Instigator / Pro
13
1500
rating
13
debates
42.31%
won
Topic
#2854

Holocaust Denial should be outlawed in the USA

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
6
Better sources
4
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 3 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

Pilot
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
18
1506
rating
4
debates
50.0%
won
Description

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?

-->
@Pilot

Thanks 😊

-->
@Barney

I find it disappointing that we cannot give out any points for style when we vote because I feel that it is an important aspect of the debate, and @Puachu does deserve a shout out for that.

-->
@Pilot
@Puachu

The thought steam was as I was reading it. I thought the end decision would be a lot harder. Additionally with my messed up upbringing, I would have left things tied if there was any doubt to either direction.

If I could apply a bonus point over to pro for quality and effort, I would. I definitely saw merit to the greater theme, but with on onus particularly just for the USA, it fell short due to con's rebuttals.

-->
@Barney

As expected, a very interesting RFD. Did not disappoint. Thought-stream RFDs are the best!

I am surprised that I did not get any points, but I can't complain.

By the way, copy-pasting the same paragraph in 2 different rounds was an accident. I thought I had run out of room so I had saved it to my computer for the next round. Apparently, I had not actually run out of room.

-->
@Barney

Thank you for the uncomfortably detailed analysis of your vote.

---Expanded RFD (1 of 2)---
Going to write this as a thought stream. It is not all inclusive.

Pro almost immediately challenges the assumed point of dispute of freedom of speech, most notably in saying that not banning the denial would promote a repeat of the genocide (FYI, a common line from neo-nazis is that the hollocaust didn’t happen, but since the jews faked it, they deserve that to happen for real). I got to say, the opening could have been stronger; perhaps with some cited example of repeated crime from denial of crime.

Con opens with definitions (while it may seem like overkill, there was a recent debate on a myth I was unfamiliar with, which due to lacking a primer on it, I really couldn’t properly weigh). Before going into a rather effective quote (please make it more obvious when quoting). Then making a rather nifty point: “disallowing the survivors and their families the chance to answer to the accusations of holocaust deniers, or the survivors chance to hold holocaust deniers accountable” and goes on to make a point about lack of evidence that the laws in 17 countries have actually curbed antisemitism. Then backed this with a study on Germany.

Pro makes a good opening comeback, challenging that con cited an antisemite. Something felt off about this, and it held as pro used a pretty obvious slippery slope and false dilemma that to not ban holocaust denial means it must therefore be encouraged. He gets back on track with going into that we should acknowledge there are limits (intuitively tying things back to his early point about shouting fire in a theater). Pro moves on to explain the success of some antisemitism to attempts to censor it, which would seem to be con’s point rather than his own. He then boldly claims that if not for banning holocaust denial, Germany would have repeated it.

Con of course gets into pro misrepresenting his case, and points out that libel and slander and off topic. Then asserts the benefit of allowing data analysis for verification. He made an interesting assertion that if there is a ban people will work around it to say the good works were not finished… Which much like his request for evidence from his opponent, I would like to see evidence of this happening where the denial is forbidden.

Pro defends that holocaust denial is slander and libel, using a punny gas analogy. And proclaims that accepting libel and something lawsuit worthy is basically a confession of the whole topic (I find this immediately dubious, due to how limited pro’s case on this was in the previous round). He does however make a good point that the first victims of any violence encouraged by deniers would logically be survivors of the original atrocity.

Con’s reply this round opened on a mixed point. Declaring the audience part of the masses pro talked about perhaps unduly poisons the well if believed. I think it goes a bit far with the “raised by wolves” declaration putting words in pro’s mouth. And yet, the language does get his point across quite well… Hence, it’s mixed; or at least my feelings toward it are.

Con goes into a point about comparing the deniers to the masses, ultimately denying that they would be more effective at lying than similar (but non-vile) people seeing through it. This is pretty risky, since it invites statistics on fake news, but we’ll see if that develops or not. Further supporting this he makes a point about positive social movements (while intuitively true, some citation of their impacts would have really solidified this).

