"best case for the Holocaust" essay question and metacommentary

[bombsaway]

viewtopic.php?t=686

the prompt for the essay is: Present, in well-argued prose, the best and most convincing evidence for the Holocaust.

I think all that evidence has been presented. Rather the issue as I see it is the thorn of 'revisionism'. The more appealing point for me that might be made here is rather the failure of revisionism to offer a convincing rebuttal to orthodoxy. If it is permissible, I'll do an essay aimed at revisionism, and showing why the general perspective and arguments being made are flawed.

[Archie]

I probably will not reject any submissions unless they are really low effort, too short, AI plagiarism, and stuff like that. Any serious effort that meets the word count will very likely be accepted.

That said, what you are describing does not sound like a 'best case' to me. If you feel the "best case" (in terms of positive evidence) has already been published and you don't think you can improve on it or condense it, please endorse and refer people to this prior work (be specific), and explain that your work is basically a supplement or addendum. Also, keep in mind that pointing readers to anything really lengthy would sort of defeat the point of a concise essay.

[bombsaway]

I probably will not reject any submissions unless they are really low effort, too short, AI plagiarism, and stuff like that. Any serious effort that meets the word count will very likely be accepted.

That said, what you are describing does not sound like a 'best case' to me. If you feel the "best case" (in terms of positive evidence) has already been published and you don't think you can improve on it or condense it, please endorse and refer people to this prior work (be specific), and explain that your work is basically a supplement or addendum. Also, keep in mind that pointing readers to anything really lengthy would sort of defeat the point of a concise essay.

Your essay is fine but its not convincing to you im sure. I think you probably have near certainty in your belief system. Therefore other kinds of argumentation should be made, though this deviates from the prompt

[Hektor]

I probably will not reject any submissions unless they are really low effort, too short, AI plagiarism, and stuff like that. Any serious effort that meets the word count will very likely be accepted.

That said, what you are describing does not sound like a 'best case' to me. If you feel the "best case" (in terms of positive evidence) has already been published and you don't think you can improve on it or condense it, please endorse and refer people to this prior work (be specific), and explain that your work is basically a supplement or addendum. Also, keep in mind that pointing readers to anything really lengthy would sort of defeat the point of a concise essay.

I think it's a great idea. Well argued best case for the Holocaust Narrative to be true would be at least a serious item for discussion.

But giving a rather complex issue involving millions of people, it's perhaps more advisable to focus on a core question or two. Something that can be pin-pointed. E.g. The best case for Krema II being an industrial style homicidal gas chamber that killed X amount of people and cremated there corpses. X being in the range of 100.000s of course. There'd be the feasibility for one for that scenario as well as the concrete evidence for this.

[Archie]

I probably will not reject any submissions unless they are really low effort, too short, AI plagiarism, and stuff like that. Any serious effort that meets the word count will very likely be accepted.

That said, what you are describing does not sound like a 'best case' to me. If you feel the "best case" (in terms of positive evidence) has already been published and you don't think you can improve on it or condense it, please endorse and refer people to this prior work (be specific), and explain that your work is basically a supplement or addendum. Also, keep in mind that pointing readers to anything really lengthy would sort of defeat the point of a concise essay.

Your essay is fine but its not convincing to you im sure. I think you probably have near certainty in your belief system. Therefore other kinds of argumentation should be made, though this deviates from the prompt

Ok, just mention in your essay (in the intro or as a separate introductory note) something about not wanting to rehash material in the prior essays and wanting to instead take an anti-revisionist focus. Like I said, that would make it more of a supplement to the others rather than a true stand-alone "best case," but I will not disallow that.

"I think you probably have near certainty in your belief system. Therefore other kinds of argumentation should be made"

Obviously, anyone who has spent a lot of time on any topic (and read hundreds of thousands or millions of words on it) is unlikely to change their mind based on a ~5,000 word essay. Lol. It's silly to expect that.

Hint: when you watch a live debate, the debaters aren't trying to convince each other. They are trying to convince people in the audience. I'm not your audience for this. Writing this for me would be silly since I will have heard the arguments. You would need a detailed research article to have any chance of changing my mind on any particular point.

[Wahrheitssucher]

Your essay is fine but its not convincing to you im sure. I think you probably have near certainty in your belief system. Therefore other kinds of argumentation should be made…

Obviously, anyone who has spent a lot of time on any topic (and read hundreds of thousands or millions of words on it) is unlikely to change their mind based on a ~5,000 word essay. Lol. It's silly to expect that.

Hint: …I'm not your audience for this. Writing this for me would be silly since I will have heard the arguments…

Bombsaway doesn’t understand the assignment.

[bombsaway]

I probably will not reject any submissions unless they are really low effort, too short, AI plagiarism, and stuff like that. Any serious effort that meets the word count will very likely be accepted.

That said, what you are describing does not sound like a 'best case' to me. If you feel the "best case" (in terms of positive evidence) has already been published and you don't think you can improve on it or condense it, please endorse and refer people to this prior work (be specific), and explain that your work is basically a supplement or addendum. Also, keep in mind that pointing readers to anything really lengthy would sort of defeat the point of a concise essay.

Your essay is fine but its not convincing to you im sure. I think you probably have near certainty in your belief system. Therefore other kinds of argumentation should be made, though this deviates from the prompt

Ok, just mention in your essay (in the intro or as a separate introductory note) something about not wanting to rehash material in the prior essays and wanting to instead take an anti-revisionist focus. Like I said, that would make it more of a supplement to the others rather than a true stand-alone "best case," but I will not disallow that.

"I think you probably have near certainty in your belief system. Therefore other kinds of argumentation should be made"

Obviously, anyone who has spent a lot of time on any topic (and read hundreds of thousands or millions of words on it) is unlikely to change their mind based on a ~5,000 word essay. Lol. It's silly to expect that.

Hint: when you watch a live debate, the debaters aren't trying to convince each other. They are trying to convince people in the audience. I'm not your audience for this. Writing this for me would be silly since I will have heard the arguments. You would need a detailed research article to have any chance of changing my mind on any particular point.

I think what I'm saying in general people who have cursory knowledge about the Holocaust, say who know that hundreds alleged perpetrators confessed to crimes without a single recantation, and still are favorable to the revisionist position are not going to be swayed by further evidence.

When talking to people about it on twitter, what seemed to be more convincing to people was my critique of revisionist methodology, so that's what I'll be doing in my essay. I think you've stated before that there is a binary between revisionism and orthodoxy, it doesn't make sense for the truth to lie in the middle, so to disprove the (or to reveal why it is stupid and shouldn't be taken seriously) is tantamount to "best case".