Challenge for Believers

[Nazgul]

Do you not think a debate should be at least logical?

Only in a perfect world. From analysis of your posts over the years I doubt if critical thinking, logic is part of your intellect, perhaps a lack of it.

[HansHill]

Nessie you think the Holocaust happened and consider critical analysis to the contrary as "argument from incredulity", and therefore illogical and fallacious. You've been very clear that the Holocaust is de facto self-evident, despite not having said those words to my knowledge. You have over 1,000 posts here and God knows how many on the old CODOH, so you should be familiar with the arguments and lines of reasoning here. As your buddy BA said, this is the debating forum. Revisionists and Orthodoxy come here to debate this exact question.

If this is so illogical to you that you cannot even understand why people on your own side continue to engage, perhaps you'd be better off spending your time with people you consider more "logical", that is, your Orthodox peers, and spend your time discussing the Orthodox position amongst yourselves?

[bombsaway]

I get why revisionists argue from incredulity, as they have no evidence and do not understand logic. I don't get why you give their argument legitimacy by arguing back, as if because you can work out how gassings worked, therefore gassings happened, which is also a logical fail.

Because this is a debate forum

Do you not think a debate should be at least logical?

Logic isn't a binary. I'm not talking to people completely divorced from reality. It's a spectrum. I think you can see with my last exchange with Stubble, there was some kind of meaningful exchange of information.

[bombsaway]

Nessie you think the Holocaust happened and consider critical analysis to the contrary as "argument from incredulity", and therefore illogical and fallacious. You've been very clear that the Holocaust is de facto self-evident, despite not having said those words to my knowledge. You have over 1,000 posts here and God knows how many on the old CODOH, so you should be familiar with the arguments and lines of reasoning here. As your buddy BA said, this is the debating forum. Revisionists and Orthodoxy come here to debate this exact question.

If this is so illogical to you that you cannot even understand why people on your own side continue to engage, perhaps you'd be better off spending your time with people you consider more "logical", that is, your Orthodox peers, and spend your time discussing the Orthodox position amongst yourselves?

My critique of Nessie would be mainly he is repetitious. I agree with him when he labels revisionism as non-legitimate fundamentally, I've stated my reasons for this before (has to do with the lack of evidence for their assertions), but it's just not very interesting or productive to hammer this home in the same way over and over again.

[Nessie]

Nessie you think the Holocaust happened..

Yes, because of all the evidence it happened.

.... and consider critical analysis to the contrary as "argument from incredulity", and therefore illogical and fallacious.

I do, when that is the case. Not all analysis is flawed revisionist analysis.

You've been very clear that the Holocaust is de facto self-evident, despite not having said those words to my knowledge.

It is clearly very well evidenced and there is no evidence of any alternative.

You have over 1,000 posts here and God knows how many on the old CODOH, so you should be familiar with the arguments and lines of reasoning here. As your buddy BA said, this is the debating forum. Revisionists and Orthodoxy come here to debate this exact question.

If this is so illogical to you that you cannot even understand why people on your own side continue to engage, perhaps you'd be better off spending your time with people you consider more "logical", that is, your Orthodox peers, and spend your time discussing the Orthodox position amongst yourselves?

I was curious as to why BA engages in an illogical argument. I don't think his reason is a good one, but that is his choice.

[Nessie]

Because this is a debate forum

Do you not think a debate should be at least logical?

Logic isn't a binary. I'm not talking to people completely divorced from reality. It's a spectrum. I think you can see with my last exchange with Stubble, there was some kind of meaningful exchange of information.

Logic is pretty much binary and you are engaging with an illogical argument, using an illogical argument.

As for your next post and repetition, I find it odd that I get criticised for repetition, when my repetition is due to the repetitive use of the same debunked, illogical arguments. It is literally years since a revisionist came up with anything new.

[bombsaway]

Do you not think a debate should be at least logical?

Logic isn't a binary. I'm not talking to people completely divorced from reality. It's a spectrum. I think you can see with my last exchange with Stubble, there was some kind of meaningful exchange of information.

Logic is pretty much binary and you are engaging with an illogical argument, using an illogical argument.

As for your next post and repetition, I find it odd that I get criticised for repetition, when my repetition is due to the repetitive use of the same debunked, illogical arguments. It is literally years since a revisionist came up with anything new.

Not all arguments from revisionists are equally illogical (I think this obvious fact alone rebuts your it's binary position), and we move into different subjects, some of which are enlightening to me from a psychological perspective, or allow for historical insights (not in terms of the revisionist position, but learning about different things, like what happened in Transnistria). Your approach seems to be more propagandistic in nature, not in the sense of you compromising truth to push an agenda but you just want to expose or discredit revisionism. Which is fine, that's your prerogative. But the repetitive nature of your argumentation reduces the value of each of your posts. There might be some value, because new people are going to read your posts, but you could accomplish virtually the same posting much less than you do, I reckon.

[Archie]

Logic isn't a binary. I'm not talking to people completely divorced from reality. It's a spectrum. I think you can see with my last exchange with Stubble, there was some kind of meaningful exchange of information.

