Logical Fallacies [Remedial education for Nessie]

[ConfusedJew]

I'm not going to engage with people who falsely accuse me of lying especially if they refuse to address my arguments. I didn't make a false claim but if I did, just address that claim that you disagree with.

[Wahrheitssucher]

I'm not going to engage with people who falsely accuse me of lying especially if they refuse to address my arguments. I didn't make a false claim but if I did, just address that claim that you disagree with.

If you want to be taken seriously you will need to discuss honestly.
That will require conceding errors.
Errors such as:
a.) when you are caught making a false claim;
b.) when you are caught using fallacious logic;
c). when you are asked to provide evidence supporting your claims but dodge the request.


As below…

Please quote and provide links to these “frequent” occassions of people writing “the holocaust never happened”.

Many people say that Jews were not gassed or killed and the strongest argument that they make is that nobody ever found Hitler's order. I'd rather not sift through this entire forum

You made a FALSE claim. You did so in order to deflect from being caught in a strawman argument. That is dishonest of you. You are repeatedly arguing in a dishonest way.

What do you think the Holocaust was exactly…

You are the one claiming you’ve seen numerous posts “denying it existed”. So what exactly is this ‘holocaust’ that YOU claim was “denied”?
And give precise quotes with links to the posts where the alleged ‘denial’ was written,

[ConfusedJew]

If you want to be taken seriously you will need to discuss honestly.
That will require conceding errors.
Errors such as:
a.) when you are caught making a false claim;
b.) when you are caught using fallacious logic;
c). when you are asked to provide evidence supporting your claims but dodge the request.

I was not caught making a false claim. It is very simple, if you think that anything I said was false or illogical, just make a counterargument and provide evidence.

I am on this forum to speak to people, it is not reasonable to ask me to watch 4 hour movies, read full books, or sift through the entire forum to find answers to your questions.

For future reference, those demands will be rejected. If you want to provide a source that I can look at more deeply, feel free to do that. But I'm here to debate what actually happened. So far HansHill is the only member on here that I've found who will engage me directly with pure logic.

[Wahrheitssucher]

If you want to be taken seriously you will need to discuss honestly.
That will require conceding errors.
Errors such as:
a.) when you are caught making a false claim;
b.) when you are caught using fallacious logic;
c). when you are asked to provide evidence supporting your claims but dodge the request.

I was not caught making a false claim. It is very simple, if you think that anything I said was false or illogical, just make a counterargument and provide evidence.

In this very topic-thread you falsely implied that revisionists “reject the existence of the Holocaust”.
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t ... 105#p10794

You also claimed this: “I've seen… quite frequently when people deny that the Holocaust happened”.
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=10814#p10814

But when asked to support that claim you failed and now responded with this, using the logical fallacy of ‘strawman’:

I am on this forum to speak to people, it is not reasonable to ask me to watch 4 hour movies, read full books, or sift through the entire forum to find answers to your questions.

That is a strawman argument. You are not expected to do that.
You ARE expected to know whether what YOU YOURSELF are claiming is supported by evidence.
And you are expected to know what YOU YOURSELF have written.

…I'm here to debate what actually happened.

When you are debating using fallacious logic, you are NOT doing that. Do you really not understand this simple point?

So far HansHill is the only member on here that I've found who will engage me directly with pure logic.

This is another example of another false claim from you. Whether it is due to dishonesty or denial from ignorance only you can know for sure.

See? I have just responded to quoting your own words and explaining what is false about your argument and what uses illogical reasoning.

Can you concede error?

If you can not, that is called ‘denial’.

[ConfusedJew]

I'm not going to respond to these hostile and misguided attacks. I will not engage with you further until you clearly answer the following questions:

1. Do you believe that roughly 5-6 million Jews were killed by the Nazi regime during WW2?

2. If not, where do you think these missing Jews went and what is your evidence?

3. How many Jews do you think were killed by the Nazi regime, if any?

I have received a lot of denial that these issues are true so let's pick those apart piece by piece. Please be as specific as you possibly can. Ambiguity and emotion leads to misunderstanding.

[Wahrheitssucher]

I'm not going to respond to these hostile and misguided attacks. I will not engage with you further until you clearly answer the following questions:

1. Do you believe that roughly 5-6 million Jews were killed by the Nazi regime during WW2?

2. If not, where do you think these missing Jews went and what is your evidence?

3. How many Jews do you think were killed by the Nazi regime, if any?

I have received a lot of denial that these issues are true so let's pick those apart piece by piece. Please be as specific as you possibly can. Ambiguity and emotion leads to misunderstanding.

Please try to stay on topic and refrain from dodging when you are own reasoning is analysed / exposed.

THIS topic-thread is about logically fallacious reasoning.
You just AGAIN used another one (moving-the-goalposts) to deflect from exposure of your OWN regular and repeated usage of them.

Demonstrating that is neither “misguided” nor “hostile”. Please stop responding emotionally and defensively and instead ONLY use objective reason and logic.

Can you please answer the previous questions regarding your own use of logic.

Failure to do so again will only again demonstrate that you don’t actually understand these logical fallacies.