Holocaust denial legislation is driven by a desire to stigmatize dissent(fivesix)

-->

@<<<oromagi>>>

I didn't request a hashing out

• Perhaps not, but Perez Hilton posted your argument here with your thanks and  this instruction:
  

• Additionally, most posts to forum are open for discussion, even when discussion is not explictly called for or wanted.
  
• You particpated in the hashing out for four or five go-rounds before raising any objection, so I assume the objection was/remains insincere.

-->

@<<<oromagi>>>

oromagi, one more thing, and I said it before, just want to remind you: the debate is five rounds and I finished one round. at character limit. so I don't know why you're wasting time assuming what I know and claiming things to be true or not.

Fivesix declared he is capable of beating TWS1405_2 in a debate, but he’s unwilling to challenge him. 

• I wouldn't debate TWS either. 
  
• He doesn't understand the difference between argument and abuse. 
  
• He doesn't understand how fallacies work.  
  
• He has exactly one opinion- fear the unfathomed.
  

yeah, in a debate one would make assumptions after one round. you're acting like you know what I will and will not say in rounds 2-5

I won't be continuing with Lancelot after his behaviour, waste of time.

• false.  I am hashing out what your wrote in Round 1 (i.e.  NGO's secret desires, Canadian legistlation)  I've made no presumptions.
  

Your path to victory has opened.

Boop, indeed.

Concision is an important skill in debate and getting straight to point could leave your opponent looking like he's rambling.

 then you leave due to his behaviour ....no matter how he plays he will win

• yeah.  First to give up loses the match.  That's how most contests work.

• yeah.  First to give up loses the match.  That's how most contests work.
  

I won't be continuing with Lancelot after his behaviour, waste of time.

there is no way I would debate you after you did what you did. you act like a child, you get treated like one: simple. nobody gets a second chance to waste my time.

 I am ok with pretty much any WW2 or interwar-period topic as long as it isn't subjective

You don't think the desires of unidentified lobbyists is a subjective standard?

Pro's Case:

• Canada is one of the first countries to try and outlaw Holocaust denial.
  

-->

@<<<oromagi>>>

You don't think the desires of unidentified lobbyists is a subjective standard?

that's not what subjective means...

because we both know what a lobby is and what a lobby does, don't we

plus I already explained the lobby behaviour at the start. you don't get it: the LOBBYISTS aren't the focus of the debate.

you're trying to nullify my premise by introducing a dispute, namely that the existence of the lobby is not confirmed. you want it confirmed? try page 25 of Google or something.

in the UK there have been several petitions by the people to introduce holocaust-denial legislation to parliament. e.g. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/325900

petitions need 10,000 signatures to get a response then they need 100,000 signatures to be considered for debate in parliament.

so if you think it works much differently in other countries and that somehow citizens introduce these things and have them discussed in parliaments without a lobby being behind it, go on, keep believing in fairy tales.

• Well, if you continue to fail to specify any NGO, I think the nullification of your premise is your fault.  Once specified, then you have to investigate the emotional state of the employees running those NGOs and prove "Desire to stigmatize."  Then you've got connect those NGOs to enough speficific legislation to reasonably represent all "Holocaust denial legislation."
  

• I do think it works much differently in other countries:
  
• Kevin Waugh, as already discussed, is the Canadian MP who introduced the Canadian bill without any mention of any lobying group.
  
• Vladamir Putin signed the Law Against Rehabilitation of Nazism in 2014 without any apparent petitions or lobby.
  
