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?

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.