"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".

[Hektor]

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.

You'd have to fully document that and post name, the actual confession, and check whether there was a recantation.

The problem is however that there are barely confessions that would qualify as evidence for what the Holocaust narrative implies. You get a few of the Rudolf Hoess types, sure. And you can list those.
But alleging to have witnessed what others supposedly did, like the Richard Boeck testimony, doesn't really qualify.
Also not qualifying are are confessions for 'being a guard in Auschwitz', 'taking part in selections' or participation in reprisals.

You will have to come up with a confession were an SS man says that he e.g. threw himself Zyklon B into a room full of Jews/prisoners and that this was part of an extermination program. Rather precise details need to be included, there. Can you think of such a confession?

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".

That's an interesting observation. What persuades people is bashing critics, not posting something that actually could potentially establish a case for what is alleged.

I recall a similar phenomena. They can't give you material evidence for industrial style homicidal gassings. But they come up with - usually ad hominem - arguments why "Holocaust Deniers" are wrong.

[bombsaway]

You're right that 'being a guard in Auschwitz' is not sufficient, either for supporting or 'disproving' orthodoxy

to contradict revisionism you need is direct testimony of seeing Jews being killed in gas chambers

https://remember.org/facts-aft-tri-test.html

If you want a testimony on video, check this out

https://altcensored.com/channel/UC36u_Y ... RLcbKjvl6A

There's no testimony from anyone stationed in extermination areas who said no extermination took place there. That would contradict orthodoxy.

The revisionist treatment of resettlement is a clear embarrassment and double standard, you can just witness the shit show (and silence from rest of the board) going on in this thread viewtopic.php?p=22507#p22507 . The treatment of Jews in Volhynia and Podolia, will be central to my essay.

[Wahrheitssucher]

…There's no testimony from anyone stationed in extermination areas who said no extermination took place there…

Bombsaway doesn’t understand either the assignment or basic logic.

[bombsaway]

One more question for you Archie, are you giving me total freedom in terms of rhetorical strategy used and how I go about making my argument? that revisionism is intellectually bankrupt. I assume that if my strategy is absurd/ineffective/dishonest this will simply be self apparent, so I should have the freedom to dig my own grave, is that fair?

[Archie]

One more question for you Archie, are you giving me total freedom in terms of rhetorical strategy used and how I go about making my argument? that revisionism is intellectually bankrupt. I assume that if my strategy is absurd/ineffective/dishonest this will simply be self apparent, so I should have the freedom to dig my own grave, is that fair?

Rhetoric is totally up to you, just observe the general forum rules - "avoid profanity, ethnic slurs, and inappropriate language."

If it's really shrill and hysterical, I will publish it for sure just to embarrass you.

[Stubble]

One more question for you Archie, are you giving me total freedom in terms of rhetorical strategy used and how I go about making my argument? that revisionism is intellectually bankrupt. I assume that if my strategy is absurd/ineffective/dishonest this will simply be self apparent, so I should have the freedom to dig my own grave, is that fair?

[...]
If it's really shrill and hysterical, I will publish it for sure just to embarrass you.