First debate as a novice

[Rockartisten]

I'm still a novice, so be gentle

So I have entered a debate with an old acquaintance/friend, who promised me he would hack my arguments to pieces and basically teach me a lesson. He is/was a high school teacher in social sciences (I believe that is the correct translation). He even studied the revisionist view at university and met with survivors. So I was obviously doomed. Because I'm wrong and a conspiracy theorist with no meat on my bones. (And uneducated/ignorant)

I obviously knew what position I had put myself in 2 years ago when I started studying this and saw all the rediculous war propaganda. Never did I know that the Holocaust was the most easily debunkable "conspiracy theory" concucted. But I knew how serious socially such a stand would be, and I have tried to study it as much as my time allows. (My wife is really tired of it )

Initially I have run circles around the, lets call him, history teacher. I tried to keep my arguments simple and on point and then try to see where he actually was. He didn't even know about the insane lowering in numbers at the camps. He studied the revisionist view at university after all, jesus. I kept my debate at Majdanek and Treblinka since they, in my mind, represent two different types of camps and are easily demolishable for a revisionist.

His main arguments have been predictable of course.

What are your motives?
What are the political views of revisionists?
Where did they go?
Why don't you believe the witnesses?
How would it be possible to create such a conspiracy, someone would know? (sigh)

Edit and addon:

Oh, I forgot. What do you think about jews? Jeez!
Apparently, and I never knew, his grandmother was jewish and lost 3 sibblings in the gas chambers at Auschwitz.

I left the personal talk though and moved on immediately.

I am quite disappointed in the arguments though. I thought he would know more after his big talk and his credentials. I even exaggerated a little about the witnesses and talked about the deadly masturbation machines, and he still wondered what evidence I have to question something like that just because it sounds bizarre. The nazis were sick and twisted after all.

This debate takes place on our private chat and it will go on for as long as we have energy for it. I might ask for help in some regards in this thread as he throws articles at me. I hope that is ok.

He showed an article about a mass grave outside Odessa, Ukraine. My main argument was that it wasn't even close to being related to gas chambers and the camps, but I don't really know anything about the grave. Is there a scientific report of any kind that i can read or is it like Soldau? Claims with no names?

Fun fact:

We played in the same band once. Badadamp chii!

Thanks

The novice

Edit:

I ended yesterday's session like this (bing translate) :

May I just ask another question. It may be and may sound a little rhetorical, but it is not fully.

If you studied the revisionist side at university and didn't even have a clue about the insane drop in death rates that the revisionists had achieved, what did you really learn at university?

[borjastick]

His main arguments have been predictable of course.

What are your motives?
What are the political views of revisionists?
Where did they go?
Why don't you believe the witnesses?
How would it be possible to create such a conspiracy, someone would know? (sigh)

Rockartistan

His comments and sidebar tactics are completely irrelevant and are very typical of people who think they know a lot about the holocaust and who believe the gas chamber/6m nonsense, and want to belittle you by immediately swerving into the 'are you a Nazi' routine and 'why do you hate jews?' and 'when did you last beat your wife?'. It's all obfuscation and bullying. Ignore him and tell him that it is not about you or your views, good, bad or indifferent about jews and politics etc, it is about truth.

If he persists ask him why he doesn't want the truth and the good news that 6m jews didn't die in the holocaust so why does he want them dead when clearly they were not murdered etc.

He may have read the revisionist viewpoint at Uni but he didn't study it because I have never heard of any Uni offering a revisionist holocaust course. Ask him if he actually knows the difference between a concentration camp and a claimed 'death camp'. Ask him if he can name all the 'death camps'.

See if he has been to any of the camps and in particular Auschwitz. Ask him if he is aware that Auschwitz had a swimming pool, theatre, hospital, brothel. Ask him how many children were born in Auschwitz. That usually throws believers because the argument that the Germans wanted all jews dead is dead and buried at that point.

Once you show your friend that you are in possession of many more facts about reality than him he'll probably back off and just call you an anti semite and hate you for the rest of his life. No great loss believe me.

[Fred zz]

however you debate him or her, don't resort to dislike or hate of Jewish people. I keep my arguments centered around technical and or mathematical common sense and you will do fine unless you are discussing things with people who have no technical skillset and just have emotional skillset.
I just finished up an argument on Quora about people digging in their hands and leaving impressions in concrete walls. I had all kinds of dimwits challenging me and calling me a Nazi.
Ask people you debate if they know anything about refractory bricks. Do you know what they are and the relationship to the Holocaust? If you do not then take the time to study them. There are others aspects you can study, but these bricks are but one item.
Remember: Confucius say: "One who shoot from hip, put foot in mouth"

[Rockartisten]

Once you show your friend that you are in possession of many more facts about reality than him he'll probably back off and just call you an anti semite and hate you for the rest of his life. No great loss believe me.

