"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.
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.
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.
"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.
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!
"By Round 3 I've grown somewhat tired of trying to parse rebuttals completely detached from any context or information that would help understand what they are supposed to refute."
I was only remarking how difficult it was to understand some arguments, not that I actually skipped over anything.
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.
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.
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.
"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!
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.
Not sure why I wasn't notified of this comment sooner. That's some pretty fascinating statistics, and I would have imagined each president issues more than the last (on average), with the exception of the WWI and WWII periods. It's hard to see without a chronological sort though.
I'm curious whether Biden maintains his record-breaking EO rate.
This is my first vote ever cast on this site and I made the mistake of submitting it before proofreading it. It has at least one embarassing typo and and I would have liked to flesh it out some more but that is apparently not an option.
I will concede this debate if you are able to demonstrate that any or all the mechanisms of Neo-Darwinism are sufficient to evolve microbes into humans, as long as "evolving microbes into humans" isn't assumed to be in the definition of Neo-Darwinism.
That definition is not incompatible with my thesis or even with Intelligent Design, since one could say an "intelligence" was partly responsible for the "changes".
Genetic Drift is already implied by "Mutation and Natural Selection". I'm willing to accept Horizontal Gene Transfer as being included in the definition as well.
"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.
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.
Very well then. But why so much secrecy about what appears to be a pretty transparent joke? I thought it was funny myself 😁
That's a bold comment from someone who hasn't yet cast a vote to back it up 😉
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
I really want to respond, but I am stuck on how you mispelled Holocaust 4 out of 5 times in only 6 sentences.
Seconded!
I appreciate it, same to you. This has been my most cordial argument on the internet yet, especially considering the topic.
Bold move, Cotton.
My vote was reported for this?
"By Round 3 I've grown somewhat tired of trying to parse rebuttals completely detached from any context or information that would help understand what they are supposed to refute."
I was only remarking how difficult it was to understand some arguments, not that I actually skipped over anything.
Very well, we've still got a ways to go so this should keep things interesting.
I think you have to PM David, he removed one of my votes for me so I could redo it.
Thanks for your vote!
Thanks for your vote. It's disappointing that you've voted for my opponent, especially considering that if you were me you'd vote for Pro.
Thanks for your vote! It has a rather serious tone so I just thought I'd let you know I've emerged from the ordeal unscathed. Physically, at least.
I never noticed I broke my own rule! But neither did Con, ha. Thank you for voting.
I do understand that, and thanks for the vote!
I would also appreciate your vote, please don't overthink whether your bias gets in the way =D
That's pretty incredible because I did not catch a single one!
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.
Your RFV killed me!
I don't believe banning Holocaust-denial means banning thoughts; it's making it illegal to speak those thoughts out loud.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks for the tip
Sounds good.
Take your time, but be aware that I already have an irrefutable defense against any 1st Amendment complaints.
I've raised the character limit to 5,000. Your move.
"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!
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
Holocaust Denial is publically claiming it did not happen. Outlawing is making something a crime, and against the law.
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.
Not sure why I wasn't notified of this comment sooner. That's some pretty fascinating statistics, and I would have imagined each president issues more than the last (on average), with the exception of the WWI and WWII periods. It's hard to see without a chronological sort though.
I'm curious whether Biden maintains his record-breaking EO rate.
This is my first vote ever cast on this site and I made the mistake of submitting it before proofreading it. It has at least one embarassing typo and and I would have liked to flesh it out some more but that is apparently not an option.
I admit I was impressed by your final round.
I would be honored if you could vote on this debate.
We had already established this in the comments before the debate began.
The experiment lasted for 73,500 generations. That's equivalent to over a million human years, assuming humans begin reproducing at 15 years of age.
A quick Google search shows that Ruth is just one of many people that converted to Judaism in ancient times.
I would like to note that my opening arguments were inspired by the comment history of reddit.com/u/JoeCoder
Perfect.
I will concede this debate if you are able to demonstrate that any or all the mechanisms of Neo-Darwinism are sufficient to evolve microbes into humans, as long as "evolving microbes into humans" isn't assumed to be in the definition of Neo-Darwinism.
That definition is not incompatible with my thesis or even with Intelligent Design, since one could say an "intelligence" was partly responsible for the "changes".
Genetic Drift is already implied by "Mutation and Natural Selection". I'm willing to accept Horizontal Gene Transfer as being included in the definition as well.