The actual debate has never taken place. Declaring your position to have been defended or your opponents position to have fallen is not the same thing as an open debate and a solid victory (or defeat).
It makes it look like they do not believe in their position if they refuse to defend it. A tiny effort on the handful of websites that still allow free discussion is not the same, if anything it highlights the lack of noise to repeal those laws and allow these "brave" online debaters to face down these deniers and revisionists and put them in their place in open, public debate.
Delaying the debate means there will be no living eye-witnesses, and I suspect the chances of this entire historical model being dismissed as mere propaganda increases with time. I do not know what the truth is in this case, I just see the laws forcing a single view as being detrimental to a complete study of the matter.
A couple of in person debates have occurred. And a few written exchanges also. Every one a clear win for revisionism. Mostly because revisionists are superior in knowledge about this subject. And obviously in moral terms also.
So that combined with the ongoing general inability of holocaust peddlers to even address revisionists arguments means the debate is clearly won. You do not know what the truth is in this case because you refuse to just read a revisionist book or essay. When you do you will see the clear difference in intellectual approach. Think of it this way, a holocaust peddling book is a lurid dramatic story while a revisionist book is a dry examination from every angle.
Jews are a minority. They didn’t make it up. Pilots saw it in the 1930s. Non-Jewish pilots.
They clearly did make it up. It wasn't hard to tell stupid stories. Pilots didn't see anything.
No governments. No armies. No companies. It’s all a conspiracy theory.
Iraq war. Numerous companies.
I've been following this thread for a while. The best evidence I've seen in favour of the holocaust having happened are the quotes the History Channel guy shared in page #4829. What is the revistionist/denier rebuttal to these quotes? It certainly seems like a lot of people were up for mass extermination.
But also, I'd like to hear from the believers why in the decades leading up to the 40s, the New York Times was obsessed with 6 million Jews dying in a holocaust? Are all of those newpaper clippings photoshopped? If not, it ought to make one suspicious of the death toll if nothing else.
In either case, I wish we lived in a freer society where where boffins on both side of the fence could sit down and comb through the details for public interest.
My response;
"Yawn. Yes yes HS, we 'rational actors in this discourse ' have been through the Goebbels and Himmler stuff extensively already right here. And codoh dealt with just about everything else.
Oh and you can forget the code words scam too. We've been though that. This right here is what the holocaust is all about. Twisting words, rumour, speculation, drivel curated to create an impression."
Like I alluded too, fake quotes is really all the holocaust peddlers have to offer you.
There is nothing stopping you reading actual revisionist research, essays and books on this. So why haven't you?
