• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

What does everyone think of the Nuremberg Trials-Did they prove Nazi guilt?

You want to have a debate on the legality of the Nurmeburg trials in which you will take the position that the trials were illegal and you will limit your evidence to a book written by a man who believed that they were legal?
:boggled:

In order to do this you will have to misrepresent the work you are citing and the authors intent. In other words you will defend your position by lying.


How about this instead - no grand debate, no "champions" just a simple task.

1. You will identify an individual NAZI that was tried and convicted at Nuremberg and you will show how unfair trial rules were used to convict an innocent man.

You may use any sources you like but you will cite your sources from now on. Use stormfront or any other source you want.
 
Last edited:
drkitten said:
That's not how it works. You either participate in the thread, or you don't. You don't get to make rules about how the rest of us participate.

If you don't like, that, you're free to crawl back into your bunker and do as you see fit there.



If you have a position, you're free to present it. Since the legality of the position is intimately connected with the guilt or innocence of the accused (see, for example, Federal Rule of Evidence 103(a) ; see also Earll v. State of Wyoming 2001 WY 66 29 P.3d 787 and Montana Petroleum Tank Release Compensation Bd. v. Crumley's, Inc., 174 P.3d 948, Mont.,2008), you'll not be able to have the discussion in the vacuum you like.

... but it doesn't really matter, because even if you cease participating, your position has already been analyzed and found to be wanting. We're now moving on to figuring out whether or not you're lying to us about being a Holocaust denier.

You're welcome to participate in that discussion, as well. If you see fit.
Click to expand...

I take that as meaning the geniuses are chicken ◊◊◊◊.
You guys called me out, I wanted to retire the thread but you wanted debate
. Now, when I am willing to debate, no one speaks up?

drkitten you came late to the dance so your input is irrelevant unless you've been elected to speak for the boys.

Apparently, you are also unfamiliar with debate.
In a real debate, both sides state their case on the chosen topic, then offer compelling evidence to support the claims and refute counter claims of the opposition until all evidence is exhausted.
A winner is chosen by consensus.

Think of me what you wish, I could care less.
My position has been analyzed?
That's rich.
Have at it boys, I am done with this thread.
 
Jerry Wright said:
I will present my position from:
Justice At Nuremberg
By Robert E. Conot
Harper & Row Publishers c. 1983

I will provide all page citations and I expect you to do the same.
Click to expand...
Did you find the book in your garage? :rolleyes:

Jerry Wright said:
Stormfront?
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Yeah, sheer coincidence that you cited exactly the same portion from the book as an article on Stormfront. :rolleyes: Next you'll trot out that Conot thought that Hess was a pacifist at heart.
 
Jerry Wright said:
I take that as meaning the geniuses are chicken ◊◊◊◊.
Click to expand...

Well, that' pretty much establishes your credentials as a Nazi apologist. Not that required much establishment.

drkitten you came late to the dance so your input is irrelevant unless you've been elected to speak for the boys.
Click to expand...

I speak only for myself. Either you have an argument -- and can present it -- or you haven't. I don't much care which, but I'm happy to show a piece of **** Nazi apologist up to be a piece of **** Nazi apologist.

Apparently, you are also unfamiliar with debate.
In a real debate,
Click to expand...

This isn't a "real debate." It's an Internet discussion thread, and the rules, such as they are, are entirely different. Basically, the rules here amount to "don't anger the moderators" and other than that, anything goes.
 
drkitten said:
I speak only for myself. Either you have an argument -- and can present it -- or you haven't. I don't much care which, but I'm happy to show a piece of **** Nazi apologist up to be a piece of **** Nazi apologist.
Click to expand...

You speak for me as well in this regard. Couldn't have said it better.

Finding the proof of this was an absolute pleasure.
 
Last edited:
Jerry Wright said:
You guys just won't let this go I see.
Very well, you shall have your debate.
I wiil assume the role of Public Defender for the defeated German's.
That is to say, I may not like them or agree with what the did, but I defend their right to a fair trial.

I will not debate 5,4, or even 2 of you. I will debate one of you. Choose your champion gentlemen. The debate will proceed from the creation of the Tribunal up to the death of the accused. It will focus on the legality of the process, not the guilt or innocence of the accused.

I will present my position from:
Justice At Nuremberg
By Robert E. Conot
Harper & Row Publishers c. 1983

I will provide all page citations and I expect you to do the same.

Let's Call this debate...
Nuremberg On Trial

I will leave it to your champion to make the first opening statement.


Stormfront?
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Let me guess. You have one last quote from that book that you believe is the slam dunk - end all be all - 100% proof that the NAZIs got a bum wrap at nuremberg. You are going to throw this one last quote out here and say "HA! I win."

Sadly I still don't think you even own that book. You are going to throw another out of context quote that you found on some nazi website. We will be able to find it and someone will be able to put it into context and prove you are in fact wrong.

You will obfuscate, delay, misdirect, and generally just pollute the internet with more of your bile. So go ahead and throw that holy grail of evidence quote mined from an honest mans work at us. We are not scared of people like you, we are not scared of your so called evidence, and we are familiar with your tactics. So go ahead! Lets have that evidence!

