely seen these pictures and if there are no bullets wounds or evidence of gassing or other murderous apparatus then I will question how they died and will expect you to provide that information. As you should know in your scholarly endeavors, many people, jew and others alike, died from diseases, natural causes and etc.

I can produce evidence from the Nuremberg trials in which convicted Nazi officers, German townspeople and Allied personnel testify, under oath, that Jews were killed in creamatoriums and that there was a Progrom against the Jews. That's fine.

I can show where evidence has been brought against Poland, France, Beligium, Italy, Germany and a host of other European governments as to their involvement in the Holocaust. Each of those governments, including Germany, acknowledge the Holocaust and their role in it.

There are no Axis governments, nor allies of the Axis who deny their role in the Holocaust.

If you just want to argue numbers, as to whether it was 2 million Jews or 6 million Jews, I really don't give a sh1t. It was millions of people and they were led to slaughter because they were Jews. If you just want to argue the stats, find someone else. A 4 m people descrepancy is quite a descrepancy, wouldn't you agree? What I aim to argue is the facts against the fallacies of the so-called "holocaust". If I am wrong, so be it; I will admit to it.

But, from the posts I"ve seen, you acknowledge the Holocaust you just want to argue the numbers. A futile exercise because those people who died will NEVER be compensated, nor will there families. They have been financially compensated repeatedly. I do not "acknowledge" any "holocaust" against the jews by Germany. But I do not deny it either. I am attempting to find evidence of it, (not against it, but for it) and that is why I want to enter this debate with someone who just might have that one vital piece of evidence that proves, without question that said "holocaust" did happen. So suffice to say we agree that the Holocaust took place. I believe that there were 11 million people killed by the Nazis, with 6 million of those being Jews. You argue that there were only 2 million Jew who died.

Can't we just agree that the Nazis were cruel, inhuman bastards that killed millions? Was Shindler a "cruel, inhuman bastard that killed millions" according to folk lore? To lump all Nazis into one catagory is ludicrous. That would be akin to saying that all American soldiers are sweethearts or that all American soldiers are "cruel inhumane bastards", when we know the truth is based on the individual and not the group.[/quote]

One little statement I would like to add before closing this post: I went to public school where I received an education similar to most everybody on this board. I was taught of the atrocities of WWII and I took them as truths. I believed that 6 million jews died at the hands of the evil Nazis and I felt empathy for them. I read the Diary of Anne Frank and was as emotionally disturbed by it as most readers are. I read Night by Elie Wiesel and took it for gospel. I defended, (until recently) the "holocaust" with a passion. I gave as evidence the same evidence you are going to bring here. Then I searched high and low for the actual proof of a "holocaust" against the jews and I came up short, (just as you will, I am sure).

You are going to win this debate, Deadshot. I can almost guarantee that. Why? Because people don't like it when one upsets the apple cart, (attacks their life long beliefs). And I am doing just that. Further, they have a tendency to vote according to their hearts and not their conscience. Those who will agree that I win this debate at it's closure, will be afraid to post in fear of being ostracized. But that's OK that you win. My only intent is to make people think and to get them to question that that they believe and that which they are taught.

[Deadshot]

You are going to win this debate, Deadshot. I can almost guarantee that. Why? Because people don't like it when one upsets the apple cart, (attacks their life long beliefs). And I am doing just that. Further, they have a tendency to vote according to their hearts and not their conscience. Those who will agree that I win this debate at it's closure, will be afraid to post in fear of being ostracized. But that's OK that you win. My only intent is to make people think and to get them to question that that they believe and that which they are taught.


Fine. My only problems will come from the questioning of facts. If you want to question Goebbels diaries, fine. But the governments of Germany, Italy and other Axis nations have freely admitted to taking part in the Holocaust. As have many German nationals, military personnel, etc.

I think I'll win because my sources will be more trusted then yours.

But again, if you're just arguing numbers, i.e. you think "only" 2 million Jews died whereas I think it's closer to 6 million, I don't know why we're debating. Either way, MILLIONS died!