---Expanded RFD (2 of 2)---
Pro opens R4 with a copy/paste from his previous closing. Then compares not having it banned to making murder legal ala The Purge. He does do a good counter to con’s point about social movements, with Nazis proving they can be dangerous too (citing the frequency of hate groups would have been very effective here). He ends with a declaration of victory from Germany not repeating the holocaust due to denial being forbidden there, and states that that the con wishes holocaust denial be to legalized over there (and in other countries), which is straying from the resolution of the USA.

Con latches onto pro admitting such a ban would likely be ineffective, and basically rests his case.

Final round…
Got to right away caution pro on the use of quotation marks around things an opponent has not actually written (the italics saved the day, but it’s still dangerous territory).
Pro argues that if their policy would be ineffective, there is no reason not to implement it… Then insists it could potentially save millions of lives. I got to say, this is a powerful piece of rhetoric, and under blindly implemented impact analysis on a spreadsheet it would ultimately win automatically (assuming any chance above zero; which is why sources to warrant points are important).

Con does not maintain resting their case, but does final defenses. Let’s see, questions are not automatically libel; that Germany even with anti-denial laws is more antisemitic than the USA; an appeal to people being better than they’ve proven to be (tied back to if the audience is part of the masses); and a repeat of the unfinished job point.

-->
@Barney

There's no hurry at all. Please take your time. I did not mean to come off as demanding or in a rush! I am just really interested in your opinion. And I liked your vote on my first-ever debate here.

Also, I would be more than happy to return the favor, but you don't seem to have any in voting period at the moment.

Just got the final round left to read. However, I have some things to get done today.

-->
@Puachu

" By figuratively speaking, I mean I have heard people call for the death penalty for undocumented immigrants who return after being deported."

I haven't been to the south, so I wouldn't know if this is accurate or out of context. If they were advocating the death penalty to undocumented immigrants THAT COMMIT MURDER, then that's merely supporting the death penalty for murder. Regardless of one's opinion on the death penalty, I think most people think it's okay to advocate the death penalty for murderers. But if you call for killing 11 million undocumented immigrants, you should be called out on it. If someone advocates the death penalty for undocumented immigrants (or if someone advocates the death penalty for Jews), the ideal thing to do wouldn't be to ban their speech, but to counter it with why you don't think undocumented immigrants or Jews deserve the death penalty.

There was this guy with a southern accent that came to my state that did advocate for, "Shooting the Mexicans" on the basis that they were taking his job. I would counter that with the claim that

"in addition to being a worker, every immigrant is also a customer. Workers take jobs, but customers create jobs at a proportional rate. If America's population quadrupled, the demand for jobs would quadruple, but the supply would also quadruple. This is why nobody advocates for banning 20 year olds from working on the basis that they, "take the jobs" of older people. The resident in a country creates their own supply for jobs in addition to being a worker that requires one"

Counterspeech is the best way to deal with extreme ideologies. Banning ideologies is not how America ought to function.

"The gay rights movement began in the 1920s. The immigration controversy began in the 1960s. 8 years is I think an excessively conservative estimate."

If your dates are accurate, I'd believe your numbers over mine. 8 years was a guess because I thought Biden would legalize undocumented immigration similar to how Obama legalized gay marriage. But "immigration controversy" has always been a thing in the US. The Irish used to be discriminated against. Then that died down. Same with the Chinese, the Italians, the Jews, the Mexicans, and now with undocumented immigrants. The anti open borders crowd resembles the communist crowd in that neither side learns from history.

I'll probably cast a vote this weekend.

Quite glad there's a long voting window.

-->
@Theweakeredge

My mistake, I should have clarified that I was referring to the controversy over specifically Hispanic immigration.

-->
@Puachu

Try 1882 bud. Chinese Exclusion Act

-->
@TheUnderdog

"Very few Trump supporters would for instance advocate burning them at the stake because they “broke the law”."

Figuratively speaking, this is more-or-less the case in the southern USA. By figuratively speaking, I mean I have heard people call for the death penalty for undocumented immigrants who return after being deported.

"I imagine undocumented rights are roughly 8 years behind gay rights in the US."

The gay rights movement began in the 1920s. The immigration controversy began in the 1960s. 8 years is I think an excessively conservative estimate.

-->
@Puachu

“ That's somewhat different than abandoning the throne. And their power has been gradually reduced over centuries. They didn't devolve into a political figurehead all at once.”

