Logical Fallacies [Remedial education for Nessie]

[Archie]

Again, that is the very thing you are supposed to be proving. You can't just assert it.

Let's say you want to convert someone to a religion and you say "This religion is true because this associated holy text is true." That might make sense to those who already believe, but it doesn't work for anyone who doesn't already agree with you. It assumes that the person already believes in the holy text. It's useless as an argument.

The circular nature of your arguments is one reason why you have had zero success in your decade long crusade against revisionism.

[Nessie]

Again, that is the very thing you are supposed to be proving. You can't just assert it.

You said, ""The Holocaust is evidenced to have happened" is a precisely what is being contested. You asserting that does not settle anything".

We have been here before, when I pointed out that you claim 100% of the witnesses to gassings lied, leaving you with zero witnesses who worked inside an AR camp, Chelmno or A-B Krema and you denied that, but then failed to say which witness you believed! Your assertion leaves us with no witnesses at all, to places that millions went to.

I can also point to all the archaeological surveys that find large areas of disturbed ground where witnesses state mass graves were exhumed and cremated remains were reburied. You cannot counter that with any evidence the ground is undisturbed. You think you can counter the archaeological evidence by asserting it does not show sufficient disturbed ground, without any corresponding evidence.

Then you fail to provide any evidence of mass transports back out of the camps and millions of Jews still alive in 1944. I am not just asserting I have evidence and you have no evidence, I am proving it.

It is you who asserts no gassings and resettlement happened, with no evidence to back you up. Your lack of evidence means you have to resort to coming up with excuses to dismiss all the evidence for gassings. It is a fact that the evidence is for gassings, with nothing for resettlement.

Let's say you want to convert someone to a religion and you say "This religion is true because this associated holy text is true." That might make sense to those who already believe, but it doesn't work for anyone who doesn't already agree with you. It assumes that the person already believes in the holy text. It's useless as an argument.

The circular nature of your arguments is one reason why you have had zero success in your decade long crusade against revisionism.

It is not clear how your attempt at an analogy is supposed to work. The history is true, because this associated document is true, makes sense, when it means that since the document has been verified and it is corroborated, then the history is true.
I know that you do not believe any of the evidence for gassings, and you never will, so it is again not clear what you are getting at. Your attempt to make out my arguments are circular is a fail. Rather than an odd analogy that does not work, why not quote me and show something that I have said is a circular argument. No more strawmen, where I have to correct your false interpretation of what I have said.

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.

[Nessie]

I see no more AI inspired responses from Archie, who is on full dodge mode by abandoning this debate.

It is a proven fact that revisionism is based on illogical arguments over the alleged implausibility of the witness claims.

[Archie]

I see no more AI inspired responses from Archie, who is on full dodge mode by abandoning this debate.

It is a proven fact that revisionism is based on illogical arguments over the alleged implausibility of the witness claims.

More like I lost interest since arguing with you is about as productive as talking to the wall.

Your interpretation of "argument from incredulity" is absurdly broad and leads to lots of false positives. You are wrong and you refuse to admit it. I'm not wasting any more time on this.

[Nessie]

I see no more AI inspired responses from Archie, who is on full dodge mode by abandoning this debate.

It is a proven fact that revisionism is based on illogical arguments over the alleged implausibility of the witness claims.

More like I lost interest since arguing with you is about as productive as talking to the wall.

Your interpretation of "argument from incredulity" is absurdly broad and leads to lots of false positives. You are wrong and you refuse to admit it. I'm not wasting any more time on this.

You tried to use AI, to prove I was wrong, and suspiciously found one result that seemed to suggest I was wrong. I tested your result with multiple AI's and found they all agreed I was correct, and you were wrong. Why should I accept I am wrong, when all the AI results show I am correct?

You are that reliant on the logically flawed arguments from incredulity and ignorance, that you will continue to use them! I will continue to remind you that AI proved you were wrong.

[Archie]

Try giving it a bunch of different examples not directly related to the holohoax. For me, GPT is consistently able to distinguish correctly between reasoned skepticism and arbitrary unsupported incredulity. You are not able to make this distinction.

[Nessie]

Try giving it a bunch of different examples not directly related to the holohoax. For me, GPT is consistently able to distinguish correctly between reasoned skepticism and arbitrary unsupported incredulity. You are not able to make this distinction.

In Rudolf's case, AI determined that he was using incredulity. That is because of the volume of evidence and expert opinion which contradicts his chemical finding. AI is reasoning that it is far more likely there is an error in one person's calculations, minimal experimentation and conclusion, than there is with all the evidence and other expert opinion. AI thinks to a logical, final conclusion, which is mass gassings did take place, despite Rudolf's inability to work out how. You do not. You conclude that Rudolf must be correct, and all the contradictory evidence is lies or faulty, and expert opinion is wrong. But you leave it at that, with no conclusion as to what did happen.

Any rational sceptic will agree with AI, because of the evidence which favours one side over the other, the likelihood of which side is correct and since only side reaches a final conclusion. You merely assert that I am unable to make a distinction, whereas I can explain where you have gone wrong.