[lily]

Sorry, Viola but the Goebbles Diaries are to some degree considered fakes. You see, afterr WWII, communist Russia forged many, many documents, (some can be found at http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a077.htm ). Because of serious descripencies in the Goebbels Diaries, as well as the way they were 'found", (as well as other valid reasons) honest historians doubt them. Not every historian however claims that they are entirely faked, but there is enough forgery in them to cast doubt on their entire content. That is sad because a piece of valuable history is cast into doubt because of criminal meddling. Supposedly the original type-writen papers (diary) were, in part destroyed and the majority was placed on glass negatives at the order of Goebbels. Strange that he would do that and then store them in a wooden crate wrapped with metal bands considering there was a war going on and bombing could have easily destroyed them. For a forger though, that would be very convenient since glass, unlike paper, could not be dated to it's origin.

Give it another shot, Viola. I am sure you will find something.

Uncle.........you are dismissing Viola's source of Goebbles without even knowing what she was going to use. According to the article you posted:

Genuine Goebbels papers are to be found in the archives of the Hoover Institute at Stanford University in California (1942-1943), the German State Archives in Koblenz, the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich, and in the hands of the collector and archivist, Francois Genoud, in Switzerland. Much of this original material has been published and is well-known to the academic world. But the documents originating in Moscow, especially the glass-negative photographic copies, are entirely spurious and were initially designed with political propaganda in mind, though later sold for a considerable sum of money to a tabloid journalist intent on publishing them as his own political propaganda.

[bobbylien]

(as well as other valid reasons) honest historians doubt them. Not every historian
Stop with the weasel words please.

[Uncle]

No Lily, I was not dismissing Violas argument - I was dismissing Violas qoutes. Could have been taken either way. My apologizes for not being more explicit.

[nevadamedic]

Good luck, Uncle.


Is it just me or is this guy Uncle full of shit on everything he posts.[hr]

Uncle if you do return and wish to debate, I would love to be included. As a student of the Holocaust, it's what I did my Senior paper on for my History degree, I'd be thrilled to hear your arguement and then explain to you how you are wrong.


Uncle believes there was no holocaust Deadshot... and he says that he can prove it. :dizzy:


There was another man who thought the same thing. A coward by the name of Robert Matthews. It's a common smokescreen thrownout by the White Power Movement to twist peoples minds into believe what they believe in. Kinda like turning people to the Darkside in the Star Wars Series.[hr]

Lets do this thing.

[/color]Two million dead jews by design is all you have to prove. I have to prove that two million did not die by Aryan design (genocide).

One last thing for the mods, no one is allowed to vote who has not been a member in the last 60 days.[hr]My first post on this topic/debate:[hr]My first post, (am down to 4 against your 10): Where is the evidence that TWO, ( not 6 million) million jews were murdered with intent by Germany/Germans? Where is the EVIDENCE that jewish genocide was intended or pre-programed? No simple rhetoric is allowed. Nor is circumstantial evidence. This is based on facts and proven EVIDENCE.


What is acceptable evidence? Because, obviously, you have disregarded or ignored 99.9% of the history textbooks, the U.S. Government's testimony's and pictures as well as many Nazis and Germans themselves. How could we have a debate if you will not accept what is common knowledge?


Don't forget the mass graves that were found, the records that were kept of each Death and the Concentration Camps, but this asswad would probably say they were resort hotels.
[hr]

Then why is anyone bothering to debate him if you are convinced he won't fight fair or won't accept "evidence" you present?


I can't help but think it is because 'uncle' is presenting an argument that is so horrendously offensive and false that people feel compelled to respond.


I actually think he knows it existed, and that he is just trying to stir up as much shit as he can, the guy thrives on drama either that or he is mentally unstable. Maybe he is realted to Ann on this board?[hr]
Here's a whole website to answer the questions of holocaust deniers. Whoever has the patience to debate this ugliness, I hope this helps.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/denial1.html

For example this, from The Goebbels Diaries, 1948, pp. 86, 147-148):

February 14, 1942: The Führer once again expressed his determination to clean up the Jews in Europe pitilessly. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness.

March 27, 1942: The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only 40 per cent can be used for forced labor.

