Logical Fallacies [Remedial education for Nessie]

[Nessie]

I asked iAsk, and decided to start by asking it the question you used;

"I don't know if you are familiar with "Holocaust revisionism" but there is a "revisionist" named Germar Rudolf who published a report presented chemical samples from the walls of the gas chambers in Auschwitz. He argues that the lack of iron cyanide compounds in the homicidal gas chambers is evidence against the claim that there were regular gassings with Zyklon in that room, especially considering that iron cyanide compounds are found in the fumigation chambers where we know Zyklon was regularly used. Would Rudolf's book be an argument from incredulity fallacy?"

The answer (bold and link is mine);

" According to Ask AI & Question AI https://iask.ai/

Understanding Germar Rudolf’s Argument and the Fallacy of Incredulity

To evaluate whether Germar Rudolf’s argument constitutes an argument from incredulity fallacy, we must first understand what this fallacy entails. An argument from incredulity occurs when someone dismisses a claim simply because they find it difficult to believe or understand, rather than providing substantive evidence against it. This type of reasoning is flawed because disbelief does not equate to disproof.

Rudolf’s Claims on Chemical Samples

Germar Rudolf’s report focuses on the chemical analysis of samples taken from the walls of alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz. He claims that the absence of iron cyanide compounds, which are associated with the use of Zyklon B (a pesticide containing hydrogen cyanide), in these chambers serves as evidence against the assertion that these rooms were used for mass gassings during the Holocaust. Rudolf contrasts this with fumigation chambers where Zyklon B was indeed used and where iron cyanide residues are typically found.

Analyzing the Evidence Presented

1. Chemical Analysis Context: The presence or absence of specific chemical compounds can be influenced by numerous factors, including the conditions under which substances were applied, how long they remained in contact with surfaces, and subsequent cleaning or degradation processes. Therefore, a lack of iron cyanide does not necessarily prove that Zyklon B was never used in those chambers.

2. Historical Context: Historical documentation and testimonies provide extensive evidence supporting the use of gas chambers for mass extermination during the Holocaust. This includes survivor accounts, Nazi documentation, and post-war investigations that corroborate the existence and function of these gas chambers.

3. Scientific Consensus: The scientific community overwhelmingly rejects revisionist claims like those made by Rudolf. Numerous studies have been conducted regarding the use of Zyklon B in extermination camps, consistently affirming its application in gas chambers.

Conclusion on Fallacy Application

Given this context, Rudolf’s argument can be seen as an example of an argument from incredulity if he is relying solely on his disbelief regarding chemical residues to refute established historical facts without adequately addressing or countering them with comprehensive evidence. His conclusion appears to stem more from a personal incredulity about how such a large-scale atrocity could occur rather than a rigorous scientific critique grounded in all available data.

Thus, while Rudolf presents a specific claim regarding chemical analysis, his dismissal of overwhelming historical evidence based on selective interpretation aligns with an argument from incredulity fallacy.

Bold Answer: Yes, Germar Rudolf’s argument can be considered an argument from incredulity fallacy as it relies on disbelief rather than comprehensive evidence against established historical facts regarding the Holocaust."

[Nessie]

It is wrong to rely on one source, and checks should be done. So, I asked exactly the same question again to Merlin AI. Here is the answer (bold is mine);

https://www.getmerlin.in/ask-ai

"Germar Rudolf's argument, as you've described it, is a strong candidate for an argument from incredulity fallacy. An argument from incredulity asserts that because something seems unbelievable or improbable to the arguer, it must therefore be false. Rudolf's argument hinges on his assertion that the absence of iron cyanide compounds in the alleged homicidal gas chambers, contrasted with their presence in the fumigation chambers, is unbelievable if mass gassings with Zyklon B occurred. He concludes, based on this perceived improbability, that the mass gassings didn't happen. This is precisely the structure of an argument from incredulity: He finds the evidence inconsistent with his preconceived notion, and uses that perceived inconsistency to reject the established historical consensus.