ETA - Oh and you know full well what stormfront is. You plagiarize their work.
 
Last edited:
Jerry Wright said:
I take that as meaning the geniuses are chicken ◊◊◊◊.
You guys called me out, I wanted to retire the thread but you wanted debate
. Now, when I am willing to debate, no one speaks up?

drkitten you came late to the dance so your input is irrelevant unless you've been elected to speak for the boys.

Apparently, you are also unfamiliar with debate.
In a real debate, both sides state their case on the chosen topic, then offer compelling evidence to support the claims and refute counter claims of the opposition until all evidence is exhausted.
A winner is chosen by consensus.

Think of me what you wish, I could care less.
My position has been analyzed?
That's rich.
Have at it boys, I am done with this thread.
Click to expand...
Bye bye! Been nice. Don't forget to take your ball home with you!!!:D
 
Jerry Wright said:
You guys just won't let this go I see.
Very well, you shall have your debate.
I wiil assume the role of Public Defender for the defeated German's.
That is to say, I may not like them or agree with what the did, but I defend their right to a fair trial.

I will not debate 5,4, or even 2 of you. I will debate one of you. Choose your champion gentlemen. The debate will proceed from the creation of the Tribunal up to the death of the accused. It will focus on the legality of the process, not the guilt or innocence of the accused.

I will present my position from:
Justice At Nuremberg
By Robert E. Conot
Harper & Row Publishers c. 1983

I will provide all page citations and I expect you to do the same.

Let's Call this debate...
Nuremberg On Trial

I will leave it to your champion to make the first opening statement.


Stormfront?
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yeah, Stormfront. Do you think it's an accident that your browser found a Harper's article on a nazi apologist website. Amazing how these browsers work. They know your tastes through your browsing history and come up with certain sites rather than others for the same material. Funny how when I googled the author's name and Harper's I got a university site and then several others and the denialists were only on page 2 of my search.

Do you deny that you lifted portions of your writing from elsewhere?
Do you deny that you're not really just asking questions but actually have an agenda?

We've been dealing with you lot for decades. I smelled it in the trashing of Jackson's reputation, although I find it funny that you're citing a book that most white power trash find to be an apology for the IMT and the Administration of the time.

Why don't you go get some of your coaches and have them drop in. There's been a call for thinking nazis everywhere to come over and tango ever since 911 Investigator started his crap. Scruffy, Clippy, Saggy, Scrappie, Scoobie... they've all been by. (You can tel their veterans because of the way the act when Nick shows up in a thread. Sort of the way 911 Conspiradroids used to act when Gravy responded to them.)
 
Last edited:
Jerry Wright said:
You guys just won't let this go I see.
Very well, you shall have your debate.
I wiil assume the role of Public Defender for the defeated German's.
That is to say, I may not like them or agree with what the did, but I defend their right to a fair trial.

I will not debate 5,4, or even 2 of you. I will debate one of you. Choose your champion gentlemen. The debate will proceed from the creation of the Tribunal up to the death of the accused. It will focus on the legality of the process, not the guilt or innocence of the accused.

I will present my position from:
Justice At Nuremberg
By Robert E. Conot
Harper & Row Publishers c. 1983

I will provide all page citations and I expect you to do the same.

Let's Call this debate...
Nuremberg On Trial

I will leave it to your champion to make the first opening statement.


Stormfront?
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Before you make up rules, you better agree to follow some basics yourself, chief among them:

1. Don't plagiarize from other websites without giving credit. If you quote something, mark it with quote tags, or otherwise clearly indicate you are quoting. You have been shown to have plagiarized excerpts from nazi websites, and were too cowardly to admit it.
2. Stick to your own OP - the topic of this thread: "Did the Nuremberg Trials prove Nazi guilt"? A competent answer to that would indicate a reasoned opinion on whether or not the convicted had in fact committed the deeds they were convicted for. You answer could be a "yes, because...", "no, because..." or "I don't know yet". Any debate with you where you defend your position would require that you first present your position. Of course, the "don't know" option isn't to be defendet, so please state clearly your "yes" or "no" concerning the guilt and the proof of the guilt. complaints about court rules simply doesn't cut it.
If your answer is "no", we would expect that you can argue your no by naming at least one conviction where a defendant was convicted of something he did not commit.
 
Jerry Wright said:
...
In a real debate, both sides state their case on the chosen topic, then offer compelling evidence to support the claims and refute counter claims of the opposition until all evidence is exhausted.
...
Click to expand...

The chosen topic is:

"Did they (the Nuremburg Trials) prove Nazi guilt?"

You have not stated your case on that topic. You have not identified any conviction by name of defendant and argued whether or not the defendant was guilty as convicted.

Please start your chosen debate now.
 
Thanks by the way to Biscuit and ddt for exposing Jerry Wright as a plagiarist of nazi scum sites.
 
ddt said:
You were a bit enthusiastic in copying the link, you pasted it twice :). A bit disappointing that no-one thought of making a reference in the song text to Himmler's being a poultry farmer; the German word "Eier" = "eggs" is a familiar word for testicles.
Click to expand...

But they had eggs,eggs as big as Hitler's legs,in the store (in the where),in the store (what was there?)...........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom