Need I redefine "Holocaust-denial" in order to win this debate via a semantic angle? Of course not! I shall demonstrate that my position is the correct one based entirely on its merits alone.
The assertion that Holocaust-denial does not encompass libel and slander ignores reality while hyperfocusing on definitions and technicalities. Admittedly, neither the words "libel" nor "slander" appear anywhere in the defintion we have both agreed upon. Can we therefore extrapolate from this into the conclusion that Holocaust-denial does not imply libel? If one were to point out that the definition of "gas" in the dictionary does not contain the word "murder", and try to use this as proof that gas is incapable of killing anyone, I can say with certainty that we would all laugh at them.
Reality is often cruel and as she so often does to all of us, once again gets in the way of my opponent's idealism. Because Holocaust-denial implicitly accuses all victims of the Holocaust of lying, it is libel and slander, despite these words not appearing in the definition. Asserting that the Holocaust did not happen is necessarily asserting that either all victims are lying, some or lying and some are mistaken, or somehow every last one of the millions are mistaken. Frankly, we can easily rule out the possibility that anyone believes the latter.
Let me take this opportunity to reiterate a fantastic statement of my opponents' which we can all agree upon:
"Anybody who engages in libel or slander should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law."
This is tantamount to a concession that Holocaust-denial should be prosecuted, because we've already established that Holocaust-denial is libel and slander.
Objectively speaking, it is not "unlikely" that evidence against the extent of the Holocaust could be found, but impossible. The most infamous event in world history with thousands of surviving victims in the age of global media cannot be "evidenced" to have been meaningfully exaggerated, much less by a random Holocaust-denier. Assume for the sake of argument at least that backwards time-travel is impossible, so nobody can go back to stop it from having occured.
Suppose that there were a group of malcontent individuals hell-bent on demonstrating that the writing of the Constitution never happened and in fact, the Constitution is a hoax and does not actually exist wherever it's claimed to be preserved now. It is completely up to your imagination what their motives and purposes are for this hypothetical, because in any case this is effectively treason. To meditate upon this for a mere 2 seconds will bring this fact to light, because while at first glance it seems to be a silly exercise of Freedom of Speech, it is in reality a threat to the foundations of democracy in the USA.
Surely my opponent can draw the line somewhere else, if they disagree where I have drawn it myself. Understanding what they think is an abuse of a freedom is important for us to not talk over each other in this debate. Apparently "inciting riots", "causing a panic", and endangering "property" and "safety of citizens" do cross the line for them. Clearly it is lost on Con that Holocaust-denial necessarily leads to all of those things, just as "Constitution-denial" would. Obviously the first people to be blamed, once a critical mass of the population has been duped into becoming Holocaust-deniers, are the very victims of the Holocaust themselves. Let us not entertain fantasies about fighting deniers with the pen, with eloquent arguments and fluid quill strokes, while they laugh at us and continue to spew their brainwashing propaganda upon the masses who are too busy with family, work and other responsibilities to perform a critical analysis of either side.
Or, we sacrifice the reputation of the victims, and indeed again their very safety from harassment and violence, in the name of an excessively-idealistic Freedom of Speech. Have we to abandon all reason and stick to the letter of the law, while trampling its spirit underfoot?
Examples of things that are to be accomplished by banning Holocaust-denial include pushing anti-Semitism deeper underground out of sight of highly impressionable children, and guaranteeing that Nazism of the denier-type at least never gains a foothold in public political life. Holding slanderers accountable is by my opponents' own admission a worthwhile goal, and this would protect the reputation of the many yet-living victims.
To claim that my point about Germany was "ripe with assumptions and speculation" is to mischaracterize it. Should Germany turn Nazi again, the ban on Holocaust-denial would be dropped. Under no circumstances would Nazis punish someone for Holocaust-denial, so this is I feel an irrefutable argument. Or does Con deny that a ban on Holocaust-denial is proof that Nazis are not in power? Legalizing Holocaust-denial is a step towards Nazism, not neutral towards or opposed to it.