It's crucial to note that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The lack of iron cyanide compounds could be explained by a variety of factors, such as degradation over time, cleaning procedures, or the specific methods used in the alleged gassings. A rigorous scientific examination would require considering these alternative explanations before drawing any conclusions. Rudolf's focus on a single piece of evidence, while ignoring a vast body of historical and forensic evidence supporting the historical narrative of the Holocaust, further strengthens the case that his argument constitutes an argument from incredulity."

You will of course now assert that AI is Jewish and it has been programmed by Jews to give the answers you do not want to accept.

[Archie]

ChatGPT's answers were a lot better. The ones you posted are poor and it seems those AI (which I assumed you cherrypicked) have stronger bias/guardrails on the Holocaust.

From #1: Yes, Germar Rudolf’s argument can be considered an argument from incredulity fallacy as it relies on disbelief rather than comprehensive evidence against established historical facts regarding the Holocaust.

From #2: A rigorous scientific examination would require considering these alternative explanations before drawing any conclusions. Rudolf's focus on a single piece of evidence, while ignoring a vast body of historical and forensic evidence supporting the historical narrative of the Holocaust, further strengthens the case that his argument constitutes an argument from incredulity.

This is a terrible response because 1) Germar himself has written and edited books dealing with broader topics (Lectures, Dissecting, Holocaust Encylopedia) which the AI is ignoring, 2) Germar does not claim that Chemistry of Auschwitz is a stand-alone text; he would admit that it exists within a broader literature/body of knowledge.

Incidentally, Merlin AI (which is based on Google's Gemini) gave me a quite different answer from you.

I don't know if you are familiar with "Holocaust revisionism" but there is a "revisionist" named Germar Rudolf who published a report presented chemical samples from the walls of the gas chambers in Auschwitz. He argues that the lack of iron cyanide compounds in the homicidal gas chambers is evidence against the claim that there were regular gassings with Zyklon in that room, especially considering that iron cyanide compounds are found in the fumigation chambers where we know Zyklon was regularly used. Would Rudolf's book be an argument from incredulity fallacy?

Germar Rudolf's arguments regarding the lack of iron cyanide compounds in Auschwitz gas chambers are not solely an "argument from incredulity," although incredulity plays a role. His arguments are more accurately characterized as a misuse of scientific evidence and a form of pseudoscientific reasoning, combined with selective use of evidence and ignoring overwhelming counter-evidence.

While he presents chemical analyses, his argument suffers from several flaws that go beyond simple disbelief:

Ignoring the context and complexity of chemical reactions: The absence of specific compounds doesn't automatically negate the use of Zyklon B. Chemical reactions are complex, and the presence or absence of specific compounds can depend on numerous factors, including environmental conditions, exposure time, and the presence of other substances. Rudolf simplifies a complex chemical process to fit his predetermined conclusion.

Selective presentation of evidence: Rudolf focuses on a single piece of evidence while ignoring the massive body of historical documentation, eyewitness testimony, and other forensic evidence supporting the use of Zyklon B in the extermination process. This is a classic tactic of pseudoscience—cherry-picking data to support a pre-conceived notion while dismissing contradictory evidence.

Misinterpretation of data: Even if his chemical analysis were accurate (which is disputed by mainstream historians and scientists), his interpretation of the results is questionable. He draws conclusions that are not necessarily supported by the data itself. He fails to account for alternative explanations and existing counter-evidence.

Lack of peer review and acceptance: Rudolf's work has been widely rejected by the scientific and historical communities. His conclusions have not been accepted by reputable scientific journals or historians specializing in the Holocaust. This lack of peer review and acceptance further undermines the validity of his claims.

Therefore, while Rudolf might express disbelief in the established historical narrative, his arguments are not simply based on incredulity. They are flawed due to:

Oversimplification of complex chemical processes.
Selective presentation of evidence.
Misinterpretation of data.
Lack of peer review and acceptance within the relevant scientific and historical communities.
His work is better categorized as a form of Holocaust denial, utilizing deceptive scientific methods and ignoring the overwhelming weight of evidence to the contrary. It's a sophisticated attempt to create the appearance of scientific legitimacy for a fundamentally flawed and historically inaccurate conclusion.

