oromagi

Fundamentally wrong. In fact, the reverse maxim is uniquely true. A free market allows for and is necessary for free speech, not the other way around.

A free market uniquely allows a world where an individual's ideas are manifested in the invented product and the individual consumers vote with their dollars.

A free market uniquely allows a world where an individual's ideas are manifested in the invented product and the individual consumers vote with their dollars.  America has lived under the thumb of corporate media and crony censorship for decades in defiance of the principles of a free market.

Therefore; America is not very far behind that list of top 10 Democracies that have both no free market, nor free speech.

Without free speech, there is little that separates a Democracy from an oligarchic corporate Dictatorship.

In a crony market where the government colludes with media monopolies to prohibit speech, free competition may indeed be the only way to ensure that ideas the government does not like are still able to be heard. In such a market,

effectively creating a censorship regime.

In such a society, America is doomed to join the list of 10 failed Orwellian Democracies

The current attacks from both the left and the right over the Twitter files proves this is currently the case.

• Ultimately, a truly free and open society is one where free competition and free speech are allowed to thrive, and where all individuals are able to participate in the marketplace of ideas
  

Many people in: Russia, Turkey, Egypt, Philippines, Venezuela, Belarus, Cambodia, Azerbaijan, Thailand, and Ethiopia would disagree.

People there have objectively had more freedom and civil rights under other forms of rule. 

Milton Friedman, the renowned economist and Nobel laureate, argued that a free market is necessary for liberty, not Democracy.

yet the definition you gave is, which was the point.

You regret that I can't be cowed into reading bizarre extra meaning into words as that would allow the framework you advanced to make a tiny bit of sense.

The tattered remains of your definition of "right winger" is the subtopic at hand.

Arguments as to whether democracy brings more liberty are irrelevant to your error.

Democracy and liberty are not the same thing. Democrat and liberal are not synonyms.

Your claim that democratic is liberal by definition or that liberal is democratic by definition remains false.

Created equal is not the same as eternally equal. If men were eternally equal then how come some are in prison and others aren't?

Created equal.  Nobody should be in prison because of inheritance.

Moving the goal post. You injected inheritance where "wikipedia's" definition did not.

Ideology is pretty irrelevant to Fascism:  the only ideology that counts is the idealogy of the autocrat.

Can't both be true.

• False and stupid.
  

Not an argument, ignored.

The liberal answer, as explained is: order and hierarchies assembled by consent are acceptable. Those assembled without consent are not acceptable.

• A temporary government appointment is not social heirarchy
  

Then republicans have never been in favor of social hierarchy. You attempt equivocation.

You inject an implication of inheritance where none is required, even by your own choice in definition.

• White supremacy implies an inheritance of white genetics, white "blood"
  

I did not comment on your definition of white supremacy but "right wing politics" which did not contain "inheritance" or "inherent". Moving the goalposts.

• I regret that you lack the perception to appreciate  how the word inheritance is an apt shorthand for  social orders and hierarchies as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,  typically supporting this position based on natural law, economics, authority, property or tradition. 
  

-->

@<<<oromagi>>>

Anything democratic is Liberal definition.  Democracy is the Liberal form of government.

Every single corrupt nation that happens to have elections already disproves you here.

Was the republican party far left in 1860?

Which dictionary?

Ideology is pretty irrelevant to Fascism:  the only ideology that counts is the idealogy of the autocrat.

Can't both be true.

That is the answer of an insane anarchist who couldn't manage to fit in to a collective farm.

The liberal answer, as explained is: order and hierarchies assembled by consent are acceptable. Those assembled without consent are not acceptable.

No, the terminology does. Your definition does not.

Fascists defintionally assert the superiority of some humans before others

Everybody does that,

at the very least they assert that people who agree with their ideology are superior to those who do not.

That is all the fascists claimed in that regard.

False and deeply ignorant.  Liberals are defined by their faith in human equality ... LIberals, by defnition, seek to separate political power from religion and aristocracy.

Or perhaps they are defined by their belief in the moral supremacy of... liberty, but don't let me blind you with the obvious.

That definition exists in the narrow paradigm of socialist conceptualization. It all but excludes itself from applicability to any political theory that was not derived from socialism. It is applicable to nazis, fascists, communists, and democrats for example.

Liberals regardless of school (classical Greek, English, French) don't ask such questions

and don't care to answer them. Like the Buddha answering questions about gods or a rabbi answering questions about the afterlife.

Liberals don't pass judgement on the existence of hierarchy, only their method of formation.

