Nessie's Admission That there Is No Archaeological Proof Of Mass Graves At Treblinka II

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
User avatar
been-there
Posts: 10795
Joined: 30 Apr 2013, 08:59

Re: Nessie is trying to weasel out of a debate he now wishes he never accepted

Post by been-there »

Bobcat wrote: 01 Jul 2021, 22:07
nessie wrote:So why do you want to debate me?
Because I wanted to see if you were afraid to defend your statements of fact that can be found in this thread in a more formal type of debate. I assumed that in a more formal type of debate, there would be rules, and a moderator to enforce them, that would reduce the nonstop compulsive obfuscations and lies constantly spewed from a deeply stupid and insane individual.

But now I see that you are afraid to abide by those rules by insisting that we abide by your own special set of rules (See: narcissistic personality disorder).

I knew you would come up with some kind of excuse — it's what you have always done in the past.
I don’t think you will get a reasonable, fair exchange with any of the current crop of ‘holocaust’ narrative defenders, Bobcat.
When Scott gave me permission to create that section of RODOH, I was naive and assumed that there were Holocaust believers who would want and welcome a fair and reasonable debate about the issues of contention. I now am of the opinion that besides Roberto Muhlenkamp, there weren’t — and currently aren’t — any such believers and defenders of this compulsory, legally protected pseudo-history.
My time posting at Skeptics also confirmed that.
Which is why my last attempt at reasoning with them was the cause of them banning me.
That last attempt I archived here.

I am now of the opinion that just posting historical facts and explaining alternative perspectives of the contentious details will never be enough. The problem seems to me to be a psychological resistance to accepting correction.

“It is difficult to reason a person out of a position that they didn’t arrive at through reason”
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 33657
Joined: 07 Mar 2014, 17:00
Contact:

Bobcat is trying to weasel out of a debate he now wishes he never accepted

Post by Nessie »

Bobcat wrote: 01 Jul 2021, 22:07 Nessie :
Also, bear in mind, the moderator has just broken "Rules for debate", rule 1(b) by calling me a "compulsive liar and/or a deeply stupid/slightly insane individual"
Bobcat:
That is because you are a "compulsive liar and/or a deeply stupid/slightly insane individual"
Why should I trust that both you and been-there will abide by the rules in the formal debate, when you refuse to abide by them here?

There cannot be a formal debate without both you and been-there agreeing that you will abide by the rules and in particular the rule

1.) deal with the argument not the person making it. I.e. No ad hominem remarks or arguments.

You also need to show good faith by refraining from breaking that rule here from now on. If either of you break that rule, it will be regarded as you backing out of the formal debate.
Nessie:
So why do you want to debate me?
Because I wanted to see if you were afraid to defend your statements of fact that can be found in this thread in a more formal type of debate. I assumed that in a more formal type of debate, there would be rules, and a moderator to enforce them, that would reduce the nonstop compulsive obfuscations and lies constantly spewed from a deeply stupid and insane individual.
Remember, comment like that breaks the rule 1 and means you are backing out of the debate.
But now I see that you are afraid to abide by those rules by insisting that we abide by your own special set of rules (See: narcissistic personality disorder).
You don't follow the rules as it is, and you are determined that it is you and only you who sets the terms of the debate. You are determined to ask me hundreds of questions, without answering any from me, which is not a debate. We both know this is you trying to get me to do the NAFCASH challenge again, which is not going to happen.
I knew you would come up with some kind of excuse - it's what you have always done in the past.
I refused to continue with the NAFCASH challenge because, as I answered more and more questions, you kept on altering the questions and you expected me to tolerate person abuse.
Nessie, you have been challenged to defend the statements of fact attributed to you in this thread...
Meaning what? I have already explained my answers to you in this thread.
... in the formal debate section titled:

Nessie and Bobcat each defend any statement of fact (up to this point) that can be attributed to them found in the 'Nessie's Admission That there Is No Archaeological Proof Of Mass Graves At Treblinka II" thread.
You have now framed the debate title, so you can avoid the questions I have asked you here and that you refused to answer.
Are you afraid to accept this challenge and abide by these rules only (i.e - no "special" rules or exemptions demanded by you or me):

https://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?p=76372#p76372

Yes. - or - No. - ??

Any answer other than a - Yes. - or - No. - will be taken as a - Yes.
The answer to that is, no. I am not going to do the NAFCASH challenge, in a thread where you ask all the questions, I get to ask none and you get to abuse me with impunity.
Been-there:
There are rules for that section of RODOH [The Formal Debate Forum] that were created to allow fair and constructive discussion, debate and presentation of arguments whether for or against.

They apply to all equally, and have always been applied equally without any bias.

In fact more REVISIONISTS had their posts rejected than any EXTERMINATIONALISTS ever did.

And that is for the simple fact that only two EXTERMINATIONALISTS ever contributed there. Which I think itself speaks volumes: i.e. the one’s posting here are not interested in fair and constructive discussion, debate and presentation of arguments.
Something tells me that number is not going to change any time soon.

Edited to add:

Nessie, after further thought, I have decided that if you are afraid to accept the challenge I outlined above, I'll accept your 3 additional rules if you accept this one additional rule of mine:

If I can conclusively demonstrate to the moderator that a statement of fact that can be attributed to you here in this thread or one that you make in our formal debate is a lie, then the debate is over and the moderator will declare that I am the winner.
I will accept that, if you accept that rule also applies to you, and you answer the following.

Q4 - did the post war grave robbing and the building of the memorial in the 1960s, further disturb the ground and make trying to identify the number and precise location of graves by geophysical surveys, difficult, if not impossible?

