"respond to someone being wrong"

I believe this might be your bone of contention. The speech was a mission statement, more or less, with an introduction that is very catchy and exciting and clickbaity, but overall irrelevant to the main argument. This is not a response of right or wrong. Obviously the leader thinks people who oppose him are wrong, but the main thrust of the argument past that intro is "where is what we are going to do here".

For example, obviously a long cultural time ago, although it was only a bit more than a decade, all the seniors at the school I finally graduated from (I was a part timer) took the same giant Holocaust class. It was a required interdisciplinary liberal arts survey class, of a topic that changed every year. I believe they had "death" as the topic another year. They were obviously kind of a downer phase. For cultural change reasons they don't do this anymore, which is a shame. Anyway the point of an interdisciplinary liberal arts class isn't to debate philosophically if the topic is right or wrong, but to teach the students how to actually apply the full spectrum of liberal arts, all of them, because you're all well rounded individuals now, to a topic.

Someone who disliked the idea of confronting a rather foreign culture and world view could fight against the class by demanding that you're not allowed to respond to the Holocaust intellectually unless you can first express Hitler's position in a way that modern Nazis would agree accurately represents their view. Why yes I did just "Godwin" you. But of course that logic is total bunk. The real purpose of the class is to teach the students how to observe then analyze the inter-related whole of the topic, across multiple disciplines. That requires application of intellectual skills, not right or wrong judgments. You don't need to express agreement with the text of mein kampf to see how the economic situation dovetailed with the political situation dovetailed with the cultural situation etc. My term paper was how architecture related to the other liberal arts in the reich WRT to propaganda and scale and form etc.

Really the only reason why they gave us the Holocaust as a study topic was to scare the hell out of us, if we fail to learn the skills of cross disciplinary observation, analysis, and synthesis skills taught in the class, maybe something that bad will happen again. Now for over sensitivity reasons, or more likely profound lack of courage, we can't get that reward, can't learn to avoid evil by intellectual analysis. That opens a whole nother can of worms where the campus is now a safe space free of gas chamber triggering, but the whole country overall is far less of a safe space, because the current grads are emotionally coddled, less intellectually skilled, and far more cowardly unless acting in mob actions. Luckily mob action historically has always been effective and rational, correct? And we can make up for personal cowardice with more drone strikes, correct? And the politician that proposes the simplest sounding solution is probably the best because we no longer have the intellectual rigor to analyze, correct? I mean, what could possibly go wrong?