The question is simple: Did you people volunteer to be part of this?

• There is also a secret door in the dark backright-hand corner.
  
• The door is not that well concealed behind somemoss- DC 5 to spot, but
  
• consists of one huge 500 lb stone.
  
• To move thestone is DC22 strength check, add an extra roll and strength bonusfor each extra helper up to three.
  
• Even if all fail, you can tryagain in 10 minutes.
  
• Matoober will arrive the following evening andwill move the stone if players have not managed it.
  

• The witchwill try magic missiles and crossbows and try to avoid anyspelldowns.
  
• The goblins will fight to death because of thehobgoblins.
  
• The hobgoblins will try to flee as soon as they areobviously losing, or the owlbear dies.
  
• If all the hobgoblins flee,the remaining goblins will surrender and beg for mercy the next turn.
  
• If Matoober invokes healing, any nearby hobgoblins might try DC12to grab a root instead of attack and enjoy the 1d8 heal. When thebattle is done, the surviving hobbits will want to assault the caveimmediately and try to rescue any survivors.
  
• If all hobbits die, Matoober  turns into a non-magic plant.
  
• If Matoober dies, allhobbits run away and are never seen again.
  

• Lookoutsare surprised: DC19
  
• Lookoutsare surprised to be surrounded by three hobbits which everybody knowsis just a smaller, hairier, more primitive version of halfling.
  
• Allthree have their arms outstretched in a universal gesture of begging.
  
• The only words they know in Common is “Goblin eat us help us,please.”
  
• Beyondthis, these hobbits can only speak in an ancient version of halflingwith a basic neutral vocabulary.
  
• Speakers of underhill halfling understandthat these halflings are part of band living in the narrow valleyhidden in the brush above.
  
• Their names are Odo Deerfoot, Tombo Took,and Dyan Honeytoe.
  
• Speakers of either language can advise the restof the party these three are urgently looking for allies against anongoing Goblin incursion. They wish the party to come and meet with“Matoober” immediately.
  
• If the party asks what isin it for them, the hobbits promise to be permanent allies and alsohint that “Matoober” may have some blessings to impart.
  
• If theparty follows the hobbits they are a led through some thick brush toa nearly invisible steep, craggy valley with a steep, seeminglynatural stone staircase leading up through a lush overgrown woods ofhemlock, cedar and redwood
  

Thetrees are very fragrant and sweet smelling. A constant whispering ofwind in treetops is extremely relaxing white noise, almost hypnotic. In a small flattish clearing is circle of 10' tall cairns of riverstone. The stone circle is bout 11 ft in diameter with cairns ofbalanced stones spaced about 3 ft apart. A twelve pointed star ismown into the bright green grass in between the stone. Clearly, thisis a holy place to these hobbits. In the center of the circle standsa 12 ft tall plant.

Theplant looks eerily like a large halfling with twisty rootfingersinstead of hands and a 4 foot tall headdress of giant leaves.

• This is Matoober
  
• Anywizard or elf will recognize the plant as a mandrake except thisplant is about 20 times larger and apparently more alive like ananimal than a typical plant.
  
• Hobbitsbegin to gather and sit cross-legged outside of the circle. Youcount
  
• about twenty hobbits 8 adults and
  
• 12 young hobbits
  
• Two ladyhobbits, one very old and one very young wear gigantic head dressesexactly like the Matoober;
  
• leaves emerging from a peanut-lookingwooden armor fashioned from the hollowed out root of giant mandrakes.
  

• Ifthe party agrees to help, the hobbits offer a a meal of
  
• mashed redavocados with
  
• spring green onions and
  
• oakleaf crunch.
  
• Matoober willsit silently while the village elders Rocky and Bekka Birdsclaw,explain that
  
• a stealthy approach to the caves requires about an hourof climbing up the valley sides off the main path
  
• The plan is  a short shock attack into the cave, hoping to kill a Hobgoblin or possibly freeing some captives and enrage the whole party and try to make them all come after you.
  
• Then run like hell down the steep stairs that run along the stream., drawing the goblin horde after
  
• The party should retreat down the main stairway/pathway and try to draw as manygoblins as possible into the Quell and spell range for Matoober. The scouts have counted 5 hobgoblins who rulea tribe of 20 to 30 goblins.
  
• They emerged from the underdark fournights ago and have attacked each night just after sunset.
  