Yeah, I gave that up a looong time ago after I was basically ostracized when I publically declared the population change in Sweden immoral and a betrayal to me and my people. Never invited anymore. Not many calls etc. So I stopped giving a shit a long time ago.

[Rockartisten]

however you debate him or her, don't resort to dislike or hate of Jewish people. I keep my arguments centered around technical and or mathematical common sense and you will do fine unless you are discussing things with people who have no technical skillset and just have emotional skillset.
I just finished up an argument on Quora about people digging in their hands and leaving impressions in concrete walls. I had all kinds of dimwits challenging me and calling me a Nazi.
Ask people you debate if they know anything about refractory bricks. Do you know what they are and the relationship to the Holocaust? If you do not then take the time to study them. There are others aspects you can study, but these bricks are but one item.
Remember: Confucius say: "One who shoot from hip, put foot in mouth"

I have kept oit of the traps of qiestions loke that. But he had great interest in how I reached my conclusions and my motives and my thoughts on other "conspiracy theories", so I let him have his fun, but I clearly declared that it is completely unrelated to the Holocaist debate and I will not mix the two. So he is free to ask anything, but when we go back to Holocaust it must be strictly that. He can ventilate a little, that's fine.

[Rockartisten]

I am now arguing the following translated with google translate. I think I am doing fine in demolishing those extreme faults in argumentation, but if anyone has anything... Give it! Hehe:

I certainly haven't spent as much time as you, to familiarize myself with the historical revisionists' version of the holocaust. I do not deny that.

I trust the process and methodology that has determined that to be a historical fact. In the same way that I don't need to conduct experiments in chemistry or quantum mechanics myself to simply embrace the scientific consensus.

No person can be expected to delve deeply into every subject in the world in order to trust that the research there is correct and true. I know how historical research works after doing it full time for 1.5 years. I also know that the Holocaust is researched to a very large extent by the serious community.

You are implying that there is a big conspiracy. In general, I am very skeptical of conspiracy theories. The more people who are expected to keep the conspiracy secret, the less likely the conspiracy theory is. These are simple things that guide me.

But you believe that your sources and your conclusions on the matter are more likely than the conclusions of established science.

Of course I refer to authority and consensus. That doesn't automatically mean it's true. But I have read more historical method than you. It's something that I have that you don't, even though you've read a lot of history revisionists' texts online.

I have never claimed to be an expert on revisionist ideas about how the Holocaust happened. You will not be able to have a debate about your specific objections to details of the testimonies because I have not researched the matter. You should contact a historian who has spent a lot of time researching the holocaust.

And the way to get in touch with professors with that detailed knowledge is to go through the university. There are no shortcuts. As leisure researchers, you have not shown that you understand the basic principles of research, thus prominent researchers are rarely particularly eager to spend their time answering various questions from a random private person.

But you can try to get an answer from someone. Or as I said, even better study history.

[Fred zz]

see attachment
Sometimes it has to be this way

[hermod]

Your old friend doesn't know anything about the Holocaust. He only attributes malevolent motives and aims to Holocaust revisionists (who he probably calls "deniers" in order to exempt himself from discussing their arguments). But someone's [real or imaginary] motives and aims don't matter in such a debate. Galileo Galilei's motives and aims for contradicting the geocentric model never made the sun revolve around the earth.

Moreover, one can easily see that the main motives and aims of most orthodox/exterminationist/antirevisionist historians are closely related to the expropriation of the Palestinian people by the Zionist clique and to the expropriation of the White peoples by the Globalist clique (in fact, 2 parts of the same Judeo-Masonic eschatological agenda). In my book, those are super-malevolent motives and aims.

[Rockartisten]

see attachment
Sometimes it has to be this way

I am demolishing his argument about my incompetence piece by piece as we speak. It will be interesting what he will say when I'm done. I'm basically spamming now.

[Rockartisten]

Your old friend doesn't know anything about the Holocaust. He only attributes malevolent motives and aims to Holocaust revisionists (who he probably calls "deniers" in order to exempt himself from discussing their arguments). But someone's [real or imaginary] motives and aims don't matter in such a debate. Galileo Galilei's motives and aims for contradicting the geocentric model never made the sun revolve around the earth.

Moreover, one can easily see that the main motives and aims of most orthodox/exterminationist/antirevisionist historians are closely related to the expropriation of the Palestinian people by the Zionist clique and to the expropriation of the White peoples by the Globalist clique (in fact, 2 parts of the same Judeo-Masonic eschatological agenda). In my book, those are super-malevolent motives and aims.

Yeah, I noticed his knowledge was close to nil. I destroyed him fairly easily. But his new argumentation can also be hacked. He has to see reason at some point.

[Rockartisten]

Your old friend doesn't know anything about the Holocaust. He only attributes malevolent motives and aims to Holocaust revisionists (who he probably calls "deniers" in order to exempt himself from discussing their arguments). But someone's [real or imaginary] motives and aims don't matter in such a debate. Galileo Galilei's motives and aims for contradicting the geocentric model never made the sun revolve around the earth.

Moreover, one can easily see that the main motives and aims of most orthodox/exterminationist/antirevisionist historians are closely related to the expropriation of the Palestinian people by the Zionist clique and to the expropriation of the White peoples by the Globalist clique (in fact, 2 parts of the same Judeo-Masonic eschatological agenda). In my book, those are super-malevolent motives and aims.

Which is your book?

[EtienneSC]

I would try showing a genuine interest in what he thinks constitutes an appropriate method for establishing a consensus on history, who he considers a real expert and which universities he is referring to. If you try following his advice and let him know the results he would at least see that you are receptive to new information. People are rarely convinced by knock-down arguments.

And you might learn something in the process - one rule of thumb in studying history is to put yourself where you are likely to meet knowledgeable people or have access to new information or have your assumptions challenged. (Warning: You might need to be prudent about how you do this in some European countries.)

[Whodunnit?]

For a long time, I also rejected these technical arguments, because I cannot judge them myself. I also studied history, some of my professors were very prominent historians, and I also trusted them. I don't know how long it takes to cremate a body, or how exactly a gas chamber has to look like.

Try more intuitive arguments. And instead of just presenting your arguments as facts, as him questions that he can answer himself.

First point out that whether you believe in the Holocaust or not, it IS a conspiracy theory.
Either the Nazis secretly conspired to kill millions of Jews, used coded language for that purpose, killed 6 million, got rid of all the evidence while they were losing the war, tried to lie about it when the allies put them on trial, and to this day, represented by "Neo Nazis", are still trying to make people believe that it never happened....

OR the allies are the conspirators. Would this conspiracy serve a purpose for the allies? Would they have had the means to do it? Does the Holocaust-narrative still serve a purpose today?

Imagine a "serious historian" doing research on the Holocaust and finding evidence that the Holocaust as it is taught in school didn't happen. Would he have the liberty to publish his finding?
What would happen if he would publish his findings?
Has there ever been an open, controversial and fair discussion about it?
When did it take place and who took part in it?
Was the number of deaths in Auschwitz lowered after a public discussion about the death toll among historians?
Who is the historian who found out that it was 1,1 million and not 4?
What is his ground breaking book called?
Who is the historian who found out that the gas didn't come out of shower heads?
What would happen if the whole world would accept that the Holocaust as it was told in schools and movies for 80 years didn't happen?
What would the consequences be?
Would the consequences be dire enough to keep it going?

Even though most people can't tell how many people you can cremate in crematory ovens, show him this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fX3ihyWDHF4

This an interview with SS-guard Kurt Franz. At 2:55 he says "here (he points on a place on a map of Treblinka) they [the dead Jews, directly after the gassing] were put on a grill and were burned. They were burned! Here (points on map) they were burned!"

He then say that before his time there there was no grill, the Jews were just buried. At 3:45 he continues "And after a time, after this grill has been there, they were with the cranes... so with the excavator cranes... pulled out and put or laid on the grill (unintelligible) but I didn't pay attention to it, but they were put on it and these uhm.... these corpses that had been laying underneath the earth.... they were burned. And then they places something like seven there... so slanted ones, like how you sift sand, and the ashed was sifted through there"

Btw this is not a bad translation, he's stammering quite a lot there.

Challenge him to do an experiment: put a several big piece of meat, like a pork legs, on a grill and then make a fire under it. How long does it take for the leg to turn to ash? And how long would it take to cremate a thousand people like that.

And about the history of the Holocaust narrative: Ron Unz has written a noteworthy article about the history of the narrative and denial. It's just called "Holocaust denial". You can show him this article. Tell him that Ron Unz is Jewish himself. Ask him for his opinion on this article.

The strategy here is obviously that you don't just present him with your facts, which aren't facts for him, but you make him come up with the answers himself.

Some more, not directly Holocaust related. To counter the arguments

"Historians are rarely ever wrong"

Show him the wikipedia-article about the Khmelnytsky Uprising. This happened in 1648 and 1657, was the Holocaust before the Holocaust. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmelnytsky_Uprising

Quote: "Early 20th-century estimates of Jewish deaths were based on the accounts of the Jewish chroniclers of the time, and tended to be high, ranging from 100,000 to 500,000 or more [...] From the 1960s to the 1980s historians still considered 100,000 a reasonable estimate of the Jews killed and, according to Edward Flannery, many considered it "a minimum" [...] A 2003 study by Israeli demographer Shaul Stampfer of Hebrew University dedicated solely to the issue of Jewish casualties in the uprising concludes that 18,000–20,000 Jews were killed of a total population of 40,000.[39] [...] the Ukrainian-American historian Jaroslaw Pelenski narrows the number of Jewish deaths to between 6,000 and 14,000"

To counter the arguments that "you can't keep something a secret if too many people know about it, someone will talk".