I can't even believe this is being questioned. It's really quite outrageous and sickening.[hr]And here is a website with pictures...

http://www.phdn.org/histgen/schmitz/indexeng.html


I think he is going to try to go with the defense of how do we know they are all Jewish and not Polish etc.[hr]
Sorry, Viola but the Goebbles Diaries are to some degree considered fakes. You see, afterr WWII, communist Russia forged many, many documents, (some can be found at http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a077.htm ). Because of serious descripencies in the Goebbels Diaries, as well as the way they were 'found", (as well as other valid reasons) honest historians doubt them. Not every historian however claims that they are entirely faked, but there is enough forgery in them to cast doubt on their entire content. That is sad because a piece of valuable history is cast into doubt because of criminal meddling. Supposedly the original type-writen papers (diary) were, in part destroyed and the majority was placed on glass negatives at the order of Goebbels. Strange that he would do that and then store them in a wooden crate wrapped with metal bands considering there was a war going on and bombing could have easily destroyed them. For a forger though, that would be very convenient since glass, unlike paper, could not be dated to it's origin.

Give it another shot, Viola. I am sure you will find something.

Deadshot wrote:
I tried to ask you, Uncle, just what were acceptable sources, but you never answered. [color=#0000FF]Sorry. You got lost in the shuffle. Irrefutable sources. Facts. And anything that has been proved to be such. For instance historical, unaltered documentation. Historical records from Nazi Germany or others showing an intent or the actions of genocide against jews. [b]

To be honest if I debate you and begin to quote or give links to articles, like Viola and exigent have done and you simply say "They're wrong" that's not a debate. A debate is more the opinion, it's evidence. You wont get that from me. Opinion is not evidence and should not be allowed in any debate of this magnitude

If you want to I kind post pictures from the Eisenhower library that show the General among the dead, dying and rescued that are all Jewish. The General, and future POTUS, states so in both writing and on film. That would be fine. Fair warning: I have most likely seen these pictures and if there are no bullets wounds or evidence of gassing or other murderous apparatus then I will question how they died and will expect you to provide that information. As you should know in your scholarly endeavors, many people, jew and others alike, died from diseases, natural causes and etc.

I can produce evidence from the Nuremberg trials in which convicted Nazi officers, German townspeople and Allied personnel testify, under oath, that Jews were killed in creamatoriums and that there was a Progrom against the Jews. That's fine.

I can show where evidence has been brought against Poland, France, Beligium, Italy, Germany and a host of other European governments as to their involvement in the Holocaust. Each of those governments, including Germany, acknowledge the Holocaust and their role in it.

There are no Axis governments, nor allies of the Axis who deny their role in the Holocaust.

If you just want to argue numbers, as to whether it was 2 million Jews or 6 million Jews, I really don't give a sh1t. It was millions of people and they were led to slaughter because they were Jews. If you just want to argue the stats, find someone else. A 4 m people descrepancy is quite a descrepancy, wouldn't you agree? What I aim to argue is the facts against the fallacies of the so-called "holocaust". If I am wrong, so be it; I will admit to it.

But, from the posts I"ve seen, you acknowledge the Holocaust you just want to argue the numbers. A futile exercise because those people who died will NEVER be compensated, nor will there families. They have been financially compensated repeatedly. I do not "acknowledge" any "holocaust" against the jews by Germany. But I do not deny it either. I am attempting to find evidence of it, (not against it, but for it) and that is why I want to enter this debate with someone who just might have that one vital piece of evidence that proves, without question that said "holocaust" did happen. So suffice to say we agree that the Holocaust took place. I believe that there were 11 million people killed by the Nazis, with 6 million of those being Jews. You argue that there were only 2 million Jew who died.

Can't we just agree that the Nazis were cruel, inhuman bastards that killed millions? Was Shindler a "cruel, inhuman bastard that killed millions" according to folk lore? To lump all Nazis into one catagory is ludicrous. That would be akin to saying that all American soldiers are sweethearts or that all American soldiers are "cruel inhumane bastards", when we know the truth is based on the individual and not the group.

One little statement I would like to add before closing this post: I went to public school where I received an education similar to most everybody on this board. I was taught of the atrocities of WWII and I took them as truths. I believed that 6 million jews died at the hands of the evil Nazis and I felt empathy for them. I read the Diary of Anne Frank and was as emotionally disturbed by it as most readers are. I read Night by Elie Wiesel and took it for gospel. I defended, (until recently) the "holocaust" with a passion. I gave as evidence the same evidence you are going to bring here. Then I searched high and low for the actual proof of a "holocaust" against the jews and I came up short, (just as you will, I am sure).

