Holocaust happened

I will defend my arguments and provide a closing statement. 6 Million Jews Con states that my numbers add up to less than a million, but I must prove all 6 million. He's saying "Chill Salam! It's only a million or so. Not that much of a deal". This is one of the worst arguments I've ever heard. The holocaust is not merely about numbers. It's about the systemic killing and genocide of (primarily) the Jews. I will however defend the 6 million estimates anyways. There were studies made by several scholars. Hilberg wrote "The Destruction of the European Jews" [1]. He estimated that 5.1 million Jews were killed. Why did I present this source? Because it wasn't kind to Jews and faced opposition from Yad Vashem [2]. So it's only reasonable to accept this account as unbiased and neutral. Other scholars such as Benz Wolfgang estimated the death toll from 5.29-6.2 million Jews [3]. Lucy Dawidowicz estimated the toll to be 5.9 millions [4]. Martin Gilbert estimated the number to be above 5.75 million [5]. So while the exact number will never be known, we know one thing for sure. And that the holocaust happened. Contention 1: Means, Motives and Opportunity Con is trying to engage in semantic debate to argue words for words. But there's no need to do so, and it appears that Con doesn't seem to understand what motives are. What I was able to establish in this contention is that Hitler had profound hate towards the Jews, and that he wanted to annihilate the Jewish race from Europe. That's a mere fact. As such, I've established the means, motives (hate) and opportunity for this crime. Now, I must provide evidence that the crime occurred. Contention 2: German Reports A. Jäger Report Con tries to discount the Jäger Report as "anybody could have typed this up". But if that's the case, wouldn't they type up a report with 6 million Jews and get it over with? Why only show 136,421 Jews? And if it was Soviet propaganda, why would they do it decades later? Con then tries to shift the subject of how evil the Soviets were. That's a Red Herring. B. Heinrich Himmler's Report Con argues that the report refers to Jews who were being killed because they were anti-partisans. That's 363,211 Jews over a four month period from August to November! At this rate, there would be more than 1 million anti-partisan Jews per year! May be all Jews were considered anti-partisans by Germans. C. Himmler's Speech Con tries to "retranslate" Himmler's speech. I'll refute my opponent's arguments below. I hate semantic debates, but bear with me here: Himmler said (in German) "…die Ausrottung des jüdischen Volkes" (Extermination of the Jews). Con argues that it means uprooting, but doesn't mean exterminating. This is a very nice cherry picking argument from Con. But I'll prove him wrong nonetheless. In the very same speech, Himmler continues: "Because we don't want, at the end of all this, to get sick and die from the same bacillus that we have exterminated" [7]. In German it is: "…weil wir den Bazillus ausrotten…". This is the same word that Con referred to as "to uproot". But uprooting Bacteria is insane. The only proper meaning is killing the bacteria, and that's why exterminating is what Himmler meant. But I have further evidence. In the following speech 2 days later (October 6th, 2014), Himmler says: "I did not consider myself justified to exterminate the men – in other words, to kill them or have them killed and allow the avengers of our sons and grandsons in the form of their children to grow up." [9] In German, it's written as: "… die Männer auszurotten – sprich also, umzubringen (!) oder umbringen zu lassen – ..." [10] You can see the use of the word auszurotten again, which clearly means exterminating as explained by Himmler, as it relates to umzubringen which means to kill in German. So Con can argue all he wants, but there's no escape that this was a command to kill the Jews. Contention 3: Nazi's are not Holocaust Deniers A. Rudolf Höss Confession Con argues that Höss' confession was not submissable (he meant admissible) as evidence because it was obtained via torture. He also mentions absurdities in the confession, which I will address and use to support my argument further. So let's examine this: 1. Höss actually described the holocaust in his memoir vividly. He states that around 1.13 million were killed in Auschwitz alone. To argue that he was coerced is complete rubbish. His memoir is very candid, and he challenged estimates of witness testimonies. He states "I regard a total of 2.5 million as far too high. Even Auschwitz had limits to its destructive capabilities. Figures given by former prisoners are figments of their imagination and have no foundation in fact." [13]. What kind of coercion is this? 2. Höss had the opportunity to deny the claims before being hanged. He didn't do so. Höss stated it in his autobiography that he will be executed [12]. Why would he maintain "coerced and fake" facts that will get him hanged? 