"Holocaust" ought not be used to refer to the mass murder by the Nazi's

Well since the con is dissatisfied with my "attempt to sound smart" in a forum where you only read- I do apologize. It's funny how mingling words that don't belong can stab you later. On that note - I would like to see debate.org create a video recording system wherein timed speeches can be recorded to a timer. Hearing an argument and reading an argument are two different experiences... just like beginning to apply one word to another word. You only reassign a term when you need to associate it for a cause. Therein is the entire point of this argument. Remember friends the topic has always been: "Holocaust" OUGHT NOT be used to refer to the mass murder by the Nazi's. The con has sought to persuade on you the grounds that it the widespread use of the word "holocaust" is acceptable ipso facto. When we debate "ought" we naturally are meant to spend a lot of time on the impacts of the acts and circumstances. That's how you, as judges, ought to vote. Now I am new to this arena in general and have happily learned plenty of people are taking debate seriously so in future debates I suppose I'll commit to being more formal until we can convince someone to respond to the idea of timed, recorded speeches. Seriously though - thats a great idea. I will address each of the con's points as they are numerically listed and tell you why you ultimately identify with the pro position. To #1 I reply: The roots of a word absolutely matter when it is being used in a contemporary language... AND IS offensive and hurtful in nature, is shrouded by a motivation the con acknowledges in reference to Zionist ideology. There are many words that are originally rooted in very harmless or otherwise informative language. My mind goes to the word "black" and how likewise where the con fails to acknowledge the point of offense he can't grasp the term OUGHT. AND ITS NOT LIKE "HOLOCAUST" IS THE ONLY WORD WE CAN USE. "Genocide" "Ethnic Cleansing" "Mass murder" are easy and accurate substitutes. Most importantly in his first argument the con at last agreed that the word is a liturgical word rooted in the Greek. In a debate surrounded by definitions etymology is more accurate than what is gutteral. NO WAY! Con's #2 I say: He desperately wants to avoid the direct impact surrounding the debate. "Holocaust" ought not be used to refer to the mass murder by the Nazi's. Thats the topic. Again when we evaluate what we will to do - we consider circumstances, the act itself, and the consequences. The con doesn't want to talk about my argument for why the word "holocaust" ought not be used - that is - because of a horrible and offensive result - that is - using a sacred, liturgical word - as even they knew it to be - to apply it to the propaganda. It's offensive to Palestinians. It's offensive to every demographic that was whole sale victim of Nazi concentration camps and ideology. Judges - when you vote please acknowledge that as the PRO I have provided and affirmative reason for why you "ought not" use this vulgur vernacular AND I EVEN OFFER THE ALTERNATIVE of "mass murder" as non-offensive, accurate replacement. Please consider the consequences of actions and the circumstances that real people are in. In the cons contention 3 he decides to just "go for it" and insist that "holocaust" is proper. All I have to say to this is why don't you explain this to a Palestinian. Con 4: he says he doesn't have to make any arguments. TO BE FRANK: He never made one... good debate, eh? Though I was sort of hoping he would. Then it wouldn't feel like this is a symposium. Nevertheless he does assert, baselessly, that I never met my burden of proof for the topic which is... wait... what is it again? Con 5 - I refer you all again to the logical fallacies he is still intoxicated by - Non Sequitur, Tu Quoque, Straw Man, Ad Populum... AND LETS NOW ADD "AD HOMINEM" - Don't allow the con to get away with this fallacy that basically demeans an argument based on the author. IT IS JUST MY OPINION BUT THAT DOESN'T ADDRESS THE FORWARD ARGUMENT I GAVE FOR WHY YOU OUGHT NOT. Burden of proof. Legion of boom. (Sorry had to) In his cute "Take this argument" he errs again in the same boring way - yes it is the vernacular for yes the death of many jews (and others admittedly) and yes for the specific reasons of mass cremation. OH... "CREMATION" another accurate word that is not offensive and politcally charged. THIS DEBATE IS A CHALLENGE TO THE VERNACULAR - THE CON IS ONLY TELLING YOU THE VERNACULAR IS THE VERNACULAR. The con has no position. Finally - the con said I'm anti-Israel. While that is entirely offensive - why would an objection to Israel as a nation be a reason to vote for con. Native Americans deserve respect in the language we use as modern Americans because of the genocide. WE RUINED THE TERM "MANIFEST DESTINY" LIKE THE CON'S ILK HAVE RUINED "HOLOCAUST" "Holocaust" ought not be used to refer to the mass murder by the Nazis.... for good reason