You are going to win this debate, Deadshot. I can almost guarantee that. Why? Because people don't like it when one upsets the apple cart, (attacks their life long beliefs). And I am doing just that. Further, they have a tendency to vote according to their hearts and not their conscience. Those who will agree that I win this debate at it's closure, will be afraid to post in fear of being ostracized. But that's OK that you win. My only intent is to make people think and to get them to question that that they believe and that which they are taught.
[/quote]

It's called Lithium, you should really look into it, im sure your medical professional will prescribe it for you.[hr]
No Lily, I was not dismissing Violas argument - I was dismissing Violas qoutes. Could have been taken either way. My apologizes for not being more explicit.


You are a certifiable dumbshit.

Let's tone down the insults.

[Uncle]

[/i][/b]

Good luck, Uncle.


Is it just me or is this guy Uncle full of shit on everything he posts.[hr]

Uncle if you do return and wish to debate, I would love to be included. As a student of the Holocaust, it's what I did my Senior paper on for my History degree, I'd be thrilled to hear your arguement and then explain to you how you are wrong.


Uncle believes there was no holocaust Deadshot... and he says that he can prove it. :dizzy:


There was another man who thought the same thing. A coward by the name of Robert Matthews. It's a common smokescreen thrownout by the White Power Movement to twist peoples minds into believe what they believe in. Kinda like turning people to the Darkside in the Star Wars Series.[hr]

Lets do this thing.

[/color]Two million dead jews by design is all you have to prove. I have to prove that two million did not die by Aryan design (genocide).

One last thing for the mods, no one is allowed to vote who has not been a member in the last 60 days.[hr]My first post on this topic/debate:[hr]My first post, (am down to 4 against your 10): Where is the evidence that TWO, ( not 6 million) million jews were murdered with intent by Germany/Germans? Where is the EVIDENCE that jewish genocide was intended or pre-programed? No simple rhetoric is allowed. Nor is circumstantial evidence. This is based on facts and proven EVIDENCE.


[color=#0000FF]What is acceptable evidence? Because, obviously, you have disregarded or ignored 99.9% of the history textbooks, the U.S. Government's testimony's and pictures as well as many Nazis and Germans themselves. How could we have a debate if you will not accept what is common knowledge?


Don't forget the mass graves that were found, the records that were kept of each Death and the Concentration Camps, but this asswad would probably say they were resort hotels.
[hr]

Then why is anyone bothering to debate him if you are convinced he won't fight fair or won't accept "evidence" you present?


I can't help but think it is because 'uncle' is presenting an argument that is so horrendously offensive and false that people feel compelled to respond.


I actually think he knows it existed, and that he is just trying to stir up as much shit as he can, the guy thrives on drama either that or he is mentally unstable. Maybe he is realted to Ann on this board?[hr]
Here's a whole website to answer the questions of holocaust deniers. Whoever has the patience to debate this ugliness, I hope this helps.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/denial1.html

For example this, from The Goebbels Diaries, 1948, pp. 86, 147-148):

February 14, 1942: The Führer once again expressed his determination to clean up the Jews in Europe pitilessly. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness.

March 27, 1942: The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only 40 per cent can be used for forced labor.

I can't even believe this is being questioned. It's really quite outrageous and sickening.[hr]And here is a website with pictures...

http://www.phdn.org/histgen/schmitz/indexeng.html


I think he is going to try to go with the defense of how do we know they are all Jewish and not Polish etc.

When the administrators/mods decide to allow this topic to be debated then such will happen. And I will win by intent - My only intent being an awakening. And guess what? I will not stoop to personal insults. I am after the message and not the messenger. And as the message, I will awaken people. I have done it before.

[exigent]

Well this is a losing battle for the deniers since Berlin uncovered its holocaust memorial

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4531669.stm

"Today we open a memorial that recalls Nazi Germany's worst, most terrible crime - the attempt to exterminate an entire people," Mr Thierse said.


Still kinda waiting to hear Uncle's take on this one...

[Achilles]

You are a certifiable dumbshit.



Personally, I disagree with what Uncle claims. However, from reading above labeling Uncle a Dumbshit says more about the speaker than it does Uncle. He, right or wrong has out-debated you, NavadaMedic by leagues. Perhaps you would learn from Uncles debating skills.

I'll even help: Lesson #1 you cannot qoute about a page of debate to rebuke with a few sentences.

Uncle, you should know that while I think you're dead wrong, if you out debate you opponents, I will vote you winner.

[lily]

You are a certifiable dumbshit.