The bias is quite strong here and it's much more heavy-handed than ChatGPT's response which was relatively more objective.

And just for fun,

Would you say that dismissing Rudolf on grounds of “argument from incredulity” would be a strong or a weak response?

Dismissing Germar Rudolf's arguments solely on the grounds of "argument from incredulity" would be a very weak response (bold in original!). It fails to address the core issues with his methodology and the substantial body of evidence that contradicts his claims. Such a response would be considered intellectually dishonest and would avoid engaging with the substance of his arguments (however flawed they are).

A strong response would involve:

Addressing his specific claims: Point-by-point refutation of his chemical analysis, highlighting methodological flaws, misinterpretations of data, and the ignoring of contradictory evidence.
Presenting counter-evidence: Detailing the overwhelming historical documentation, eyewitness testimonies, and forensic evidence supporting the use of Zyklon B in the extermination process.
Highlighting the lack of peer review and acceptance: Emphasizing the rejection of Rudolf's work by the mainstream scientific and historical communities.
Exposing his motivations and biases: Acknowledging his connection to Holocaust denial movements and his clear bias in favor of a predetermined conclusion.
Simply stating that his arguments are unbelievable ignores the sophisticated, albeit deceptive, nature of his pseudoscientific approach. A strong response requires a thorough engagement with the specifics of his claims and a presentation of the overwhelming evidence that refutes them.

I think the above is a pretty good explanation of the deficiencies of your debate style (dismiss detailed arguments and evidence with the word "fallacy").

[Nessie]

ChatGPT's answers were a lot better. The ones you posted are poor and it seems those AI (which I assumed you cherrypicked) have stronger bias/guardrails on the Holocaust.

Told you that you would claim bias on the part of AI that disagrees with you! You cherry-picked one AI, without bothering to check any other.

From #1: Yes, Germar Rudolf’s argument can be considered an argument from incredulity fallacy as it relies on disbelief rather than comprehensive evidence against established historical facts regarding the Holocaust.

From #2: A rigorous scientific examination would require considering these alternative explanations before drawing any conclusions. Rudolf's focus on a single piece of evidence, while ignoring a vast body of historical and forensic evidence supporting the historical narrative of the Holocaust, further strengthens the case that his argument constitutes an argument from incredulity.

This is a terrible response because 1) Germar himself has written and edited books dealing with broader topics (Lectures, Dissecting, Holocaust Encylopedia) which the AI is ignoring, 2) Germar does not claim that Chemistry of Auschwitz is a stand-alone text; he would admit that it exists within a broader literature/body of knowledge.

Incidentally, Merlin AI (which is based on Google's Gemini) gave me a quite different answer from you.

I don't know if you are familiar with "Holocaust revisionism" but there is a "revisionist" named Germar Rudolf who published a report presented chemical samples from the walls of the gas chambers in Auschwitz. He argues that the lack of iron cyanide compounds in the homicidal gas chambers is evidence against the claim that there were regular gassings with Zyklon in that room, especially considering that iron cyanide compounds are found in the fumigation chambers where we know Zyklon was regularly used. Would Rudolf's book be an argument from incredulity fallacy?

Germar Rudolf's arguments regarding the lack of iron cyanide compounds in Auschwitz gas chambers are not solely an "argument from incredulity," although incredulity plays a role. His arguments are more accurately characterized as a misuse of scientific evidence and a form of pseudoscientific reasoning, combined with selective use of evidence and ignoring overwhelming counter-evidence.

While he presents chemical analyses, his argument suffers from several flaws that go beyond simple disbelief:

Ignoring the context and complexity of chemical reactions: The absence of specific compounds doesn't automatically negate the use of Zyklon B. Chemical reactions are complex, and the presence or absence of specific compounds can depend on numerous factors, including environmental conditions, exposure time, and the presence of other substances. Rudolf simplifies a complex chemical process to fit his predetermined conclusion.

Selective presentation of evidence: Rudolf focuses on a single piece of evidence while ignoring the massive body of historical documentation, eyewitness testimony, and other forensic evidence supporting the use of Zyklon B in the extermination process. This is a classic tactic of pseudoscience—cherry-picking data to support a pre-conceived notion while dismissing contradictory evidence.

Misinterpretation of data: Even if his chemical analysis were accurate (which is disputed by mainstream historians and scientists), his interpretation of the results is questionable. He draws conclusions that are not necessarily supported by the data itself. He fails to account for alternative explanations and existing counter-evidence.

Lack of peer review and acceptance: Rudolf's work has been widely rejected by the scientific and historical communities. His conclusions have not been accepted by reputable scientific journals or historians specializing in the Holocaust. This lack of peer review and acceptance further undermines the validity of his claims.

Therefore, while Rudolf might express disbelief in the established historical narrative, his arguments are not simply based on incredulity. They are flawed due to:

Oversimplification of complex chemical processes.
Selective presentation of evidence.
Misinterpretation of data.
Lack of peer review and acceptance within the relevant scientific and historical communities.
His work is better categorized as a form of Holocaust denial, utilizing deceptive scientific methods and ignoring the overwhelming weight of evidence to the contrary. It's a sophisticated attempt to create the appearance of scientific legitimacy for a fundamentally flawed and historically inaccurate conclusion.

The bias is quite strong here and it's much more heavy-handed than ChatGPT's response which was relatively more objective.

You cherry-pick the response you like the most. Funny how the response you got from Merlin also rubbished Rudolf. It looks like you had previously asked Merlin, and it gave you that answer, so you ignored it!!!!!

When will accept that his work is flawed? His peers rubbished his report. AI criticises it. The only people who support it, are biased Holocaust deniers.

And just for fun,

Would you say that dismissing Rudolf on grounds of “argument from incredulity” would be a strong or a weak response?

Dismissing Germar Rudolf's arguments solely on the grounds of "argument from incredulity" would be a very weak response (bold in original!). It fails to address the core issues with his methodology and the substantial body of evidence that contradicts his claims. Such a response would be considered intellectually dishonest and would avoid engaging with the substance of his arguments (however flawed they are).

A strong response would involve:

Addressing his specific claims: Point-by-point refutation of his chemical analysis, highlighting methodological flaws, misinterpretations of data, and the ignoring of contradictory evidence.

I have dealt with that. I point out that I cannot argue the chemistry, due to my lack of knowledge, but others with greater knowledge, dispute his findings.

Presenting counter-evidence: Detailing the overwhelming historical documentation, eyewitness testimonies, and forensic evidence supporting the use of Zyklon B in the extermination process.

That has been done, I have repeatedly pointed out that Rudolf is contradicted by the evidence and he cannot evidence a different function for the Liechenkellers.

Highlighting the lack of peer review and acceptance: Emphasizing the rejection of Rudolf's work by the mainstream scientific and historical communities.

We all know his work has been rejected by his peers and he is no longer considered a credible scientist.

Exposing his motivations and biases: Acknowledging his connection to Holocaust denial movements and his clear bias in favor of a predetermined conclusion.

He is a convicted Holocaust denier.

Simply stating that his arguments are unbelievable ignores the sophisticated, albeit deceptive, nature of his pseudoscientific approach. A strong response requires a thorough engagement with the specifics of his claims and a presentation of the overwhelming evidence that refutes them.

I think the above is a pretty good explanation of the deficiencies of your debate style (dismiss detailed arguments and evidence with the word "fallacy").

I have not just dismissed his work as a fallacy. I have repeatedly pointed out the other issues that you got AI to list, just for fun. AI has backed my arguments up and rubbised Rudolf.

[Nessie]

You said;

"Let's ask ChatGPT (keeping in mind that it has been programmed to be highly biased against Holocaust revisionism.)"

Then, when you got an answer you liked, you chopped out part of that answer;

"[... gives some alternative responses...]"

What did you edit out? Did it also explain that Rudolf's argument is flawed? Now you say;

"ChatGPT's answers were a lot better. The ones you posted are poor and it seems those AI (which I assumed you cherrypicked) have stronger bias/guardrails on the Holocaust."