• Theleaders appear to be a Fat Hobgoblin who swings a fearsome two-handedsword and
  
• a Hobgoblin hedge-witch who rides a white owlbear and fires acruel crossbow as well as magic missiles. Six of the adult hobbitswill arm themselves and accompany the party up to the cave of thesprings.
  

• So far, thehobbits of Quell have lost
  
• 12 adults and
  
• one child to the goblins.
  
• The body of the child and 4 other dead adults have been recovered and buried but
  
• 8 hobbitsare unaccounted for and, judging by the screams, might still be alive in the cave.
  
• Anymagic-users may choose to stay with Matoober in Quell and preparespells.
  
• Matoober has a +10 spellcheck bonus but her spell casting islimited to 
  
• 2xheal 1d8 to everybody touching Matoober within the circle.
  
• Her best utility may be just to commune with other spell casters to give an extraroll and +5 spellcheck to spell casters from the protection of insidethe circle.
  

No speech can be trusted anyway. I learned this when I learned about solipsism.

Regardless of where the sources came from i went to legitimate opposers of the information. 

You said which one should society hold in higher regard, not individuals. Society should value freedom of speech and make no laws infringing on it. 

• False. I asked you which you held in higher priority- my right to the truth or your right to lie.  What value is freedom of speech, after all, if no speech can be trusted.

My "absolutism" makes it so that if there are any ever highly coordinated attempts to manipulate me into believing something it never succeeds..  being perpetually baffled is far superior to the risk of ever even once being incorrect in a conclusion. 

• We've proved right here that you are a gigantic sucker for even the most obvious falsehoods- just so long as they match your compusive hatreds.

Denying the Holocaust in Russia is a prison sentence. Plus it doesn't make any sense to make that sort of thing up.

• Read the domain name.  .ru is russian.  There is no denying that you are sourcing sketchy russian sources.
  

I don't know who all your examples are but I know Eva Braun and I wouldn't consider her a NAZI.

• You admit you don't know the most famous women of the NAZI era but you are nevertheless willing to make generalizations about all prominent women of the NAZI era.  You admit that you make factual claims here even though you lack the basic research to make those claims.  Let's fact the facts- you suck at the truth- at knowing the truth, at telling the truth.  You just don't care enough about the truth to be a source of factual data for any purpose.
  
• You have conceded that your information is bad.  That you got your facts wrong about who condemned Ilse Koch for what reason.  Worse, you say you consulted a professor and came away with the wrong fact even as that professor demonstrates that he had his fact right.  That is, we can see you are able to come away with completely wrong information even from reliable sources.  Your hearing is selective.

I am basing this off of memory, so give me some leeway.

• Fuck that.  You should raise your right hand and swear that you will never go off memory again, that you will always do your research before makiing up about lies about the Jews you so hate, because your memory is damaged and corrupt- it makes you lie over and over again.

I think what you stated still keeps the essence of what I said. Pretty crazy stuff. Surviving 3 camps when Hitler was systematically eliminating Jews. 

• You LIED when you said 600 capacity.  You LIED when you said some Jew had made that claim.  You made up fake details to besmirch an admirable women.  Admit your corrupt your bias and concede you have no business pretending to have insight about Jewish history.   Read history about the many, many forced marches Hitler ordered as Germany retreated to the West.  There  was nothing unusual about Jews who relocated to 3 or more camps.

This is the first time I am seeing an argument that it wasn't in the paper at all. Why out of the hundred rebuttals I saw, you are the only one that shows this?

• Because I went straight to the NY Times archive.  You went straight to Russian propaganda sources.

I just assumed they were trying to get credit for discovering the fraud and stamped the photo as a way to get credit from whoever was sharing the story. 

• Over the photo they are trying to discredit?  Another example of how easily fooled you are.

I don't understand why Holocaust deniers would manufacture evidence if they really believed. What they were saying. I can understand why they would misinterpret evidence but manufacturing evidence is an admission that you don't believe your own story.

• For exactly the same reason you manufactured evidence about Ilse Koch and Gena Turgel- irrational hatred of Jews.

 if your version is correct their is no need for anyone to sensationalize or lie or anything else. Just present the facts.

• YOU lied about the holocaust.  YOU sensationalized false information.  We are asking you now- why did you feel the need to lie about the Holocaust?

Why are Holocaust supporters lying if the evidence supports their ultimate argument? 

• Only anti-semites support the Holocaust.  

I think it would be better if they didn't make those false conclusions to start with. 

• But the sources to trust are the ones who correct their mistakes.

