Holocaust Denial should be outlawed in the USA
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Should denial of the Holocaust be protected in the United States of America? At least 17 countries have already outright banned it. 80 years after the crime occured, it is it hightime for the USA to follow suit?
- the belief or assertion that the Holocaust did not happen or was greatly exaggerated.
- made illegal; banned."an outlawed extremist group"
I will leave it up to the judges to decide whether it would actually be beneficial to infringe on our liberty and implement my opponents policy just as a symbolic gesture and not for results.
Arguments:
In short, affirming the resolution for the USA became dependant on the german people only being held back from repeating genocide, by laws against denying it happened. There are several obvious problems with this, but in short: Germany <> USA. For the USA, pro basically yielded that it would be ineffective. The hypothetical that it might save millions of lives by preventing the USA from launching a holocaust, was intuitively unwarranted given the lack of such manifesting already (con’s direct challenge here was that it wouldn’t actually do anything here).
Sources:
Neither went very far with these. To which there were a lot of missed opportunities.
Legibility:
Both were fine, but there were a couple tiny issues. As per usual, I would suggest adding in contention headings and perhaps some direct syllogisms.
Conduct:
A couple things that could be nitpicked from both sides, but nothing that significantly distracted from the debate.
More in comments: https://www.debateart.com/debates/2854-holocaust-denial-should-be-outlawed-in-the-usa?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=83
Set-up. Pro provided no definition of terms in the Set-up Description, and suggested a number of countries which have engaged the Resolution that Holocaust deniers have been outlawed, as if, by consequence, it is a given the US should. Further, [in R1,] Pro still did not offer definition of terms, leaving that necessity [by this voter] to do so in the Con R1 frame. Most instigating debaters provide term definitions of Resolution keywords. Although there is no Policy suggestion that definitions are necessary in set-up [and, in fact, in the Cheating section of the Voting policy, there is a prohibition of offering favorable definitions to the instigator, it implies that unbiased definitions are appropriate. If only to focus the debate argumentation. This is not a point contributor, merely observation.
Argument: Pro begins argument by declaring Holocaust denial being xenophobic, assuming this to be true without offering supporting evidence. Pro did offer a source for the claim, but the source is, effectively, just as lacking in evidence; it, too, merely makes the claim, rendering the claim as mere opinion. Were there definitive evidence of the linkage, Pro should have provided scholastic evidence, but did not. Pro then argues limitations to the US Constitution’s First Amendment offer of freedom of speech, but that there are limitations to its universal application. Pro furthers this argument by declaration that other countries which have imposed legal criminalization of Holocaust denial do so in keeping with these free speech limitations, and, therefore, that the U.S. should do likewise. Con’s argument, by rebuttal, against the free speech limitation confronts the brutal reality that the sufferers of the Holocaust have the right to information regarding the Holocaust from all sources, even deniers. To lack all information by censorship is denial of free access to all knowledge available, even that which may, in fact, inflict emotional, spiritual damage. To be sure, the limitation of freedom of speech cannot harm physically, an effect to be avoided, even by law, but harm to emotion and spirit is by weak choice to convert to retaliation. Though Pro continued to press the freedom of speech issue throughout the rest of the rounds, pro could not defeat the Con rebuttal. In fact, in R2, Pro offered the prohibition of video in the Supreme Court, but this argument is not a limitation of freedom of speech, for the entire syllabus of SCOTUS decision are available in print, and available be free access on the Internet, thus satisfying the freedom of speech. Pro subsequently offered the Streisand effect, but his source for that argument actually supported the prohibition of censorship, which is a valid argument against the Resolution, as silencing Holocaust deniers effectively does. Con rebuts, “…unfortunately for pro, that is not a guaranteed right that the citizens of the US are allotted, and it's not necessarily known if only banning holocaust denial would achieve that goal alone.” Con thus negates the Pro argument that criminalizing Holocaust denial would necessarily stop the information flow to Holocaust survivors, or anyone else, for that matter, since it is a well known maxim that proof of a negative is an ineffective logic. There are more examples of insufficient argument by pro to prove the Resolution, but these will suffice. Points to Con.