True, but the monarchs nonetheless consensually gave up power.

“ People complain about lots of things in the US, including poverty. Any hardship could be the spark that ignites such a chain of events.”

In the US, people complain about poverty, but the odds of the Jews being scapegoated for their poverty are slim. Undocumented immigrants might be on the chopping block, but I think people (even devout Trump supporters) have their limits on how harsh they should be towards undocumented immigrants. Very few Trump supporters would for instance advocate burning them at the stake because they “broke the law”. If every law breaker was burned at the stake, America would cease to be the liberty republican the founders intended. If any lawbreaker was burned at the stake, it would violate the 8th amendment. Undocumented immigrants are more likely to be treated better by the government than worse in the future. I imagine undocumented rights are roughly 8 years behind gay rights in the US.

“ People complain about lots of things in the US, including poverty. Any hardship could be the spark that ignites such a chain of events.”

The Bible would be a competitive choice with Mein Kamf. I don’t know what he picked.

If you don’t want to respond out of a need to focus on a debate, that’s understandable.

-->
@TheUnderdog

You make some good points. I will try to respond to a couple, since I'm working on my other debate.

"I’m not a history expert, but the British monarch gave up their power voluntarily I think."

That's somewhat different than abandoning the throne. And their power has been gradually reduced over centuries. They didn't devolve into a political figurehead all at once.

"Germany was extremely impoverished due to the treaty of Versailles, so they would elect anyone to solve their problems, including Hitler. Now, extreme poverty is extremely rare in the US, so it won’t cause the Nazis to get elected, even if their ideology becomes more moderate."

People complain about lots of things in the US, including poverty. Any hardship could be the spark that ignites such a chain of events.

"I haven’t read Mein Kamf and I haven’t read excerpts from it, so I wouldn’t know. But I think your opponent is going to think the book is evil, but that something like the communist manifesto is worse. Regardless, I might vote on it."

Your vote would be appreciated. By the way, I'm already completely certain they are going to use the Bible.

-->
@Puachu

“ That is not true for the eastern half of the globe. Are you only referring to the western half? There have been literal Holocaust-denying presidents in the Middle East.”

I was thinking in the US. But if leaders are elected to countries that deny the Halocaust, you can’t ban all their supporters. Moreover, these leaders haven’t genocide Jews. They merely oppose the state of Israel’s existence.

“ I don't understand how you can say even if Nazis "rise again" they can't commit genocide. What would stop them?”

Because parties change ideologies. It would be like saying in 1880 that it should be illegal to be a democrat because the democrats used to support slavery. When the democrats in 1880 got elected, they didn’t bring back slavery because they knew if they tried, they would lose elections. Anyone running under the Nazi platform has to have views more moderate than in WWII to get elected.

“ That was not the case 100 years ago. Why would it be different today?”

Germany was extremely impoverished due to the treaty of Versailles, so they would elect anyone to solve their problems, including Hitler. Now, extreme poverty is extremely rare in the US, so it won’t cause the Nazis to get elected, even if their ideology becomes more moderate.

“ You can't make a king step down by asking nicely, you know? ”

I think it has happened fairly frequently. I’m not a history expert, but the British monarch gave up their power voluntarily I think.

“ The USA advocated violence in separating from Great Britain, but nobody is complaining about that.”

The violence from the revolutionary war is over. If we let people commit partisan violence, then this would allow people like radical pro lifers to burn down planned parenthood places and it would allow radical pro choicers to burn down pro life places. We can’t have people killing each other over ideological differences. This would break up the US.

“ You have inspired me to start a new debate: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3031-mein-kampf-is-the-most-evil-and-incoherent-book-to-have-ever-been-written”

I haven’t read Mein Kamf and I haven’t read excerpts from it, so I wouldn’t know. But I think your opponent is going to think the book is evil, but that something like the communist manifesto is worse. Regardless, I might vote on it.

-->
@TheUnderdog

"I think the proportion of people scapegoating Jews today are very small. Such people have virtually no chance of starting a new Halocaust."

That is not true for the eastern half of the globe. Are you only referring to the western half? There have been literal Holocaust-denying presidents in the Middle East.