Personally, I disagree with what Uncle claims. However, from reading above labeling Uncle a Dumbshit says more about the speaker than it does Uncle. He, right or wrong has out-debated you, NavadaMedic by leagues. Perhaps you would learn from Uncles debating skills.

I'll even help: Lesson #1 you cannot qoute about a page of debate to rebuke with a few sentences.

Uncle, you should know that while I think you're dead wrong, if you out debate you opponents, I will vote you winner.


I have to agreee with you Achilles........I may not agree with Uncle's ideals, but he has been nothing but civil in his debate, never once taking the bait and returning the name calling.......and he's been called some doozies!

[Uncle]

Friday would be a good day for me to begin this debate as per my fore written guidelines - 5 posts for me and 10 for my 2 opponents. For some reason the powers that be on this board have thus far chosen to ignore this debate. I think it is time they allow this to go forward. I need an education and an enlightening - - - -

[Deadshot]

But Uncle, as I have asked in several posts, what, exactly, are you debating. You admit that 2 million Jews died, I would say the number was higher, but either way it's a lot of people. Do you really just want to debate the statistics and numbers?

As for the debating skills of posters here, I really have to question the wisdom of Achilles and lilly. Because it seems as though you provide succor and encouragment to someone who is quite civil, but who purports a belief that is sickening to the majority of the world. I would really have to wonder how you would feel about the polite and civil racists, sexist, etc.

People wonder how hatred spreads, this is it. It's not the whacko out there, it's the polite, civil speaker. That speaker is in turn defended by well meaning people who believe in Free Speech. What is hilarious is that I don't think anyone but Uncle believes his claims. Claims that have been blasted by evidence in this very thread. But some people want to slam another poster for not allowing Uncle to express himself without being called a name.

Lilly, Achilles from your other posts I'd say that I'd probably agree with you on nearly everything and with nevedamedic on almost nothing. But if you wish to defend someone who's ideals and beliefs are allied with the Neo-Nazi movement, that is you right. But in doing so expect to be covered with the same taint and filth as those you are protecting wallow in.

See in a debate it's one side trying to convince another that their logic and reasoning is right, and they therefor win the arguement. Achilles you have said that you would vote for Uncle just for debating. So tell me, why would I want to count your vote or why should your opinion matter? You would literally vote for Uncle just to spite others or you'd vote for Uncle just to keep the voice of ignorance and hate alive. Lily you're just as bad. From your post I gather that someone could come on this board, as long as they were civil, and say virtually anything hateful and untrue.

Maybe you guys aren't really like that and spoke up in defense of Freedom of Speech. I don't know. But I will tell you that we're on the fourth page of this thread and for the first few pages Uncle was rebuked by evidence. Evidence that I believe that you both would bow to and accept. Part of Free Speech is the right of others to call bullshit and call people out. That's frowned upon here, and I understand why. Flame wars can get out of hand fast.

But, having been on duty protecting a KKK rally and Rev. Phelps who protests at gay funerals, I don't look at those people cussing and yelling back at those hateful people "Oh hey you are so rude and they so civil, I will now side with them." No, I tell them it's my duty to protect free speech, even people like Phelps and the KKK. I tell them that I don't agree, but they have a right to speak. I don't put down those who point out the obvious.

So lily, Achilles if you really want to stand behind Uncle, even willing to vote for him in a debate debunking the Holocaust, go ahead. You are free believe any wrong, ignorant and hatefilled view as you wish. But, as you both said in your posts, if you don't believe Uncle then don't defend his view, instead point out that it's wrong, here in this forum where the namecalling aspect of free speech is not allowed, for people to call names.

Don't side with an evil ideal just to support Free Speech.

[Achilles]

As for the debating skills of posters here, I really have to question the wisdom of Achilles and lilly. Because it seems as though you provide succor and encouragment to someone who is quite civil, but who purports a belief that is sickening to the majority of the world. I would really have to wonder how you would feel about the polite and civil racists, sexist, etc.

The only thing I would give racists and sexists is kudos for being civil. Also, while they remained civil, I would remain civil while civilly disagreeing. I do not stand for their beliefs, I stand for the right that their beliefs be spoken.