• The 2018  Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Heroes and Martyrs  was introduced by tje Five Heroes of Langya Mountain without any apparant regard for petitions or lobbyist
  

I will however debate anybody else on this topic. including the pedant oromagi, who seems to prefer discussing this and that and picking everything apart to capitalise theoretically on any ambiguity in my diction and implication rather than just being normal and debating the premise: essentially, is it more likely that denial legislation is driven by a will to censor or a will to protect individual Jews from harm? that's it. it's not complicated and you don't need to make it so if my argument is so weak. weak arguments may be destroyed with minimal effort. so prove it and do it instead of acting like it would be so easy to do

but remember the rules of the debate, namely 'no kritiks' and the fking title, read it again and again and again and we must agree on the rules prior to starting (that's in the description)

so if you want to do it please review the rules and come back with objections/suggestions.

you're quoting things I have specified and telling me they are subjective.

not exactly. all I have to do is, as my title implies, argue that their

introduction of proposed legislation to government is more likely driven by a desire to censor than a desire to protect individual Jews.

and all you have to do is argue that it's more likely to be to protect individual Jews than it is to censor.

first two are members of government. of course, any member of a parliament, for example, can get up and say something. and a president can say anything at any time. I already excluded government entities by specifying in my description that the desire is in NGOs introducing legislation to government.

third one, I highly doubt five citizens were solely responsible for bringing legislation to government. even if so... it's China...? democratic consideration is merely a formality, would you not agree?

look, you can find exclusions if you want to. I don't rely on their non-existence to be able to win this, because in all the cases I know of there are NGOs in the background.

another thing: the Chinese and Russian laws are not specifically about the Holocaust, so I'm not sure about their validity in this argument overall.

Your proposition will inevitably result in an extension that isn't quantifiable. That is, "Holocaust-denial legislation is driven more by a desire to criminalise thus stigmatise dissent than by a desire to mitigate harm, resulting from Holocaust denial, to individual Jews," focuses on the juxtaposition of "desire," as opposed to the consequences of the legislation. The outline/structure of your proposition can be reduced simply to this "X is driven more by a desire to Y than by a desire to Z." What oromagi is telling you--at least in part--is that unless you can provide telepathic evidence as to how you can observe someone's, anyone's, or everyone's "desires," especially in the absence of explicit statement, it is impossible to validate your affirmation.

With that said, I agree with what I believe you're trying to state. The proposition is just worded in a manner that places a near impossible task on you. If worded like this, "Holocaust-Denial legislation (will or is made to) criminalize, and thus stigmatize dissent as opposed to mitigate harm resulting from Holocaust denial to individual Jews" you can avoid any onus on your part to quantify that which you can't.

• Desire is subjective, yes
  

The debate is about *the desire* that drives the legislation to come into effect, *not the reason* for it to come into effect. i.e. the motive behind the introduction of legislation. Please note in this regard by "desire" I mean the mission (an ambition or purpose that is assumed by a person or group[https://www.wordnik.com/words/mission]) of NGOs (non-governmental organisations) who lobby for the introduction of such legislation via the creation thereof by a governmental authority.

• They who?  So far, all you've said is NGOs.
  

NGOs (non-governmental organisations) who lobby for the introduction of such legislation via the creation thereof by a governmental authority

• And I say anybody who says they prove another's human's desire for a fact is a fool.
  

• False and a real miscomprehenion about how debate works.  All SirLancelot has to do is argue that you can't know the actual desires of many different  lobbyists in many different lands, much less prove that those desire are all in sync, and you are toast.  The contender only has to establish that you can't prove your claim true, the contender doesn't have to prove that the reverse of your claim is true.  A contender only has to  argue that no evidence proves the Earth is flat, the contender does not also have to prove the Earth is round.
  

• Right, so any examples of Holocaust Denial Legislation that was never driven by the desires of lobbyists disproves your overgeneralization.  Clearly, some Holocaust Denial Legislation is NOT driven by the desires you claim.
  

• Doesn't matter.  So long as you can't prove Chinese Holocaust denial legislation was driven by the desires of lobbyists, your argument is dispoved.
  

• So far,  all you've talked about is the US and Canada.  No such in the US.  No such NGO in Canada.
  

Russia specifically  outlaws denying "the crimes of Nazism."  China is generic.   You didn't say, "Some Holocaust Denial legislation,"  you said "Holocaust Denial legislation" That is, you have stated  you  can prove the true desires of NGOs as a universal fact or general principle when it comes to Holocaust Denial legislation.  So far, we haven't found Holocaust Denial laws sponsored by NGO in US, UK, Canada, Russia, and China.