"I’m not willing to be killed by the Nazis for not supporting their ideology, but I don’t think Nazism is going to rise again, or if it does, it can’t genocide whole groups of people as part of their ideology."

I don't understand how you can say even if Nazis "rise again" they can't commit genocide. What would stop them?

"Letting Nazis speak probably will turn more people off to them in the long run"

That was not the case 100 years ago. Why would it be different today?

"similarly to if you think communism is about equality, your more likely to support it than if you read Karl Marx’s writings and see the violence it advocates for."

I haven't read all of Karl Marx's writings but I don't recall seeing anything beyond calls for the violence of the typical "rise up and revolt" nature. You can't make a king step down by asking nicely, you know? Besides, the term "advocating violence" is kind of misleading. The USA advocated violence in separating from Great Britain, but nobody is complaining about that.

"If people interested in Nazism read Mein Kamf, and they see how brutal it is, they often get turned off from it."

You have inspired me to start a new debate: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3031-mein-kampf-is-the-most-evil-and-incoherent-book-to-have-ever-been-written

I am not challenging you to it though, since I believe we are on the same side, but you might be interested if I actually find an opponent.

-->
@Puachu

“ Are you implying nobody is scapegoating Jews today?”

I think the proportion of people scapegoating Jews today are very small. Such people have virtually no chance of starting a new Halocaust. Denying the Halocaust is like denying colonialism(which killed more people than the Halocaust). You’d be wrong if you said colonialism never happened, but it’s your right to say it, either as a joke or if your serious.

“ I was asking, are you willing to be killed by Nazis for not supporting their ideology, since based on your arguments you would have supported their speech which allowed them to rise into power in the first place.”

I’m not willing to be killed by the Nazis for not supporting their ideology, but I don’t think Nazism is going to rise again, or if it does, it can’t genocide whole groups of people as part of their ideology.

Some would say Trump is a Nazi based on his treatment towards undocumented immigrants. I don’t support what Trump supports, but he has the right to say it. It is political suicide to censors popular group like Trump supporters and pointless to censor a small group like Nazis. Letting Nazis speak probably will turn more people off to them in the long run, similarly to if you think communism is about equality, your more likely to support it than if you read Karl Marx’s writings and see the violence it advocates for. If people interested in Nazism read Mein Kamf, and they see how brutal it is, they often get turned off from it.

-->
@TheUnderdog

I've had more time to properly read your comment, and would like to address a couple points you made.

"They came into power because the Treaty of Versailles crippled the German economy and the Germans were willing to vote for anyone promising to bring drastic change to Germany to restore the German economy. The Germans needed a scapegoat (they actually had many scapegoats). If the treaty of Versailles wasn't so cruel to Germany, then there would be no Holocaust"

Are you implying nobody is scapegoating Jews today?

"I don't have to be. I do not support the ideology of Nazism."

I was asking, are you willing to be killed by Nazis for not supporting their ideology, since based on your arguments you would have supported their speech which allowed them to rise into power in the first place.

-->
@Username
@TheUnderdog

Very well then. But why so much secrecy about what appears to be a pretty transparent joke? I thought it was funny myself 😁

-->
@Username

Want to DM me the joke?

-->
@TheUnderdog

I was kidding. I would tell you the point of the joke (if you don't already get it) but I don't feel that it'd be appropriate given that the debate is still in the voting period.

-->
@Username
@Puachu

I disagree with Puachu, but he has the right to his opinion.

-->
@Puachu

"Didn't the Nazis start off as a "small group of people"?"

The Nazis were relatively small, but they didn't come to conduct the Holocaust because they were allowed to convince others, at least not just that by its self. They came into power because the Treaty of Versailles crippled the German economy and the Germans were willing to vote for anyone promising to bring drastic change to Germany to restore the German economy. The Germans needed a scapegoat (they actually had many scapegoats). If the treaty of Versailles wasn't so cruel to Germany, then there would be no Holocaust because the German economy wouldn't have been so wrecked that they wouldn't scapegoat their problems on the Jews. The Nazis would have been this very small German party that virtually no one outside of Germany would know and they wouldn't get to power to conduct the Holocaust had there been no treaty of Versailles that was super harsh to Germany. Given that the world has gotten significantly more peaceful over the last few years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts#:~:text=Wars%20%281%2C000%E2%80%939%2C999%20combat-related%20deaths%20in%20current%20or%20past,%20%2025%2C000%2B%20%209%20more%20rows%20), I think war may be in our past and peace may be what the world is looking to to help save lives and to boost the economy.