People wonder how hatred spreads, this is it. It's not the whacko out there, it's the polite, civil speaker. That speaker is in turn defended by well meaning people who believe in Free Speech. What is hilarious is that I don't think anyone but Uncle believes his claims. Claims that have been blasted by evidence in this very thread. But some people want to slam another poster for not allowing Uncle to express himself without being called a name.

Is there something wrong with slamming the uncivil poster?


Lilly, Achilles from your other posts I'd say that I'd probably agree with you on nearly everything and with nevedamedic on almost nothing. But if you wish to defend someone who's ideals and beliefs are allied with the Neo-Nazi movement, that is you right. But in doing so expect to be covered with the same taint and filth as those you are protecting wallow in.

Lets get something straight deadshot, I stand in defense of Uncle's character not his beliefs. If I could, I would make everyone on this world as civil as Uncle but God forbid that everyone on this would carry similar beliefs.


See in a debate it's one side trying to convince another that their logic and reasoning is right, and they therefor win the arguement. Achilles you have said that you would vote for Uncle just for debating. So tell me, why would I want to count your vote or why should your opinion matter? You would literally vote for Uncle just to spite others or you'd vote for Uncle just to keep the voice of ignorance and hate alive. Lily you're just as bad. From your post I gather that someone could come on this board, as long as they were civil, and say virtually anything hateful and untrue.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the debate off a contest of debating skills? or is it a contest of ideals? If its a contest of Ideals then everything Uncle said about everyone going with the flow would be true especially in this debate.


Maybe you guys aren't really like that and spoke up in defense of Freedom of Speech. I don't know. But I will tell you that we're on the fourth page of this thread and for the first few pages Uncle was rebuked by evidence. Evidence that I believe that you both would bow to and accept. Part of Free Speech is the right of others to call bullshit and call people out. That's frowned upon here, and I understand why. Flame wars can get out of hand fast.

The posters should be mature enough to post in a manner that is civil. Like I said in my earlier post, saying outright "Uncle is a certifiable dumbshit" said more about NavadaMedic than it does Uncle.


But, having been on duty protecting a KKK rally and Rev. Phelps who protests at gay funerals, I don't look at those people cussing and yelling back at those hateful people "Oh hey you are so rude and they so civil, I will now side with them." No, I tell them it's my duty to protect free speech, even people like Phelps and the KKK. I tell them that I don't agree, but they have a right to speak. I don't put down those who point out the obvious.

Like I said, I dont stand up for Uncles actions, I stand for his character.


So lily, Achilles if you really want to stand behind Uncle, even willing to vote for him in a debate debunking the Holocaust, go ahead. You are free believe any wrong, ignorant and hatefilled view as you wish. But, as you both said in your posts, if you don't believe Uncle then don't defend his view, instead point out that it's wrong, here in this forum where the namecalling aspect of free speech is not allowed, for people to call names.

O.k. fine, Here i go.
Uncle, I think you're wrong and you've got a few screws lose but kudos for being civil.

I dont classify that as defending his view, would you?

Don't side with an evil ideal just to support Free Speech.


ok

[Deadshot]

The only thing I would give racists and sexists is kudos for being civil. Also, while they remained civil, I would remain civil while civilly disagreeing. I do not stand for their beliefs, I stand for the right that their beliefs be spoken.


Is there something wrong with slamming the uncivil poster?

No, I just pointed out that in doing so you allied with a civil, but idealistically challenge poster.

Lets get something straight deadshot, I stand in defense of Uncle's character not his beliefs. If I could, I would make everyone on this world as civil as Uncle but God forbid that everyone on this would carry similar beliefs.

By that same token then you would stand in the defense of anyone, as long as they were civil. Isn't that almost like saying that I'd sit down and have dinner with the Devil, but as long as he was civil, he could say what he wanted?

From your writing it's almost as if you would slam an uncivil poster for calling someone a "Cuunt." (had to put in that extra u or it came out as "Bad Lady", losing some of the statements punch) But would defend the person, and imagine me saying this in my best Harvard accent "You, sir, are the dirty inner wall of the vagina a $3 whore after a hot Friday night. Muffy get me a brandy."

What's civity if the ideal is evil?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the debate off a contest of debating skills? or is it a contest of ideals? If its a contest of Ideals then everything Uncle said about everyone going with the flow would be true especially in this debate.


Debating is both the skills of the debator AND the ideals presented. If we were to follow your example, one could simply begin gathering the best debators and have debate idiot things just to screw with people.