Their own troops were starving at the end though. So maybe they did a lot of stuff out of evil intent, but why claim the starvation at the end was due to this instead of concluding the obvious that even America would have had trouble feeding prisoners if they lacked resources to feed their troops. 

• In early 1945, German soldiers still received the highest priority for rations but many troops were moving west fast and simply living off what they could steal from farmhouses and villages.   German troops were still averaging 500 calories/day while denying at gunpoint innocent prisioners ever a single calorie.  Big difference
  
• Obviously there is also an important moral difference between starving as a nation due to terrible foreign policy and planning and starving in a cage because creul won't unlock the door.

 Every single prominent nazi woman is described as a sexual sadist with stories about them that almost look like they can appear out of a porn.

Let's go with Ilse Koch. I was talking to a biographer of hers who pointed out this issue with a lot of female Nazis. Here is the professor I was talking too and a part of his book description. https://www.amazon.com/Ilse-Koch-Trial-Making-Buchenwald/dp/0674249186

And what a fellow historian has said that hints at this common portrayal of Nazi women 

•  Tomaz Jardim shows that, while Koch was guilty of heinous crimes, she also became a scapegoat for postwar Germans (not Jews) eager to distance themselves from the Nazi past. The popular condemnation of Koch―and the particularly perverse crimes attributed to her by prosecutors, the media, and the public at large―diverted attention from the far more consequential but less sensational complicity of millions of ordinary Germans in the Third Reich’s crimes.
  
• Koch was scapegoated by Germans, who participated by the millions in the Holocaust, as confirmed by your historian who you quote too selectively.
  

If the truth is on your side, you never need bias distortion or lies. 

Somehow it hasn't been completely memory holed. Here is the photo I was talking about. I am looking to find an English article on it right now and will edit this post when I do . https://archive.org/details/buchenwaldblock56

Here are some examples of the top of my head.

1. Every single prominent nazi woman is described as a sexual sadist with stories about them that almost look like they can appear out of a porn.

2. Holocaust survivors explaining weird things like one claiming a roller coaster of death that works like some sort of conveyer belt in the death camps.

Another claimed that they survived 3 gas chamber attempts on their life because the maximum occupancy was 600 and they were the 601st there or some other non sense. I mean these people are slaughtering people but are going to respect the maximum occupancy sign on a building. 

3. John Demjanjuk, was put on trial for being "Ivan the terrible" . Witness after witness who met John the terrible came forward and said it was definitely him. Maybe 200 Jews lied and said it was definitely the guy. It turns out he was a Nazi but he wasn't I am the terrible. 

The laws mentioned by op. It seems that if it were true and there is zero room for doubt like the earth being round, than you wouldn't need to make laws against denialism. 

There seems to be some altered photos of the Holocaust printed in newspapers. Not necessary if the events are as horrible as stated

At the end of the war German soldiers were literally starving and we are expected to believe that they starved prisoners out of malice and not because every country on the planet  would prioritize feeding their troops over prisoners 

There are reports of Nazis being tortured in a UK prison prior to the trials. Not sure why you would treat prisoners that way and expect confessions to be believed 

There are a ton of things that need explained.

There is a professor who I have talked to who noticed some of this stuff and thinks it somehow does not harm the official narrative

but I am buying his upcoming book and reading it all the way through before I press him on the answers in case the book has the answers for me. 

... if the Holocaust were a lie, which I and most revisionists I have encountered argue is a ridiculous notion...

• I, too, think that denialism is ridiculous.  The Holocaust is better documented than the Moon Landing or Pearl Harbor.  The version of the Holocaust that most believe, the WIkipedia version is essentially Eichmann's version, Eichmann's testimony.   I believe it.  I read plenty of history and by any standard of evidence, the Holocaust is as much a historical certainty as Pearl Harbor or Hiroshima.
  
• What do the Holocaust revisionists claim?  What do they say that you find compelling?
  
• Are you going to give us at least one example of somebody in jail somewhere for mere dissent and certainly not harm?

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.

-->

@<<<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.

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

 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.

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

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

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.
  

-->

@<<<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.

-->

@<<<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.

• fivesix's was first and you accepted.  If abandoned, this is a sure loss but there's lots of time and space to recover and turn this into a win.
  
• Dropping the original and offering a reversed copy makes a fuzzy thesis even less clear. 
  
• Plus, you have increased your burden to prove that Holocaust legislation is never motivated more by a desire to stigmatize- far more difficult than just skeptically disproving fivesix's overgeneralization.
  