Over 500,000 people worked on the Manhattan Project. Work was done on 30 sites all across the USA. 62 people died and almost 4,000 had disabling injuries.
The world wide public only found out about the Manhattan project after the first atom bombs had exploded.
How were they able to keep it a secret?


Btw. a lot of people try to win arguments with Holocaust deniers by claiming that they themselves have Jewish ancestors that died in the Holocaust. I know one person where I know for sure that he just made it up, one because he wants to be Jewish since a lot of people nowadays idolize Jews, and two because he thinks that will just make you shut up. It's kind of an emergency break-argument.

[Hektor]

I'm still a novice, so be gentle

So I have entered a debate with an old acquaintance/friend, who promised me he would hack my arguments to pieces and basically teach me a lesson. He is/was a high school teacher in social sciences (I believe that is the correct translation). He even studied the revisionist view at university and met with survivors. So I was obviously doomed. Because I'm wrong and a conspiracy theorist with no meat on my bones. (And uneducated/ignorant)
....

You should ask them what left to their belief to begin with. What convinced him that the key Holocaust claims are true? And that reality wasn't otherwise of course.

....
His main arguments have been predictable of course.

What are your motives?
What are the political views of revisionists?
Where did they go?
Why don't you believe the witnesses?
How would it be possible to create such a conspiracy, someone would know? (sigh)

....

Why isn't he asking the same about the Holocaust industry?
What does he think their motives are? They give stated motives, but this doesn't explain the behavior. And stated behavior isn't necessarily The real motive... There are ulterior ones. On the other hand, motives don't prove or disprove a position neither.

Where did they go? Where are the remains? This is typical behavior, when they don't know the answer to the first question, but don't want to admit there is a gap in the evidence that would have been necessary for the conclusion they did draw.

Why doesn't he believe the witnesses that saw nothing, knew nothing?

Conspiracies should be secret. Those peddling the Holocaust Narrative operate mostly rather openly (I admit there could be confidential/secret activities as well e.g. when they discuss what to do, what features to use and managerial and political issues). But the main players are known. Also that they don't have a propensity to be honest neither. The Jewish organization had self-serving interest. But so did the Allies and the Communists who were peddling the narrative after WW2. Now on the Western Allied side there was a calming down on the issue during the 50s and 60s. But Western governments picked up on this and put it into their media and educational systems. It's about control and influence and to make other policies more palatable to their audiences. The methods can be seen and studied... There is really not much secret about it, also what the interests of the players are is visible.

The response demonstrates however that he is locked into that position and will interpret anything in line with this. And any problem of that position gets a copout. Also that those rejecting the notion must have had some ulterior motive for doing so. Typically it's the anti-semite/neonazi argument. But that dog won't hunt. For one not everybody rejecting the Holocaust has views on NS or Jews. And even if people have, that doesn't change anything about the lack of evidence and the logic being used.

The problem is, people consume what they are given in schools and media. Take the position it is fostered to instill in them... And then can't be 'delearned' or 'deprogrammed' from it. Those that have a rational, sober and empirical approach... Are rare. Thinking folks are less then 10% of the population and they usually are in a well-paid day job that doesn't allow to keep them busy with the facts and arguments. In fact there is a deterrent as well. If they found out that this is lying on a massive scale that is a rather unpleasant idea and well, if they told others that they disagree with the official consensus, then that can have negative consequences as well.

For the bulk of the people there needs to be a major crisis first, before they change their mind on it.

[Rockartisten]

I can update later with translation how the debate transpired for those who have interest. But first I need some help.

He wants me to give 5 basic arguments why it could not have happend. I chose first of all his main points, and rhen I just chose. So the debate is on at a later date and he will start taking it more seriously and accepts.. Well... Imperically. So that's good.

So I chose 5 points.

Testimonies
Gaschamber evidence
Massgraves arounf camps
Proven allied / soviet propaganda lies related to Holocaust.
Six million myth (where does it come from)

He has promised to follow each point. Progress. Fine.

I will start with testimonies during the week, and I would like some help. Orthodox sources with revisionist context. What more did these witnesses that are so reliable say. I am scattered and I can't put that together. It doesn't help to show a bunch of idiots anymore. I have to show that the orthodox side stand on the idiots.

Thanks. And thanks for the input so far.