Sourcing: Both sides use sourcing effectively, but the example of pro’s source in R2 of actually arguing against the Resolution [the Streisand effect] is sufficient example of a source failure. Points to Con.
Legibility: Both participants’ arguments were easy to follow and interpret. Tie.
Conduct: Ignoring Pro's repeated charges to Con to "explicitly deny" pro arguments, which bordered on unnecessary taunting, Conduct was equally civil on both sides. Tie.
Arguments:
First of all, just to get something out of the way - Con - your evidence really isn't all that strong - the source you provide isn't even the actual study and doesn't link to the study either, it isn't hard to guess why as the survey apparently only has 300 or so responses... far from representative - so while I'm not completely disregarding the source, it really has a very small impact on the debate itself.
The Libel: Con essentially asserts that because the definition of Holocaust denial precludes libel, libel is not the topic of discussion, but Pro convinces me that it is the *means* by which one should view Holocaust denial - as this was essentially a debate of rhetoric - Con you should have attacked that argument more than mentioning its preclusion from the description - clearly the implications of Holocaust denial would be dealing in Libel. Perhaps if Con could have shown evidence that cases like this were ruled in favor of the denier, or something similar, then I wouldn't be convinced - in the absence of such evidence the point goes to Pro.
Propaganda: This goes to an appeal to emotion versus an appeal to realism - and I am not very swayed by Con's attempt to "sympathize" with Nazi sympathizers, nor I am very convinced that Pro is deliberately attacking the masses - in most research papers, citing something that is common knowledge is a task in redundancy, and it is fairly common knowledge that everyone is vulnerable to propaganda - and Pro does actually back this up by reasonably appealing to the fact that it is unrealistic to say that *all* of the people who fell to the Nazi propaganda weren't unintelligent, and explained how it worked - the point goes to Pro, clearly.
The Case of Denazification: Pro argues that anti-holocaust denial laws in Britain has curbed anti-semintism, and furthermore points out that it would be unreasonable to get rid of the denazification because Germany still has high levels of ati-seministism, and argues that that is the logical conclusion of Con's plan.... and... Con plain out doesn't respond to it - in their next debate round saying: " do not feel the need to elaborate on this issue until my opponent addresses the fact that their proposal can certainly be shown to be ineffective" Con, even if this was true, and it wasn't, whenever a debate is arguing that something "should" happen, it is happening on more than a legal front - I hope its not neccessary to say, but Pro won this as well.
Despite the confidence Con has in his appeal to evidence, his source is easily ignored (even without the weakness of it) by Pro's rhetoric. Though I would have liked both sides using a *lot* more sources, the simple fact is that Pro is more convincing and makes more impactful points, whereas it seems Con is grasping at straws, saying things like, "the definition of holocaust denial doesn't include libel", this arugment goes to Pro.
If my last argument seems to end abruptly it's because I overshot the 5,000 character limit by 1,200 but I think I can shoehorn it into the next round pretty seamlessly.
Thank you, I appreciate that a lot.
I took no offense from your argument, and I understood your message was not about me. In fact, I commend you for trying to use more riskay and emotionally charged argumentation. Good luck.
I don't believe banning Holocaust-denial means banning thoughts; it's making it illegal to speak those thoughts out loud.
Shades of thought police. Who rightly bans thinking? Not that I favor the holocaust; I abhor it. But it is an historic fact. Thinking it is not is a perfectly legitimate thought, but having no justification in reality. That's cancel culture for you: generally useless, but a perfectly legitimate thought process, though an utter waste of thought process..
I strongly oppose the notion that you should be punished by the voters for a typo. And thank you. I assume in each round we will respond only to the arguments from the previous round, since it wouldn't be fair for you to have to respond to both my R1 and R2 in your R2.
