Our greatest taboo should be permitted for investigation and debate

Nuremberg My opponent finally proves that Hoess' family was threatened when he ran away. If anything, the fact that he felt the need to run away proves that he had a very guilty conscience. My opponent keeps claiming that the entire Holocaust narrative collapses without Hoess' testimony. That is utterly ridiculous. Hoess is merely one person among hundreds of Nazis and thousands of survivors who have testified to the existence of gas chambers. My opponent drops all of the other perpetrator testimony that proves the existence of gas chambers: SS Hoeblinger, SS Boeck, Hans Stark, Perry Broad, SS Schluch, Kurt Bolender, SS Oberhauser, Franz Stangl, Willi Mentz, Kurt Franz, Heinrich Matthes, Erich Fuchs, Johann Kremer, all the Auschwitz guards tried at Belsen, and the 20 SS men tried in Frankfurt. My opponent also drops the evidence that during the many trials for war crimes, not a *single* perpetrator denied the Holocaust. If my opponent's narrative were correct, we would have expected at least *some* Denial to have occurred at the time. Imagine this were a normal murder trial. If hundreds of people all testified that they saw the defendant murder the victim and not a single eyewitness claimed that no murder occurred, what would be the logical conclusion? My opponent also fails to explain how hundreds of perpetrators and tens of thousands of survivors all sat down, before liberation, and agreed upon the same false narrative, including common elements like: gas chambers, the removal of gold teeth from the dead, etc. My opponent's narrative requires a massive conspiracy on the part of the Allies. Yet, not a *shred* of evidence for such a conspiracy has ever been uncovered. The ultimate impact of this argument is that it proves that the gas chambers existed based on eyewitness testimony, that Denial is not a legitimate pursuit because it contradicts *all* the testimony, and that Denial calls thousands of Holocaust survivors "liars. " As if living through the Holocaust wasn't bad enough. My opponent is no better than someone who goes around telling rape victims that he thinks they weren't actually raped. Mass graves I cited evidence that mass graves are uncovered all the time. People in Eastern Europe still stumble upon undiscovered mass graves even today. I cited JTA, a Jewish news source, to prove that "graves were not excavated, in keeping with Jewish law. " My opponent cites a source which says that the state of Israel allows exhumation of Jews (mind you, under very specific conditions). However, Israel includes people of varying degrees of Jewish faith. The point is: why should a Holocaust museum allow researchers to do something that violates Orthodox Jewish law, in order to prove something that is already proven by thousands of eyewitnesses, in order to satisfy only Deniers, who would not be satisfied with any degree of evidence anyway? In a murder trial with 100 eyewitnesses to the murder, it would be silly to conclude that no murder occurred merely because you cannot find where the murderer dumped the body. My opponent claims there is "not enough wood" to have burned all the bodies at Treblinka in order to conceal the camp. According to perpetrator testimony from Treblinka, gasoline was poured on the bodies in order to burn them and desiccated corpses burned even without the need for gasoline. [1] A dried corpse burns much more easily than a fresh one. [1] Regardless, mass graves are unnecessary to prove the Holocaust. My opponent drops my evidence from 3 different sources that estimated that approximately 6 million Jews disappeared from the face of the Earth during the Holocaust. This is using simple demographic estimates from before and after the war. This is backed by other demographic estimates: "Polish historian Dr. Franciszek Piper did the most comprehensive demographic study of Auschwitz ever undertaken and traced 1.3 million prisoners to the camp. He found that 1.1 million had been killed. This includes 200,000 of the registered prisoners and 900,000 prisoners who never received a registration number because they were killed upon arrival. " [2] This directly disproves my opponent's claim that no one in the camps was killed on arrival and that there were only 300,000 killed in the entire Holocaust. Gas vans My opponent uses uncited pseudo-science to claim that diesel can only produce 0.4% carbon monoxide in its exhaust. I assume his authors measured a modern diesel car engine, which comes equipped with a catalytic converter to remove CO. Older engines produced far more carbon monoxide, up to 25%, according to sources I already cited. My opponent asks why the Nazis didn't use "producer gas" vehicles like the Allies. His source (Wikipedia) says that producer gas, such as wood gas, is a synfuel that *can be used in diesel engines* and produces 35% carbon monoxide. My opponent answers his own question. The Nazis could very well have used this synfuel. Gas vans are proven by massive amounts of eyewitness testimony and the letter to SS Rauff, which states that 97,000 people have been killed by the gas vans. Gas chambers My opponent continues to lie and say that his studies used control samples, when they didn't. And they tested only for the type of cyanide that they knew they would find in the Prussian blue stains that exist in the delousing facilities but not in the gas chambers (iron-cyanide). Markiewicz tested for types of cyanide that could be found anywhere. As already explained, Prussian blue only formed in delousing facilities because the walls were exposed to larger concentrations of Zyklon B for longer periods of time. It is difficult to believe Rudolf's claim that he was able to take good samples from high up the wall, given that he was removing samples illegally from a museum. He would have had to do so extremely surreptitiously. He could not have chiseled good pieces off the wall. My opponent drops the forensic analyses done immediately after the war by Dr. Robel, which found large concentrations of cyanide in the gas vents of the broken gas chambers and found components of Zyklon B in the hair of dead bodies. My opponent also drops that an inventory list for Auschwitz proves that there were 14 showers and a "gas tight door" in a corpse cellar from Crematorium III. Obviously, this inventory list refers to a gas chamber. There would be no reason to give showers to dead bodies in an airtight room. Typhus My opponent keeps claiming that typhus killed all the prisoners at Auschwitz. However, enough crematoria were built at Auschwitz to burn the entire camp's registered population five times over. [2] The death books at Auschwitz also show that of the 69,000 registered prisoners who died, only 2,060 died of Typhus. [2] My opponent denies that any unregistered prisoners were ever transferred to Auschwitz and gassed without being registered. However, there are simply too many crematoria for this to be true. Eyewitnesses Some discrepancies in testimony do not prove that everyone is lying. Documents My opponent does nothing to refute the Himmler report or the letter to SS Rauff, which list the number of dead Jews at hundreds of thousands within a period of months. He doesn't cite any specific reason to doubt the Jager report. Conclusion My opponent advances a narrative that is demonstrably false. He accuses the Allies of an unsubstantiated and infeasible conspiracy in coordinating thousands of people's testimony. He accuses survivors of all lying. He claims Hitler never said he wanted to kill the Jews, which is contradicted by multiple speeches he gave. This is all utter hogwash and my opponent is a despicable human being. [1] . http://tinyurl.com... [2] . http://tinyurl.com...