I asked ChatGPT the question you asked and its reply is one that you will now switch back to claiming is evidence it has been programme to be biased against revisionism!

https://chatgpt.com/

"Yes, Germar Rudolf's argument could be considered an example of the "argument from incredulity" fallacy.

The "argument from incredulity" occurs when someone dismisses a claim simply because they find it hard to believe or understand, rather than because of concrete evidence to the contrary. In this case, Rudolf seems to argue that the absence of iron cyanide compounds in the walls of the gas chambers at Auschwitz disproves the claim that Zyklon B was used for mass exterminations there. He suggests that since such compounds are found in fumigation chambers where Zyklon B was used, their absence in the alleged homicidal gas chambers means that Zyklon B was not used in those chambers for gassing people.

The flaw here lies in the assumption that the presence or absence of certain chemical traces alone can definitively determine the historical events. In reality, there are a number of factors that could explain the difference, such as different conditions of use, cleaning processes, or the way in which Zyklon B was used for mass killings versus fumigation. Rudolf’s argument focuses heavily on what he finds hard to believe (i.e., that Zyklon B could have been used in the gas chambers without leaving these particular chemical markers), rather than addressing the broader body of evidence, which includes testimonies, eyewitness accounts, physical evidence, and documents that support the occurrence of mass killings in Auschwitz and other extermination camps.

Moreover, the Holocaust is well-documented with overwhelming evidence from various sources, including survivors, Nazi perpetrators (such as captured SS officers), documents, and the remains of the camps themselves. Rudolf’s argument does not engage with this broader evidence in a rigorous, logical manner. Instead, it selectively focuses on a narrow technical point, relying on his incredulity about the historical reality of gassings rather than offering a comprehensive refutation of the established evidence.

In summary, Rudolf's argument could indeed be seen as an argument from incredulity, because it dismisses well-established facts based on a narrow interpretation of evidence that seems difficult to reconcile with the Holocaust narrative, rather than offering a logically consistent and evidence-based refutation."

[Archie]

All of the AI companies openly say that they have programmed their engines not to be racist, anti-Semitic, not to deny the Holocaust, etc. Generally speaking, if you directly ask it about H revisionism it triggers a bunch of pro-Holocaust boilerplate. That is to be expected. Where have you been the last two years? Lol.

In this instance, I asked it whether Germar's book can be dismissed because of "argument from incredulity." And the answers I get indicate no.

I see you did not respond to the part from I quoted about your response be "very weak."

[Nessie]

All of the AI companies openly say that they have programmed their engines not to be racist, anti-Semitic, not to deny the Holocaust, etc. Generally speaking, if you directly ask it about H revisionism it triggers a bunch of pro-Holocaust boilerplate. That is to be expected. Where have you been the last two years? Lol.

In this instance, I asked it whether Germar's book can be dismissed because of "argument from incredulity." And the answers I get indicate no.

ChatGPT that you quoted said

"Germar Rudolf's argument, as described, does not fit the definition of an argument from incredulity fallacy"

When I asked ChatGPT exactly the question you said you had asked it, it said;

"Yes, Germar Rudolf's argument could be considered an example of the "argument from incredulity" fallacy."

iAsk said;

"Yes, Germar Rudolf’s argument can be considered an argument from incredulity fallacy..."

Merlin said;

"Germar Rudolf's argument, as you've described it, is a strong candidate for an argument from incredulity fallacy..."

I have since asked AskAI;

"However, Rudolf's conclusion is an example of a fallacy known as 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' or 'argument from ignorance.'...Rudolf's conclusion ignores this extensive evidence and instead relies on the absence of a single chemical indicator, which is a classic example of a fallacy from ignorance.
In summary, it can be said that Rudolf's argument relies on a logical fallacy and therefore cannot be considered valid evidence against the existence of the gas chambers and the Holocaust."

That brings into question, did you really ask Chat GPT the question you quoted?
What did you edit out of its response?
Did you ask any other AI?

I see you did not respond to the part from I quoted about your response be "very weak."

I did respond. Here;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=2252#p2252

[Nessie]

Archie, you could get round any issues with the alleged programming of AI to defeat Holocaust Denial, by asking it generic questions, that do not name Rudolf or even mention the Holocaust.

If a scientist argues that a historical event cannot have happened, because his experimentation has concluded that the event claimed is physically impossible, is he making a logically flawed argument?

ChatGPT answer to that;

"Yes, the scientist is making a logically flawed argument.
This type of argument is an example of argument from ignorance or argument from personal experience. Here's why it's flawed:
Historical Events vs. Physical Laws: Historical events often involve complex, multi-faceted circumstances, and their occurrence doesn't always depend on simple, isolated physical laws. Just because a particular physical experiment suggests something is "impossible" in one controlled context does not rule out the possibility that a historical event might have occurred due to different conditions, unknown factors, or aspects that were not captured in the experiment.
Misapplication of Scientific Methods: Science works by testing hypotheses under controlled conditions, but it cannot conclusively disprove the past in the same way it can test present phenomena. History involves examining evidence, which includes written records, archaeological findings, and other forms of indirect data. A historical event may be deemed "possible" through historical analysis even if it doesn't seem to comply with a scientist's physical model of reality.
Limitations of Current Knowledge: What seems physically impossible today based on current understanding may be proven possible in the future as scientific knowledge evolves. An argument based on what we "know" now (and can experimentally validate) doesn't take into account future advancements or the possibility that there might be unknown factors involved.
In summary, claiming that a historical event didn’t happen because it appears physically impossible based on one’s experiments is logically flawed because it disregards the complexity and the nature of historical evidence, as well as the limitations of scientific experimentation when applied to past events."

[HansHill]

Rudolf does not base his opinion solely on the chemistry (although that alone is a very strong argument) and instead investigates, for example, the introduction columns, introduction holes, support mechanisms, the visible iron rods, stress and fracture points on the extant remains, air flow to assess oxygen depletion, i could go on forever. And that's just Birkenau.

Given all of this, I wonder why your AI chatbot didn't address any of it?

[Nessie]

Rudolf does not base his opinion solely on the chemistry...

Yes he does, because no there is no evidence that the Liechenkellers were used for another purpose 1943-4. Despite the time he has spent at A-B, he has never found evidence to support the various claims made, or for him to come up with a theory of his own.

(although that alone is a very strong argument)

No, it is not, as I have and now AI repeatedly explains.

... and instead investigates, for example, the introduction columns, introduction holes, support mechanisms, the visible iron rods, stress and fracture points on the extant remains, air flow to assess oxygen depletion, i could go on forever. And that's just Birkenau.

What is that evidence of, if it is not evidence of a gas chambers? I know Rudolf is a chemist, but he could have had a stab at the history of the Kremas.

Given all of this, I wonder why your AI chatbot didn't address any of it?

My AI? Clearly, despite accusing me of cherry-picking, Archie has cherry-picked an answer and ignored all the other responses that state Rudolf's argument is logically flawed. Just because he cannot make his findings fit with the gassing claims, does not therefore mean he has proved no gassings took place.

[Archie]

Some of the fallacies Nessie uses very aggressively. The examples here will be approximate, from memory, but all of these are the sorts of things he says.

1) Argument from Fallacy - Dismissing a conclusion as false because a (supposed) fallacy has been committed.

"Revisionists are wrong because their arguments are based on fallacies." (Also a false premise)

2) Begging the question and other forms of circular reasoning - assuming or asserting the thing you are supposed to be proving. He does this constantly.

"The Holocaust is true. Rudolf's chemical tests suggest the Holocaust is possibly false. Therefore he is wrong."

3) Argument from Ignorance - assuming something is true because it has not been proven false (or because evidence for an alternative is deemed unsatisfactory). This ignores the possibility that the conclusion could be inconclusive or uncertain.

"Revisionists cannot prove (to his satisfaction) what really happened in the gas chambers. Therefore they were gas chambers."