• Yes, you've booped you're first round....
  
• I sense you are intimidated by the 30,000 character limit but don't be:  all that space didn't do fivesix any favors in the first round.   
  
• In fact, if you can deliver a more coherent argument that feels complete, you should enjoy some real advantage.  Concision is an important skill in debate and getting straight to point could leave your opponent looking like he's rambling.
  
• Apologize briefly for skipping the first round and then make us forget all about it.
  
• All the rest of the debate being equal, you should expect to take a 1 pt hit for conduct for that boop.
  
• Embrace your role as underdog and use your eloquence to overcome an early disadvantage.
  
• As I've stated above, I think PRO's thesis is a mess and his first round unconvincing.   
  
• There's plenty of time allowed to compose.
  
• I consider the original debate very winnable by either side- treat it as a push and power on.
  
• Remember, that nothing outside of the five rounds of the debate is referenceable-  don't shorthand anything argued in comments or forums.  The argument should be complete within the four rounds left to you.  You still have the advantage of the final round to summarize your argument as cohesively as possible.
  

So it is your contention that fivesix's argument suffers not from the position he/she assumes, but his/her generalized and erroneous reference--i.e. Jewish NGO's as opposed to a single legislator, Member of Parliament Kevin Waugh?

How do these caveats undermine the affirmation of the subject's resolution?

I didn't request any hashing out. Damn you need to learn to read, dude

: the debate is five rounds; and you've read one of my rounds. 

you repeatedly demonstrate your unwillingness to concede one point

you could just admit you didn't read the debate title. i'm not going to enjoy it, if that's your concern. humility is... lacking

let's have a proper debate on something so I can properly demonstrate your inability to concede a point. propose something now, go on. my debate not good enough for you, propose something now and I will tell you if I know enough about it to continue.

• (2.1) Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust
  
  • (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
    
  • (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
    
• (3.1) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2.1)
  
  • (a) if they establish that the statements communicated were true;
    
  • (b) if, in good faith, they expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
    
  • (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds they believed them to be true; or
    
  • (d) if, in good faith, they intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of antisemitism toward Jews.
    

We did not ignore the requests of any user involved

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.

My claim is that the legislation is driven more by A than it is by B.

We argue why we feel A/B is more likely than A/B as a driving force behind introducing legislation to governme  Of course it is ludicrous to lump every NGO together and go off on a conspiracy tangent. Not really interested in doing that.

I think you are complicating my debate idea purposely. It's clear what I mean to argue

You are picking apart my whole idea with some sort of anger... here you go... try to read less into things:

Fine, don't want to prove anything, just want to debate which is more likely to be the driver. It's impissible to prove; I agree

You know, when I made the rules, I set the definitions. Whomever accepts the CON position accepts those definitions. Driven btw here means "pushed forth by" -- as in I am not using an adjective.

Another P.S.: you know the greatest thing about English? No two different words exist that have the same meaning. Motive and desire are distinct; it's as simple as that

• PRO concedes his argument to CON in the definition of the debate.  PRO concedes that if he can prove a desire to stigmatize then " it's a given that there would be harm caused to the Jewish community" but  PRO claims that doesn't prove harm to individuals within that community.  PRO would have it that a proven harm to a forest does not prove harm to any individual tree but that's absurd, at least some individual trees must experience harm for it to be true that the forest is harmed- a forest is no more than a set of individual trees.  Likewise, PRO cannot concede harm to the Jewish Community without conceding harm to some individual Jews. Any Jewish community is no more than a set of individual Jews.
  

You're right with that; CON could get me on that quite readily. There's a weak spot for sure.

Somebody firebombed my church the other week, say. We all went down to the police station to report it. The constable asks "who's reporting this" and we say "the church is" and he says "no I need a person's name."

Crimes cannot victimise corporations, organisations, or likewise. One possible exception, which doesn't apply to hate crimes, is 'crimes against humanity.'

Do you understand what 'hate crime' is? "very real harms of intimidation" do not exist...

• CON has a very simple job here.  CON need only explain that PRO has no hope of documenting the individual sources of every piece of legislation regulating Holocaust denialism and therefore CON has zero chance of submitting evidence of the emotional states of all those tens of thousands of influential people across the world over 8 decades.
  
• CON has made an objectively irrational, superficially absurd, impossible to prove generalization about the emotional states of tens of thousands of individuals.  All CON has to do is show that no argument could sustain such a fantastical burden of proof.
  

