> Such an exercise might make an interesting document. Pick a small
> number of propositions; find pro and con advocates; let the advocates
> draft opening arguments, look at and criticize each others, redraft
> them, refine the proposition as necessary, question each other and
> the others' evidence, re-examine the answers and follow up, take
> questions from a panel of observers chosen adversarially, and let
> all of this happen at the level of "discovery" ... <snip>
>
> Any resources I can lend to such an effort (my Web site, my
> services as advocate or organizer) are hereby offered.
Ok. I propose a science court debate about the proposition
"There were gas chambers at Auschwitz and Birkenau."
The prosecution says there were, the defense says the prosecution's
arguments prove nothing. I will argue for the defense.
Most people would say this debate is too one-sided to be interesting.
That's what I thought, until I started looking into it. Last year I spent
several months investigating this question. My point of departure was
"Proving the Holocaust," by Michael Shermer, which appeared in
Skeptic magazine, volume 2, number 4 (the "pseudohistory" issue).
I sent Michael Shermer a copy of my conclusions, and he offered to
debate me.
To anyone who is new to this subject, I would suggest the following:
1. Read Michael Shermer's article, and look for ad hominem
arguments, non sequiturs, and other fallacies. Consider the *form* of
his argument.
2. Read *Auschwitz, A Doctor's Eyewitness Account,* by Dr. Miklos
Nyiszli. Dr. Nyiszli is one of the prosecution's best witnesses.
Before reading the book, look at maps of the camps (available in many
sources). Auschwitz had one crematorium, Birkenau had four.
Obviously, anyone who was there would know this. As you read the
book, ask yourself if it could possibly have been written by someone
who was there.
This should at least convince you that there is something to argue
about.
Lyle