4) Argument from Authority

"Mainstream experts say the Holocaust is true. Therefore the Holocaust is true."

5) I don't think this has a name, but he basically denies others the right to disagree with him. Normally it is understood that people don't always agree on how to interpret or weigh the evidence. Nessie generally assumes the conclusion follows automatically from "the evidence" and that's that.

[Nessie]

Some of the fallacies Nessie uses very aggressively. The examples here will be approximate, from memory, but all of these are the sorts of things he says.

1) Argument from Fallacy - Dismissing a conclusion as false because a (supposed) fallacy has been committed.

"Revisionists are wrong because their arguments are based on fallacies." (Also a false premise)

Strawman fallacy in your behalf. Revisionists are wrong because their arguments are based on fallacies AND they cannot produce an evidenced history of what happened AND the evidenced history is that gassings took place.

2) Begging the question and other forms of circular reasoning - assuming or asserting the thing you are supposed to be proving. He does this constantly.

"The Holocaust is true. Rudolf's chemical tests suggest the Holocaust is possibly false. Therefore he is wrong."

It is not begging the question to say that since the Holocaust is evidenced to have happened, therefore Rudolf's conclusion is wrong, because I have not assumed the conclusion from the premise. The conclusion is a logical progression from the premise.

3) Argument from Ignorance - assuming something is true because it has not been proven false (or because evidence for an alternative is deemed unsatisfactory). This ignores the possibility that the conclusion could be inconclusive or uncertain.

"Revisionists cannot prove (to his satisfaction) what really happened in the gas chambers. Therefore they were gas chambers."

Another strawman from you. Revisionists cannot evidence what really happened in the gas chambers. There is evidence they were used as gas chambers. Therefore they were gas chambers.

4) Argument from Authority

"Mainstream experts say the Holocaust is true. Therefore the Holocaust is true."

Another strawman. Mainstream experts have traced the evidence to prove that the Holocaust is true. Therefore the Holocaust is true.

5) I don't think this has a name, but he basically denies others the right to disagree with him. Normally it is understood that people don't always agree on how to interpret or weigh the evidence. Nessie generally assumes the conclusion follows automatically from "the evidence" and that's that.

You just made that up. It is yet another strawman fallacy. I like the way you are so dismissive of evidence. Is that because you have none?

[Nessie]

Archie;

Did you really ask Chat GPT the question you quoted?
What did you edit out of its response?
Did you ask any other AI?

Then you said "I see you did not respond to the part from I quoted about your response be "very weak." but I did respond and gave you a link.

Could you answer my questions and acknowledge my response please.

[Archie]

It is not begging the question to say that since the Holocaust is evidenced to have happened, therefore Rudolf's conclusion is wrong, because I have not assumed the conclusion from the premise. The conclusion is a logical progression from the premise.

If a conclusion is contested and you wish to persuade those who have a different view that your conclusion is the correct one, you have to convince them. You can't assume the matter is settled just because it is settled in your opinion. "The Holocaust is evidenced to have happened" is a precisely what is being contested. You asserting that does not settle anything.

[Nessie]

It is not begging the question to say that since the Holocaust is evidenced to have happened, therefore Rudolf's conclusion is wrong, because I have not assumed the conclusion from the premise. The conclusion is a logical progression from the premise.

If a conclusion is contested and you wish to persuade those who have a different view that your conclusion is the correct one, you have to convince them. You can't assume the matter is settled just because it is settled in your opinion. "The Holocaust is evidenced to have happened" is a precisely what is being contested. You asserting that does not settle anything.

It is a fact that gassings is evidenced, and none of the other suggested uses for the Kremas or AR camps suggested by revisionists are evidenced. Mass resettlement of Jews in the east, also suggested by revisionists, is not evidenced. The way revisionists contest the evidence is logically flawed, riddled with misrepresentation and constant lying.

Did you really ask Chat GPT the question you quoted?
What did you edit out of its response?
Did you ask any other AI?

Then you said "I see you did not respond to the part from I quoted about your response be "very weak." but I did respond and gave you a link.

Could you answer my questions and acknowledge my response please.