"Right. Prisons shouldn't be outlawed just because inevitably, an innocent person will be jailed. But 6 million? At what point do you put your foot down and admit reality has proven the need of an exception to an idealistic policy?"

Well, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples, it states, "Similar to the European Colonization of The Americas, the death toll under the British Empire is estimated to be as high as 150 million.[200][201]". This means that internationally, a typical person was 25x as likely to die from the British Empire(and all the concentration camps that resulted from that) as they were to die as someone who is both a Jewish person and a victim of Hitler's single concentration camp. Yet virtually everyone believes in the right to support colonialism, and not only that, 43% of the British population supports not just the right to support colonialism, but they support colonialism its self (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/shortcuts/2016/jan/20/empire-state-of-mind-why-do-so-many-people-think-colonialism-was-a-good-thing). Are we going to outlaw the opinions of 43% of the population? That sounds like something a Nazi would do.

"Would you be okay being in the victims' position, and become a martyr for "freedom of speech" at the hands of neo-Nazis?"

I don't have to be. I do not support the ideology of Nazism. However, your profile says you are a communist, so you don't support the idea of low taxes. However, you still probably support the right of someone to believe in low taxes, even if you disagree with this idea. Similarly, although I don't support Nazism, I support the right to be a Nazi.

"By the way, your vote would be appreciated on this debate."
I read both of your arguments. I feel like my vote is going to be biased, so I'd rather not vote.

-->
@Username

That's a bold comment from someone who hasn't yet cast a vote to back it up 😉

-->
@Puachu

We still have several months before the voting is ended on our discussion, so we don't yet know for sure if all of the voters bought my arguments. I also can't say that I wouldn't use the same tactic of challenging my opponent to deny, or admit to something.

Any statement "X speech should be outlawed in the USA" should be outlawed in the USA

-->
@Pilot

Thanks for the thoughtful response, I did not expect such insight. To be honest, I was trying to pressure you into directly answering those questions. I expected you would, because I figured it'd make your case look weaker if you glossed over them. But you interpreted things quite differently! So did the voters, apparently.

-->
@Puachu

Anything that you said does not fall outside of my description of normal debate rhetoric, so nothing you said made me feel that you were being aggressive. I think what fauxlaw was referring to was the statement in the last sentence in your second round in which you said "I challenge Con to explicitly deny this." I can't think of exactly what it was that you were hoping I would explicitly deny, but I don't think I did anyway and just brushed it off as an emotional appeal and normal debate rhetoric. I think I remember you saying something else along those lines at another point, but it didn't make me bat an eye. I also don't think Fauxlaw thought about it that much either because they still split the vote for us on the civility point. I just think they were trying to tell us for future reference that potential voters could view that as taunting and possibly cost you the civility point in the future, but I myself would not be one of those voters that think so, and neither did Fauxlaw.

-->
@Pilot

I would appreciate your opinion on what fauxlaw said here:

"Pro's repeated charges to Con to "explicitly deny" pro arguments, which bordered on unnecessary taunting"

It was not my intention to come off as hostile.

-->
@fauxlaw

Thank you for taking interest in this discussion, and for the vote.

-->
@TheUnderdog

The typos are okay, haha. No worries.

"Denying the Halocaust by a very small group of people won’t lead to a new Halocaust."

Didn't the Nazis start off as a "small group of people"?

"Moreover, even if it did, just because a policy saves lives doesn’t mean it should be enacted."

Right. Prisons shouldn't be outlawed just because inevitably, an innocent person will be jailed. But 6 million? At what point do you put your foot down and admit reality has proven the need of an exception to an idealistic policy? Do we let people die for pure sentimental value? Would you be okay being in the victims' position, and become a martyr for "freedom of speech" at the hands of neo-Nazis?

"If you want to ban denying the Halocaust, how would you punish it?"

Whatever is effective, I haven't even thought of that.

By the way, your vote would be appreciated on this debate. You seem to have some well thought-out opinions already.

-->
@Puachu

Sorry, I never won any spelling bees and my computer didn't spell check it for me.

-->
@Pilot

Mm - its more the fact that sympathy doesn't make a valid point here. I think you should sympathize with everyone to *some* degree, its more the fact that I don't think your argument was valid regarding the aforementioned rhetoric.

-->
@Theweakeredge

I appreciate that you took the time to read this discussion and vote on it, I just wanted to make sure you know that I would never ask anybody to have sympathy for nazi sympathizers.

-->
@fauxlaw

I am surprised at some things you said, like suggesting I was approaching a conduct violation for asking my opponent to "explicitly" address certain points (challenges which they repeatedly turned down), but I appreciate the vote either way. Thank you!

-->
@Theweakeredge

Thanks for the vote! I am happy of course that it was cast in my favor but any and all votes are appreciated. Keep them coming!

-->
@TheUnderdog

I really want to respond, but I am stuck on how you mispelled Holocaust 4 out of 5 times in only 6 sentences.

-->
@Pilot

Doesn't really correlate - also you do realize that extending empathy and allowing someone to express and (most likely oppress people based on that belief) are not the same thing? You can outlaw the perspective while extending empathy, I don't even necessarily agree with the resolution, but I think that Puachu won this debate easily - you often made non-sequiturs and this is a perfect example of that. Having more logic doesn't necessarily mean that that logic is more sound.

-->
@Puachu

Denying the Halocaust by a very small group of people won’t lead to a new Halocaust. Moreover, even if it did, just because a policy saves lives doesn’t mean it should be enacted. Forcing western taxpayers to pay $6 trillion a year to pay for food in 3rd world countries would prevent 30 million deaths every decade(Basically preventing a Holocaust every decade). However, this policy would be tyrannical, it would be an infringement of our freedoms and it should not be enacted even if it prevents a Halocaust every decade. Freedom is dangerous as hell but I love it.

If you want to ban denying the Halocaust, how would you punish it?

-->
@Theweakeredge

Just so we're clear, I never asked anybody to have sympathy for nazi sympathizers, nor would I ever do such a thing even for the sake of being a devil's advocate. I was showing that the idea of nazi sympathizers simply being jobless outcasts with no sense of familial structure is a dangerous miscalculation. It is the very reason the nazis were able to eventually become the majority party in Germany because nobody believed a bunch of Ruben country misfits could ever become the majority party in Germany. The German people were complacent and bet against the stupid underdogs and didn't realize their mistake until hitler declared himself the undisputed leader of Germany and outlawed all other opposition parties. I fail to see how rejecting the same foresight the German people wish they hadn't would be beneficial to any of us now by just painting nazi sympathizers as jobless hicks who only live on the outer fringes of society. I asked that we extend some EMPATHY to them by realizing nazi sympathizers also have families and jobs and function as productive citizens also, and if we just assume they'll never be a viable political or social movement because they're just hicks, then we'll be making the same mistake the German people did. We must do the work of deconstructing their supposed political ideals ourselves and not just rely on a government mandate. If we just stand back and let the good people do the work of resisting nazism, then we take ourselves out of the running to be the good people doing that good work. What will happen if ALL the good people just stand by and wait for the good people they are expecting to come up out of nowhere and do all the resisting for us? I'm pretty sure the German people can tell you what will happen!!!!!

-->
@Barney

Seconded!

-->
@Barney

If you have the time, it'd be nice if you could slap a vote on this mutha fucka.

-->
@Puachu

A little bit of that cordialness may, or may not be an attempt to swoon the voters into thinking I'm an approachable and sweet person. But yes, it was an enjoyable discussion.

-->
@Pilot

I appreciate it, same to you. This has been my most cordial argument on the internet yet, especially considering the topic.

-->
@Puachu

Thanks for the interesting discussion, and good luck to you.

-->
@Pilot

Bold move, Cotton.

-->
@Pilot

Very well, we've still got a ways to go so this should keep things interesting.

-->
@Puachu

I tried a more emotionally driven approach this time. I hope you'll keep in mind that it is chock full of emotionally driven rhetoric, but none of it is personal. I also keep having to trim the fat out of my arguments to meet the character limit.