Also to clarify, I regret that last line about "Nazi hero" because it's easily misunderstood, but I am not calling you that, I am just trying to describe the viewpoint of some hypothetical Nazis.
Thanks. Cheers.
There are numerous parameters that you have to fulfill in order for your argument to be sufficient, additionally, some things like changing colors doesn't let you submit your argument. I've been there, trust me.
The first sentence of my last paragraph should say "Even when we consider the margin of error in this study, it's difficult to claim that antisemitism ISN'T (not "is") a present and influential factor in German society just as it is in the US". I understand if any voters take this error into consideration.
If there are any mods on here who could help me, or anybody who knows any mods who could help me with my problem of publishing my argument. The button seems to not work.
I will honor your request to save any critiques until the second round.
If you win this, please challenge me on the same topic
Of course you are under no requirement to do so, but I think it would be best if the 1st round were just for opening arguments and we saved rebuttals for the 2nd round. I saw this setup in the Trump Impeachment debate and I think it's the most fair and logical way to proceed. But it's up to you.
Be interested to see what you come up with.
I do not plan to make any arguments that try to validate holocaust denial in any manner. I vehemently reject the notion that twelve million people didn't die as a result of nazi concentration camps, and I believe that the nazis were the most evil political movement to have ever existed. There will be no tabooness from my side. Well..............at least not regarding the holocaust.
To a large extent, I agree, though this also involves how people respond to perceptions of certain arguments being taboo.
This is ultimately a freedom of speech debate. My gut tells me that the holocaust we not be mentioned much at all past the first portion of round one
Sad, but beyond belief is good
Beyond Belief. I used to love that show, then the other day I came across a funny compilation on YouTube where he was arguing with himself.
I didn't know he was in Star Trek.
Is that picture the guy from beyond belief or the one from star trek?
I look forward to an interesting discussion. Good luck!
Sounds good.
I may be interested in this. I will attempt to demonstrate how banning holocaust denial would not be beneficial. The 1st amendment of the constitution would be a moot rebuttal against my argument because of how it will be framed.
Not trying to cast aspersions, but it's generally a bad idea to treat any argument you have as irrefutable. If you don't know the holes in your arguments, someone out there is likely to find them for you.
All this being said, while this seems like an intriguing topic, I think I'd have a hard time playing devil's advocate here given my family's history with the Holocaust. Probably one of the few debates I shouldn't vote on.
Take your time, but be aware that I already have an irrefutable defense against any 1st Amendment complaints.
I will have to think over this one some more.
I've raised the character limit to 5,000. Your move.
My thread on the main forum explains why I agree with pro for anybody interested
TLDR I agree with pro
I actually love Jews. I am a marxist and then have been very beneficial at spreading our message
"Overly regulating" by definition is a bad idea. If you would like to argue banning Holocaust-denial is excessive regulation, you're welcome to accept this debate!
As someone who was raised by holocaust deniers, I actually disagree. While Holocaust denial is horrible, it is a symptom of worse problems in those who spread such disinformation.
Overly regulating what people can say, is a slippery slope. Back on DDO, a brilliant debate for Australia Doesn't Exist got taken down for somehow being a hate crime.
I've updated it to 3,000 characters, that's about as long as the arguments in this debate:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2776-trumpism-is-closer-to-fascism-than-nazism-is-to-communism
If I had 5,000 characters, I think I might take this debate. 500 characters implies you close the discussion nearly as much as the deniers themselves.
Holocaust Denial is publically claiming it did not happen. Outlawing is making something a crime, and against the law.
Define denial and outlaw. I am not sure how a belief could be outlawed, is this thoughtcrime or am I interpreting it incorrectly?
Denial that hundreds of thousands of Jews were systematically murdered by Nazi Germany as part of official goverment policy, mostly in gas chambers.
This is I believe an accurate representation of the colloquial definition of the Holocaust in the USA. Most people probably know about the 6 million number, but a significant proportion probably don't, and I don't want this debate to be derailed on that point.
Define Holocaust denial.