• Not really - re-read the title and description, closely this time (I was careful when I wrote it)
  

• "Fine, don't want to prove anything, just want to debate which is more likely to be the driver. It's impissible to prove; I agree."
  

• PRO explicitly claims that every "group behind" every piece of Holocaust is driven by the same emotion but such precise cohesion is not only profoundly unlikely but also impossible to prove.  PRO promises that he can prove to our satisfaction that laws prohibiting Holocaust denialism in Israel, Germany, Brazil, Russia, and China are not only alike in originating from non-govermental movement sources but that he will prove that every one of those sources were passionately motivated by an identical set of emotional needs.  The idea that autocrats like Putin and Xi are driven by the same emotional response to Holocaust denialism as the children of the victims of the Holocaust in Israel or the children of the perpetrators of the Holocaust in Germany is patently, manifestly, objectively absurd and untrue.  We don't need argument to know factually that PRO's thesis is not just impossible to prove but impossible prima facie.
  
• PRO tries to separate MOTIVE from DESIRE but this distinction is not supported by ordinary usage in the English language.  DRIVEN means "Obsessed; passionately motivated to achieve goals."  Not all who are movivated are DRIVEN but all who are DRIVEN are motivated and so PRO's attempt at making a unsupportable semantic distinction fails.
  
• PRO self-contradicts by defining the debate as  "mostly theoretical and statistical."  All statistics are records of observations and therefore emprical evidence while theoretical arguments are by definition non-emprical.  That is, PRO has defined the debate as "mostly non-emperical and empirical" in nature.  In other words, PRO doesn't understand the meaning of at least one of those words.
  
• PRO concedes his argument to CON in the definition of the debate.  PRO concedes that if he can prove a desire to stigmatize then " it's a given that there would be harm caused to the Jewish community" but  PRO claims that doesn't prove harm to individuals within that community.  PRO would have it that a proven harm to a forest does not prove harm to any individual tree but that's absurd, at least some individual trees must experience harm for it to be true that the forest is harmed- a forest is no more than a set of individual trees.  Likewise, PRO cannot concede harm to the Jewish Community without conceding harm to some individual Jews. Any Jewish community is no more than a set of individual Jews.
  
• PRO ridiculously, falsely claims " also consider that there is no way for a community to collectively report to authorities a hate crime on itself so there is no way to find or gauge statistics on this."  Consider the example of the Klan burning a cross across the street from a Black Church or a noose hanging a school cafeteria or anti-semitic graffitti in a Jewish cemetary- no specific individual was harmed but every individual member of the targeted community experiences the very real harms of intimidation and incitement to violence. Directly contradicting PRO's claims, targeted communities can and do collectively report such incidence to government organizations and government scan and do collect statistics regarding such incidence.  The FBI, for instance, maintain a national database of such intimidations and publishes trends annually.
  
• CON has a very simple job here.  CON need only explain that PRO has no hope of documenting the individual sources of every piece of legislation regulating Holocaust denialism and therefore CON has zero chance of submitting evidence of the emotional states of all those tens of thousands of influential people across the world over 8 decades.
  
• CON has made an objectively irrational, superficially absurd, impossible to prove generalization about the emotional states of tens of thousands of individuals.  All CON has to do is show that no argument could sustain such a fantastical burden of proof.
  

• Evil is a religious judgement and never a scientific conclusion. 
  
• Psychologists don't ever refer to subjects as evil.
  

• For their study, the researchers used Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to recruit 367 adults from the United States. The participants completed the Dirty Dozen Dark Triad questionnaire, a standardized assessment of subclinical psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism. The researchers also asked the participants to report their actual height and the extent to which they agreed with the statements “I wish I were taller” and “I am satisfied with my height.”
  

• So our data set is limited to US citizens with an online profile of sufficient depth for a digital retailer to find worthy of recruitment, people with the time and incliniation to volunteer for an online survey- so we are already heavily skewing towards white, affluent, relatively inactive or underemployed people. Judging by social media, isn't psychopathy and narcissism already strongly over-represented in the anonymity of online populations?
  
• Let's note there is no fact checking mechanism for the anonymous replies.  
  
• Is less than 400 online Americans really sufficient to start making generalizations about all short humans?
  
• I'd be willing to agree that Americans skew towards narcissism generally.
• Even though I am slightly taller than average (and grateful to be so) I would still answer yes to "wishing I was taller" if only for basketball games.   Any woman who wears high heels wishes she was taller.   Researchers seem to be diagnosing, not just short people, but the majority of all people.