Was Auschwitz a death camp?

[God Fearing Atheist]

I have run this by Consistent Thinker, and he has expressed interest, so im putting it here.

The topic is holocaust "revisionism", specifically Auschwitz, its gas chambers, and the number killed there. CT will be the affirmitive, arguing (I think), that there were no homicidal gas chambers, and that the estimated death is greatly overstated. I will be responding.

Four or five rounds, 5,000 word max, maybe two weeks between posts to have time to look stuff up, if need be.

-GFA

[Megatron]

This should be interesting... but I thought there was enough evidence regarding the concentration camps that fairly well proved what was going on there. There must be a lot I don't know about the whole thing...

[Consistent Thinker]

Let me think about the terms. I should be ready to start sround mid-January.

[God Fearing Atheist]

Just to be clear CT, would you be taking the Rudolf/Leuchter route an argue that the gassings were impossible, or at least physically unlikely? If so, I think it would be good to narrow the debate down to *just* the existence of gas chambers, as thats a pretty big topic as is.

-GFA

[Consistent Thinker]

I would like the debate to have a moderate amount more "room" than that. However, I do think that gassings were unlikely given the evidence.

[God Fearing Atheist]

Okay. What, specifically, did you have in mind?

[RED DAVE]

From Zero Angel:This should be interesting... but I thought there was enough evidence regarding the concentration camps that fairly well proved what was going on there. There must be a lot I don't know about the whole thing...

The evidence is overwhelming because it happened. I should know: the Holocaust (spelled with a capital "L") is a part of my family history.

[deleted comment]

RED DAVE


Hi Dave,
I can understand how such a debate can be quite difficult personally for some, but please try to avoid the use of invective and keep comments within relevance to the debate challenge. As you may be aware, FD(CS) is not intended for debating but for setting up debates. I'd recommend that (informally debating) in PD or S&S for this issue.
- NS

[davidm]

Thanks for this thread. It's an eye-opener.

Recently I was involved in a debate on who shot Kennedy. I now see that people on both sides of the issue were operating on flawed premises.

The debate should have been, not who shot Kennedy, but whether he was shot.

[RED DAVE]

From davidm:The debate should have been, not who shot Kennedy, but whether he was shot.

Precisely my feeling about this debate. It's fundamental premise is idiotic.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

From Consistent Thinker:I would like the debate to have a moderate amount more "room" than that. However, I do think that gassings were unlikely given the evidence.

I think that the subject of this debate should be changed to whether hitler preferred one lump of sugar or two with his tea.

RED DAVE

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Hi Red Dave,

I think it's best that you save the criticism for the Peanut Gallery, assuming a formal debate gets underway.

Jason

[Consistent Thinker]

Originally posted by God Fearing Atheist
Okay. What, specifically, did you have in mind?

I would like the debate to include the reasons behind why Jews were detained in German territoties in the first place.

[God Fearing Atheist]

Originally posted by Consistent Thinker
I would like the debate to include the reasons behind why Jews were detained in German territoties in the first place.

I dont know. That could balloon into a *huge* debate in and of itself. At the most, I would perfer that it be kept peripheral. In the best of all worlds, we would stick just to Auschwitz and its gas chambers.

I would be willing to take that one up on its own once we finish this one, though.

-GFA

[Consistent Thinker]

Maybe we could start next week Monday?

[God Fearing Atheist]

Sounds okay to me. Lets make sure we agree with the terms:

1) Resolved, that Auschwitz-Berkinau was not an extermination camp in which roughly a million people died, mostly via executions in gas chambers. Said gas chambers did not exist.

2) CT has the affirmitive, and I, GFA, shall be responding.

3) The debate shall concern itself with arguments against the existence and use of gas chambers, the number of victims thereof, and the number of victims throughout the camp as a w hole.

4) The debate shall run four rounds (which is two posts for each of us, or eight total posts)

5) Turns will be taken, starting with CT

6) Each post should run no more than 5000 words. All references are to be cited.

7) The period between posts should be no more than two weeks. Because of the detailed nature of the evidence, exceptions could be made from time to time to allow more complete research.

8) quotes are allowed, but they must not make up more than 10% of a post.

9) The opening statement from CT will be posted a week from this coming monday, or within two weeks from that date.

10) no new arguments in closing statements.

What do we all think?

-GFA

[Tigermouth]

Sounds good to me, I'm very much looking forward to this! :)

[RED DAVE]

Sounds like an excuse, one more time, to let the nazi side have its say about the Holocaust. They had their's, from 1939-145.

RED DAVE

[God Fearing Atheist]

Originally posted by RED DAVE
Sounds like an excuse, one more time, to let the nazi side have its say about the Holocaust. They had their's, from 1939-145.

RED DAVE

They already have a say, RD (do a quick Google search). Now we will have our response.

[Consistent Thinker]

I agree to GFA's terms as long as RED DAVE et. al are completely and thoroughly excluded from the debate. [slur deleted (CT, I strongly recommend that you do not take that tact in the upcoming formal debate) - NS]

[Mullibok]

Originally posted by Consistent Thinker
I agree to GFA's terms as long as RED DAVE et. al are completely and thoroughly excluded from the debate. [comments deleted - NS]

[comments deleted - NS]The debates forum is fully moderated (all posts need moderator approval before appearing) so you have nothing to worry about.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Originally posted by Consistent Thinker
I agree to GFA's terms as long as RED DAVE et. al are completely and thoroughly excluded from the debate.

As Mullibok pointed out, in a fully moderated formal debate thread in FDD, only you and GFA will be able to post in it so you need not be concerned with others interfering. Though RED DAVE and others may post in the separate "Peanut Gallery" thread that we'll set up in the Science & Skepticism forum when the debate gets underway.

Again, I strongly recommend that you keep your arguments focused on historical claims according to the debate parameters (i.e. regarding Auschwitz and the gas chambers) and not the disparagement of particular ethnic groups.

Anyways, now that the parameters have been accepted, I or Silent Dave will set up the debate thread in FDD (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=17) on Monday, Jan. 12th. This thread will now be closed.

Jason