Examples of the argument from incredulity.

[Stubble]

Have you requested access to the study?

I have, yes. It is not forthcoming.

[Nessie]

Summary.

Archie - uses AI, that has been inputted with artificial worst case scenario details, to try and explain how his incredulity is logically and evidentially sound. He cannot produce his own argument.

Hans Hill - refuses point blank to answer any and all requests to explain how the arguments he uses are logically and evidentially sound and instead responds with explaining why he is incredulous. He resorts to ad hominems.

Stubble - refuses point blank to defend any of the multiple examples of his use of the argument from incredulity, preferring to deflect into discussing a report he wants to see but cannot access.

Not only have I proved that so-called revisionists rely heavily on the argument from incredulity, they cannot defend and justify that use.

[HansHill]

Nobody is braindead enough to take your summary of this thread seriously.

[Nessie]

Nobody is braindead enough to take your summary of this thread seriously.

List of questions and points you have refused to answer;

1 - Why don't you justify your claim that because you cannot work out how the gas chambers could have functioned as described by the witnesses and from the evidence left of their existence, that proves there never were any such gas chambers?

2 - Why don't you justify your claim that because you cannot work out how the gas chambers could have functioned whilst leaving no apparent PB and low traces of HCN, that proves there never were any such gas chambers?

3 - Despite repeated requests, you still are unable to justify your argument that because you doubt gassing was possible, because you cannot work out how it could leave no PB and low HCN residue, that is evidence to prove there never were any gassings.

4 - Please explain and justify, logically and evidentially, how that because you are not convinced by the explanations given by various chemists, as to why there is a lack of PB and low HCN residue, that is reason to believe there were no gassings?

5 - What is it, about your personal incredulity, that means you think you can successfully argue there were no gas chambers?

6 - How does not being able to understand why there is no visible PB and low traces of HCN, evidence that mass gassing did not happen?

7 - How does your inability to work out, to your satisfaction, how gassings left no apparent PB and little HCN residue, prove that there were no gas chambers? Why is your incredulity evidence to prove there were no gas chambers?

Your use of ad hominem;

"Holy brainrot low IQ missing the point brain damage Batman"

Just accept the argument you rely on is flawed and we can move on.

[Stubble]

Nessie, why don't you actually engage with the questions you list by debating them rather than strawmanning?

For example replace 'just because you can't work out' with 'what part of (x) isn't compelling'.

This is like just saying 'because of the chemistry done of the Kremas you think gassings was impossible'. The chemistry is a tile in a mosaic, not the entire picture.

If 'working it out' requires the suspension of physical law, you are taking it on faith and it is a fable. Point blank.

[HansHill]

This coat hanger abortion of a thread has been disastrous for you. Archie has already bent over backwards to explain why. Unfortunately for you, and humorously for us, that was at about two standard deviations above your operating frequency.

And yes, i’m using this dumpster fire of a thread to mock your entire approach to, obliviousness about, and misuse of these principles. Maybe the mod team will feel this mockery is unjustified and i’ll take any sanctions on the chin.

[Archie]

Ok, we've wasted enough time on this. No more "argument from incredulity" on the forum. That topic has been discussed to death, and not much has come from it aside from some entertainment.