Logic is pretty much binary and you are engaging with an illogical argument, using an illogical argument.

As for your next post and repetition, I find it odd that I get criticised for repetition, when my repetition is due to the repetitive use of the same debunked, illogical arguments. It is literally years since a revisionist came up with anything new.

Not all arguments from revisionists are equally illogical (I think this obvious fact alone rebuts your it's binary position), and we move into different subjects, some of which are enlightening to me from a psychological perspective, or allow for historical insights (not in terms of the revisionist position, but learning about different things, like what happened in Transnistria). Your approach seems to be more propagandistic in nature, not in the sense of you compromising truth to push an agenda but you just want to expose or discredit revisionism. Which is fine, that's your prerogative. But the repetitive nature of your argumentation reduces the value of each of your posts. There might be some value, because new people are going to read your posts, but you could accomplish virtually the same posting much less than you do, I reckon.

I would like to develop an AI "Nessie bot" as well as a "revisionist Nessie bot." I am confident that Nessie's "contributions" could be replaced really easily by a computer. He would be the easiest poster in the world to replicate since he only has about five different points that he recycles over and over regardless of the topic. You wouldn't even need the "intelligence" part of the AI since you could just randomize the set responses with slightly different wording. The revisionist Nessie bot would be good fun and would really drive home how pointless his style of argumentation is. It would be great fun to see Nessie square off with his bot. "You're doing fallacies!" "No, you're doing fallacies!" Ad infinitum.

[Nessie]

....

Logic is pretty much binary and you are engaging with an illogical argument, using an illogical argument.

As for your next post and repetition, I find it odd that I get criticised for repetition, when my repetition is due to the repetitive use of the same debunked, illogical arguments. It is literally years since a revisionist came up with anything new.

Not all arguments from revisionists are equally illogical (I think this obvious fact alone rebuts your it's binary position), and we move into different subjects, some of which are enlightening to me from a psychological perspective, or allow for historical insights (not in terms of the revisionist position, but learning about different things, like what happened in Transnistria). Your approach seems to be more propagandistic in nature, not in the sense of you compromising truth to push an agenda but you just want to expose or discredit revisionism. Which is fine, that's your prerogative. But the repetitive nature of your argumentation reduces the value of each of your posts. There might be some value, because new people are going to read your posts, but you could accomplish virtually the same posting much less than you do, I reckon.

Every claim from revisionists disputing gassings and cremations is an argument from incredulity. They range from the quite detailed and apparently sophisticated from Mattogno to deniers on X exclaiming their incredulity. They also constantly lie about and misrepresent the evidence, so it does get repetitive. Your debate about exhaust fumes into a gas chamber with Stubble is a repetition of many before it.

I wish revisionists would, or could come up with something new, but they cannot. I try to engage them in discussion about their use of fallacies and lack of evidence to prove what really happened, but they cannot cope, as they know they are on the losing side.

[Nessie]

....

I would like to develop an AI "Nessie bot" as well as a "revisionist Nessie bot." I am confident that Nessie's "contributions" could be replaced really easily by a computer. He would be the easiest poster in the world to replicate since he only has about five different points that he recycles over and over regardless of the topic. You wouldn't even need the "intelligence" part of the AI since you could just randomize the set responses with slightly different wording. The revisionist Nessie bot would be good fun and would really drive home how pointless his style of argumentation is. It would be great fun to see Nessie square off with his bot. "You're doing fallacies!" "No, you're doing fallacies!" Ad infinitum.

If you want to end the repetition, stop arguing that there cannot have been a Holocaust, because gassings and cremations and mass graves are impossible as described.

[bombsaway]

....

I would like to develop an AI "Nessie bot" as well as a "revisionist Nessie bot." I am confident that Nessie's "contributions" could be replaced really easily by a computer. He would be the easiest poster in the world to replicate since he only has about five different points that he recycles over and over regardless of the topic. You wouldn't even need the "intelligence" part of the AI since you could just randomize the set responses with slightly different wording. The revisionist Nessie bot would be good fun and would really drive home how pointless his style of argumentation is. It would be great fun to see Nessie square off with his bot. "You're doing fallacies!" "No, you're doing fallacies!" Ad infinitum.

If you want to end the repetition, stop arguing that there cannot have been a Holocaust, because gassings and cremations and mass graves are impossible as described.

If they concede on this point they've gutted their argument.

Here's a question you can ask yourself, if the orthodox account was that the Jews were killed with robotic bees and bodies destroyed by being shot into the sun, would it still be unfair to disbelieve based on impossibility? I'm exaggerating, but this is kind of how they view the established history.

So the issue is, from my perspective, the baseline belief of utter impossibility - this is the delusion and where they go wrong.

