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

Thank you. The con has provided a definition that is far more contemporary than its roots. Any judge can do any search and know for a fact that the word "Holocaust" was an ancient greek term according to wikipedia specifically "from the Greek P01;_5;a2;_4;^5;`5;`3;`4;_9;`2; hol"kaustos: h"los, "whole" and kaust"s, "burnt")[2]" THEN THE CON SAID : My opponent wants to argue that the word holocaust is primarily Jewish in origin and therefore somehow disrespects the other parties that were involved in this horrific atrocity when this is simply not the case. The primary definition of holocaust, as dating back to 13th century Middle English, is a great or complete devastation especially by fire. AGAIN THE PRO SAYS IT WAS GREEK NOT JEWISH. THE JEWS FOUND THE GREEK HOLOCAUSTS OFFENSIVE! My friend - you stated: "The reason this definition is used is because the bodies of the victims in the Nazi purging were burned in furnaces. Thus the definition of holocaust, a great devastation by fire, is an accurate one to describe the event that took place. The reason why the Jews and the Jewish culture is the one most focused on (not solely focused on) when discussing the holocaust is because the Jews were a) targeted most directly and primarily by the Nazi regime and b) were almost completely wiped out. " This is irrelevant to the use of the word. 4 million catholics, again died, in concentration camps and for ideological reasons. And what have the whole sale slaughter of buddhists. I mean thank you for the history lesson BUT ITS NON RESPONSIVE. This is not about whether people died in furnaces... sure they did - Jews Christians Atheists Gays Orthodox thats entire point.. we have one religion capitalizing on a term that is liturgical in nature and who had a nation built upon the misuse of the word. HE SAYS that it is an umbrella term...but does Israel allow immediate amnesty to non jews in their nation occupying palestine thousands of miles from where the Nazi's were? The answer is an absolute "no" and we all know it. THE CON MAKES ONE ACTUAL ARGUMENT WHEN HE STATES "4. The title of holocaust is widely accepted. There is no debate or disagreement or malcontent about the title. It is widely accepted and it is widely known that the holocaust included more than just Jews." TO WHICH I SAY---- O B J E C T I O N! Ad Populum Fallacy - wide acceptance does not make something correct or true Non Sequitur Fallacy - it does not follow that the widespread misuse of the word "holocaust" is justification enough to continue to use the term in a context outside of liturgical language UNLESS YOU HAVE A POLITICAL AGENDA. HOLISTICALLY MY OPPONENT SUFFERS FROM THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL FALLACIES 1. Straw Man Fallacy. The con has postured his position as one that supports survivors of the mass murder enacted by the Nazi's. This is regrettable because this is not the point of the argument. No one disputes that some 60 million people died as a result of WW2. What is under dispute and is not refuted is the misuse of an ANCIENT GREEK LITURGICAL WORD to FUEL THE POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS OF ONE GROUP - the Jews and the creation of Israel thousands of miles away from the Nazi's. MY OPPONENT SHOULD JUST COME OUT AND SAY IT - He thinks the word "holocaust" should be considered appropriate because he believes that Israel has a right to exist on that basis (or worse - the bible). IF HE DOESN'T THINK THIS he's certainly not helping the cause. 2. TU QUOQUE FALLACY The con thinks, much like in his argument that its wide spread use is justification enough for the vernacular use of the word it well known among logicians that just because someone else has done a thing - it does not entitle you to the same act or conclusion. ON A FINAL NOTE While the con made a good effort to dismantle the PRO POSITION in stating that the Jews were burned upon what he called altars to the ideas of Nazi's and that any people mass burned can be umbrella'd under that term - that is horribly offensive even still. NO PERSON OF ANY RELIGIOUS OR NON RELIGIOUS PERSUASION NEVER WANTS TO THINK OF THEMSELVES IN THE CONTEXT OF BEING AN OFFERING TO AN EVIL NAZI IDEA GOD. THE TRUTH IS he has absolutely provided NO REASON for why the word "holocaust" ought to still be used to refer to the mass murder enacted by the Nazi's against the Jews. FRIENDS - genocide is universally known as evil. That's not under dispute. BUT VOTE ON THE FACTS: 1. "Holocaust" is greek and has, until recently, been used in liturgical context UNTIL there was a political incentive to "santify" one group of people who suffered among many other demographics who suffered under Nazism but never got a Catholic State in Mongolia or an Orthodox state in Ethiopia or an Atheist State in Brazil... Only the Jews- where the word "holocaust" was misapplied got a Jewish State in Palestine. In 2014 we can be honest enough to admit when a sacrilege to an otherwise ancient holy word has been abused. Thank you. CAST A PRO VOTE!!