3. Höss signed the German confession, not the English one [14] 4. Con claims that the confession has absurdities like misspelling of Treblinka. Misspelling is hardly an argument! Also Wolzek most likely refers to Sobibor's concentration camp. That concentration camp is closer to Wolczyny than Sobibor (See map below [11]). That concentration map was closed shortly after a revolt in 1943, so it's not odd for Höss to not remember it vividly [15]. In fact, these so called "absurdities" work for my case! If the whole thing was just a "made-up" story, it would be more plausible that the written confession would be written perfectly without these absurdities! The fact that there are imperfections due to memory attests to the authenticity of Höss' confession. B. Hans Stark's testimony and supporting footage Con argues that asking a prisoner to look the other way is unreasonable! But this is normal in executions. This is normal even if the prisoner knew that they'll be killed! Even today, ISIS/Daesh rounded thousands of Iraqi soldiers and asked them to kneel and look the other way… I prefer not to share the video for obvious reasons. And the comment that anyone opening the doors after 10 to 15 minutes would die because of cyanide is complete rubbish. They had many ventilation units to replace the air. Also, the Sonderkommando's (Jews who worked for the Nazi's) wore gas masks were ventilation units were limited or non-existent [16]. C. Wilhelm Bahr's testimony Con doesn't challenge Bahr's testimony. He only complains that they only gassed 25. This is a concession from Con that gassing was used to mass murder. Bahr's testimony was about one event only. I never argued that all the Jews were killed in one session. Contention 4: Holocaust victims or Foot fetish Con simply argues that Soviets were lying. How convenient for Con! He argues that these are the pictures of a factory, which is complete nonsense. The picture shows old, well worn and in bad condition shoes of different colors and types. What kind of factory does this? Other points Con claims that Leuchter is "America's number one gas-chamber expert!" What a joke! He is an execution technician with no engineering experience [17], and produced a pseudoscientific Leuchter report [18]. Some of his report's findings I have already refuted in this debate! "Leuchter chiefly cited the absence of Prussian blue in the homicidal gas chambers in support of his view". However I explained in Round 3 "Gas chambers didn't have blue walls. That's because gas chambers had ventilation units, which prevents hydrogen cyanide to taint the walls." Con simply drops my point about the map to deport Jews from the outskirts of Europe (specifically into the main extermination camps). Con actually already admits that Hitler wanted to evacuate the Jews, and that they were evacuated to Auschwitz, Belzec…etc. There were many Russian and Ukrainian prisoners. That's further than Germany than the concentration camps. Con doesn't disagree with the use of crematoria or of the existent of mass graves. He simply argues that they are for people who died from typhus. What rubbish! On top of that, how can one explain the Jew being shot before being thrown in the mass grave? Regarding Treblinka's use of carbon monoxide, I've already shown it in Höss confession in Round 2. But here's another source [19]. Con then challenges, "how does [Pro] know the Jew chambers weren't stained blue, since according to Pro, the Nazis destroyed them". This question is a joke! Just because it was demolished, it doesn't mean that the destroyed building vanished from Earth. Con challenges "How did sufficient gas build up to kill the Jews?" That's a very silly point. The ventilation units were opened only after the Jews were killed. Con then says "What were the Nazis doing delousing clothes for Jews, when they intended to kill them anyway?" It was war! They deloused the good clothes to ship to Germany. That's why in the picture of the shoes, you only see the poor quality ones. Good ones most likely were also shipped for reuse. On a final note - Lest we forget Nazi's other victims: The deaf and mute, the disabled, homosexual men, Jehovah witnesses, communists and socialists, gypsies, Slavs, POW (especially Russians) and the over 60 million people killed in World War II. Therefore I affirm. Vote Pro! Sources in Comments