[fireofice]

I would like to develop an AI "Nessie bot" as well as a "revisionist Nessie bot." I am confident that Nessie's "contributions" could be replaced really easily by a computer. He would be the easiest poster in the world to replicate since he only has about five different points that he recycles over and over regardless of the topic. You wouldn't even need the "intelligence" part of the AI since you could just randomize the set responses with slightly different wording. The revisionist Nessie bot would be good fun and would really drive home how pointless his style of argumentation is. It would be great fun to see Nessie square off with his bot. "You're doing fallacies!" "No, you're doing fallacies!" Ad infinitum.

This concept is very amusing to me. I imagine it would go something like this:

Revisionist Nessie Bot: "Gassings did not happen because there is no Prussian Blue in the walls."

Nessie Bot: "Just because you cannot imagine how Prussian Blue doesn't form doesn't mean it didn't happen. This is an appeal to incredulity fallacy. Gassings are already evidenced by witness testimony."

Revisionist Nessie Bot: "Just because you cannot imagine how witness testimony can be false doesn't mean it isn't false. This is an appeal to incredulity fallacy. The lack of gassings is already well evidenced by the lack of Prussian Blue in the walls."

And then just back and forth like that forever.

[Nessie]

....

I would like to develop an AI "Nessie bot" as well as a "revisionist Nessie bot." I am confident that Nessie's "contributions" could be replaced really easily by a computer. He would be the easiest poster in the world to replicate since he only has about five different points that he recycles over and over regardless of the topic. You wouldn't even need the "intelligence" part of the AI since you could just randomize the set responses with slightly different wording. The revisionist Nessie bot would be good fun and would really drive home how pointless his style of argumentation is. It would be great fun to see Nessie square off with his bot. "You're doing fallacies!" "No, you're doing fallacies!" Ad infinitum.

If you want to end the repetition, stop arguing that there cannot have been a Holocaust, because gassings and cremations and mass graves are impossible as described.

If they concede on this point they've gutted their argument.

Here's a question you can ask yourself, if the orthodox account was that the Jews were killed with robotic bees and bodies destroyed by being shot into the sun, would it still be unfair to disbelieve based on impossibility? I'm exaggerating, but this is kind of how they view the established history.

Their preferred false analogy is with witches and flying broomsticks.

So the issue is, from my perspective, the baseline belief of utter impossibility - this is the delusion and where they go wrong.

Considering what the Nazis did manage to do, from conquering the vast majority of mainland Europe, to firing rockets to London, to building the best tanks, it is odd that revisionists refuse to believe that they could move millions of Jews by train to a few camps, build gas chambers, dig big mass graves and cremate lots of corpses.

That leaves them with the "ah, but it was how the witnesses describe it" argument, which is so obviously logically flawed, I find it incredible anyone would consider using it. It is like claiming because some people cannot adequately describe how a car's engine works, therefore they lied and there are no cars.

[Nessie]

...
This concept is very amusing to me. I imagine it would go something like this:

Revisionist Nessie Bot: "Gassings did not happen because there is no Prussian Blue in the walls."

That is not an unreasonable argument. There is reason to expect a gas chambers to show Prussian Blue in the walls. However, it is not a definite, as there are many places where Zyklon B has been used over the years and it did not cause walls to turn blue. If it did, Zyklon B would have been discontinued.

Nessie Bot: "Just because you cannot imagine how Prussian Blue doesn't form doesn't mean it didn't happen. This is an appeal to incredulity fallacy. Gassings are already evidenced by witness testimony."

That is correct. Not being able to work out how mass gassings did not leave Prussian Blue, is not evidence to prove no mass gassings. We have never seen the walls inside the gas chambers of the two bunker/farm houses, Kremas IV and V. They may have discoloured, but they were demolished. I ma not sure if anything can be seen of the Leichenkeller inside Krema III, so that leaves the argument based on Krema I and the very small part of Krema II's Leichenkeller that can be accessed. They have been tested and found to have traces of HCN, so it was used there. There are chemists who believe they know why those places are not blue like the delousing chambers are, for reasons such as the ventilation, time of exposure and washing iof the walls. I also believe not all the delousing chambers have turned blue, so there are clearly issues with the revisionist claim. Gassings are evidenced by multiple witnesses, documentary and circumstantial evidence.

Revisionist Nessie Bot: "Just because you cannot imagine how witness testimony can be false doesn't mean it isn't false. This is an appeal to incredulity fallacy. The lack of gassings is already well evidenced by the lack of Prussian Blue in the walls."

That argument is flawed. I can imagine how witness testimony can be false, I think everyone can and I have just explained why the lack of Prussian blue is not evidence to prove no mass gassings.

[HansHill]

My critique of Nessie would be mainly he is repetitious. I agree with him when he labels revisionism as non-legitimate fundamentally, I've stated my reasons for this before (has to do with the lack of evidence for their assertions), but it's just not very interesting or productive to hammer this home in the same way over and over again.

I can understand why people on your side would critique Nessie's repetition, and I will add here too, his frequent use of fallacies (see the "Request" thread for a recent example). His repetition routinely gives Revisionists very easy lay-ups to dunk on, which for a new comer to this forum, would be very satisfying to see. Similarly his overuse of fallacies to a newcomer would also look extremely weak if representing the Orthodox position!