Some one could debate that eating ice cream gives us cancer or that smoking cigerettes teaches you to swim. If it's all in the debators skill and ideals doesn't come into play well then ANYTHING can be won in a debate.

But in the high school debate club I belonged to, and the college one that my buddy is on, one must present an ideal that is backed by facts, then when debates the accuracy of the FACTS of that IDEAL. So debate is the ability to debate coupled with the ability to gather and present coherent facts to back your debate position.

The posters should be mature enough to post in a manner that is civil. Like I said in my earlier post, saying outright "Uncle is a certifiable dumbshit" said more about NavadaMedic than it does Uncle.


Really, what does it say? That because of his civility Uncle is on a higher plane or a better person then nevadamedic because he cursed at someone?

I guess the question for me is, Achilles, if you met the two on the street, Uncle and neveda, who would you rather go to lunch with and talk to. For me I take the guy cussing and cursing, even at me, before I will the civil person who wants to talk about 60 years of history that is wrong and we're all idiots.

Like I said, I dont stand up for Uncles actions, I stand for his character.


Isn't character more then if you curse or not? Is that it? So as long as I was civil I could say what I wanted, but should I curse at you or others my character is suddenly lacking?

Again, I have to wonder who you'd hang with. It sounds like that you'd hang with a Civil Devil, and no I'm not calling Uncle one I'm just trying to make a point, as opposed to an un-Civil God.

Hope Jesus don't cuss anybody out ever...or hope the Devil isn't civil...:madlaugh:


O.k. fine, Here i go.
Uncle, I think you're wrong and you've got a few screws lose but kudos for being civil.

I dont classify that as defending his view, would you?


No, that isn't, but this "Uncle, you should know that while I think you're dead wrong, if you out debate you opponents, I will vote you winner." is a defense of his ideals. Because if this were the real world and this was a real debate, what you're saying is that Uncle needs no source material, no evidence, nothing at all but a civil tongue. If someone from the other side loses their temper and curses at him, you will vote for Uncle.

Is that how a debate should be decided? Not on evidence produced, which there was four pages of that Uncle simply said was wrong, but instead on whether the polar opposite of Uncle stays civil. Isn't that Ms. Manners run amok?

[moses2792796]

Logic of Holocaust Deniers : Hitler's politics were good, but his methods were bad. People will never accept his politics because they are associated with his methods, therefore, deny they ever happened and that problem is solved:). Really it just makes them look stupid, people shouldn't bother responding in this thread, it's ridiculous. Alhough I am certain Hitler was made to look worse than he actually was (winners write history remember) its kinda hard to fabricate the death of 6 million people.

Edit: replace the word politics with principles, politics implies method. Also I don't agree with Hitler's racism in case anyone's wondering, but I do think that alot of his ideas were excellent had they been used in the hands of saner people.

[Uncle]

But Uncle, as I have asked in several posts, what, exactly, are you debating. You admit that 2 million Jews died,Nope. Never admitted 2 million, 20 millior or even one. I would say the number was higher, but either way it's a lot of people. Do you really just want to debate the statistics and numbers?

As for the debating skills of posters here, I really have to question the wisdom of Achilles and lilly. Because it seems as though you provide succor and encouragment to someone who is quite civil, but who purports a belief that is sickening to the majority of the world. I would really have to wonder how you would feel about the polite and civil racists, sexist, etc.

People wonder how hatred spreads, this is it. It's not the whacko out there, it's the polite, civil speaker. That speaker is in turn defended by well meaning people who believe in Free Speech. What is hilarious is that I don't think anyone but Uncle believes his claims. Claims that have been blasted by evidence in this very thread. But some people want to slam another poster for not allowing Uncle to express himself without being called a name.

Lilly, Achilles from your other posts I'd say that I'd probably agree with you on nearly everything and with nevedamedic on almost nothing. But if you wish to defend someone who's ideals and beliefs are allied with the Neo-Nazi movement, that is you right. But in doing so expect to be covered with the same taint and filth as those you are protecting wallow in.

See in a debate it's one side trying to convince another that their logic and reasoning is right, and they therefor win the arguement. Achilles you have said that you would vote for Uncle just for debating. So tell me, why would I want to count your vote or why should your opinion matter? You would literally vote for Uncle just to spite others or you'd vote for Uncle just to keep the voice of ignorance and hate alive. Lily you're just as bad. From your post I gather that someone could come on this board, as long as they were civil, and say virtually anything hateful and untrue.

Maybe you guys aren't really like that and spoke up in defense of Freedom of Speech. I don't know. But I will tell you that we're on the fourth page of this thread and for the first few pages Uncle was rebuked by evidence. Evidence that I believe that you both would bow to and accept. Part of Free Speech is the right of others to call bullshit and call people out. That's frowned upon here, and I understand why. Flame wars can get out of hand fast.

But, having been on duty protecting a KKK rally and Rev. Phelps who protests at gay funerals, I don't look at those people cussing and yelling back at those hateful people "Oh hey you are so rude and they so civil, I will now side with them." No, I tell them it's my duty to protect free speech, even people like Phelps and the KKK. I tell them that I don't agree, but they have a right to speak. I don't put down those who point out the obvious.

So lily, Achilles if you really want to stand behind Uncle, even willing to vote for him in a debate debunking the Holocaust, go ahead. You are free believe any wrong, ignorant and hatefilled view as you wish. But, as you both said in your posts, if you don't believe Uncle then don't defend his view, instead point out that it's wrong, here in this forum where the namecalling aspect of free speech is not allowed, for people to call names.

Don't side with an evil ideal just to support Free Speech.

Let us make this easy, simple and concise. This debate, should you accept it, is not just numbers(1), it is
2.) Did it actually happen as is historically taught?
3.) Was there a determination by Germany, (and most explicitly, by Hitler) to murder jews?
4.) Provide factual evidence in support of your argument.

I have ignored some of the first 4 pages that you rant about because I choose to use them later in this debate. Others, (such as pictures posted) I have easily dismissed by their lack of linked origin. For instance, the pictures pasted by Viola had nothing to authenticate their origin, but yet they gave credence to my argument, (no tattoos/no 6 pointed stars).

I normally do not come to the defense of others on these boards because to do so usually aligns them (against their wishes, and mine) with me. Nor do I normally attack my opponents with insults or cowardice. But, (since this thread has taken a turn away from it's original intent and has become nothing more than personal attacks), then I am going to respond in kind to you, Deadhead[/color]. Two good people on this board supported my ability to put forth my ideas as opposed to my enemies abilities - they supported my ability above that of my antagonistic adversaries, (not my thoughts or beliefs) and you lost your mind and became base and chose degenerate ramblings above the argument. I ask you now, are you truly prepared to defend your beliefs? are YOU capable? I honestly don't think so. I THOUGHT that you might have the ability to debate this topic, but I am not sure at all that you are qualified. You are too emotionally involved to be intellectually involved.

There are two things I see in you by your postings, Deadbeat:

1.) You are not analytical enough to be a good cop, (if, indeed you are a cop)

2.) You are a zionist supporting jew. (ADL or JDL?)

I want this debate to go forward. It will not happen in this thread, so I will start another. There, I will sink your ship. And the rules just changed: You will get 10 posts and so will I. Everyone else gets ignored. I could have taken your dumb ass, (yep, I can get base too) to the cleaners in 3 posts, but now I have 10, just like you. Pull your panties up girly-boy, you are fixing to help me awaken everyone who reads our words. I love you fucking jews - you are your own worst enemies and have always been your own down fall. You call me a neo-Nazi, I call you a communist deleted. I would much rather be a National Socialist as opposed to being a fucking jew controlled commie. (Just some back-at-you words).

You will give my argument strength, because YOU will fight with emotion and rhettoric while I fight with reason, knowledge, factual evidence and intellect.

Hugs and kisses, you anti-Christ - you are going to the cleaners.

[Jaaaman]

Wow... now that's the way to debate with your opponents uncle... personally insult them. Way to go, jew hater. :rolleyes:

[lily]

Wow... now that's the way to debate with your opponents uncle... personally insult them. Way to go, jew hater. :rolleyes:


Jay, with all due respect, I think that Uncle has shown a lot of restraint in this whole discussion with the name calling.

Now, unless there is more discussion on the topic and not on the posters, I'll have to close the thread. This is not aimed at anyone in particular....but posters as a whole.

So what's it going to be, more discussion on the topic?

[moses2792796]

There is nothing left in this thread but further embarassment for both parties...close it.

[Jaaaman]

You cannot have an intelligent debate with a moron.