Q5 - do you have a university degree qualification in archaeology or forensic science? Yes or no.

We both know you are just trying to get me to do the NFACASH challenge and you are desperate to back out of this thread, where you are faced with questions you do not want to answer. You want the get out of calling me a liar, which of course the biased moderator will support, because me being able to ask you questions which you have to answer is going to cause you so many problems.

I will tell you now, my first question in the formal debate will be my Q4. It is important that in a debate about archaeology, we establish what qualifications, if any, you have. I have already told you I have none.

That you have chickened out of the debate on this thread, and you refuse to abide by forum rules here, does not bode well for a formal debate.
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 33657
Joined: 07 Mar 2014, 17:00
Contact:

Bobcat is trying to weasel out of a debate he now wishes he never accepted

Post by Nessie »

been-there wrote: 02 Jul 2021, 08:39
Bobcat wrote: 01 Jul 2021, 22:07
nessie wrote:So why do you want to debate me?
Because I wanted to see if you were afraid to defend your statements of fact that can be found in this thread in a more formal type of debate. I assumed that in a more formal type of debate, there would be rules, and a moderator to enforce them, that would reduce the nonstop compulsive obfuscations and lies constantly spewed from a deeply stupid and insane individual.

But now I see that you are afraid to abide by those rules by insisting that we abide by your own special set of rules (See: narcissistic personality disorder).

I knew you would come up with some kind of excuse — it's what you have always done in the past.
I don’t think you will get a reasonable, fair exchange with any of the current crop of ‘holocaust’ narrative defenders, Bobcat.
When Scott gave me permission to create that section of RODOH, I was naive and assumed that there were Holocaust believers who would want and welcome a fair and reasonable debate about the issues of contention. I now am of the opinion that besides Roberto Muhlenkamp, there weren’t — and currently aren’t — any such believers and defenders of this compulsory, legally protected pseudo-history.
My time posting at Skeptics also confirmed that.
Which is why my last attempt at reasoning with them was the cause of them banning me.
That last attempt I archived here.

I am now of the opinion that just posting historical facts and explaining alternative perspectives of the contentious details will never be enough. The problem seems to me to be a psychological resistance to accepting correction.

“It is difficult to reason a person out of a position that they didn’t arrive at through reason”
Explain why you should be trusted to fairly apply rules, when you regularly abuse others, which is against forum rules?
Bobcat
Posts: 480
Joined: 19 May 2021, 14:56
Contact:

Re: Nessie is trying to weasel out of a debate he now wishes he never accepted

Post by Bobcat »

been-there wrote: 02 Jul 2021, 08:39
Bobcat wrote: 01 Jul 2021, 22:07
nessie wrote:So why do you want to debate me?
Because I wanted to see if you were afraid to defend your statements of fact that can be found in this thread in a more formal type of debate. I assumed that in a more formal type of debate, there would be rules, and a moderator to enforce them, that would reduce the nonstop compulsive obfuscations and lies constantly spewed from a deeply stupid and insane individual.

But now I see that you are afraid to abide by those rules by insisting that we abide by your own special set of rules (See: narcissistic personality disorder).

I knew you would come up with some kind of excuse — it's what you have always done in the past.
I don’t think you will get a reasonable, fair exchange with any of the current crop of ‘holocaust’ narrative defenders, Bobcat.
When Scott gave me permission to create that section of RODOH, I was naive and assumed that there were Holocaust believers who would want and welcome a fair and reasonable debate about the issues of contention. I now am of the opinion that besides Roberto Muhlenkamp, there weren’t — and currently aren’t — any such believers and defenders of this compulsory, legally protected pseudo-history.
My time posting at Skeptics also confirmed that.
Which is why my last attempt at reasoning with them was the cause of them banning me.
That last attempt I archived here.

I am now of the opinion that just posting historical facts and explaining alternative perspectives of the contentious details will never be enough. The problem seems to me to be a psychological resistance to accepting correction.

“It is difficult to reason a person out of a position that they didn’t arrive at through reason”
Thanks Been-there, but I'll give the formal debate thing a shot anyway.

I will abide by the rules and the special additional one that Nessie and I agreed on.
Bobcat
Posts: 480
Joined: 19 May 2021, 14:56
Contact:

Re: Nessie is trying to weasel out of a debate he now wishes he never accepted

Post by Bobcat »

Bobcat:
Are you afraid to accept this challenge... Yes. - or - No. - ??
Nessie:
No.
Bobcat:
If I can conclusively demonstrate to the moderator that a statement of fact that can be attributed to you here in this thread or one that you make in our formal debate is a lie, then the debate is over and the moderator will declare that I am the winner.
Nessie:
I will accept that, if you accept that rule also applies to you
OK, But If the rule applies to both of us, then it will be the ONLY additional rule added to these rules:

https://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=2492

Nessie:
I will tell you now, my first question in the formal debate will be my Q4...

Q4 - did the post war grave robbing and the building of the memorial in the 1960s, further disturb the ground and make trying to identify the number and precise location of graves by geophysical surveys, difficult, if not impossible?
OK, the debate will start with you asking that question.

I'll get it set up.
Last edited by Bobcat on 02 Jul 2021, 14:35, edited 1 time in total.
Bobcat
Posts: 480
Joined: 19 May 2021, 14:56
Contact:

Re: Nessie's Admission That there Is No Archaeological Proof Of Mass Graves At Treblinka II

Post by Bobcat »

It's a done deal Nessie.

The formal debate is on.

All statements of fact posted in this thread prior to this post:

https://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?p=192138#p192138

are the subject of debate.
Bobcat
Posts: 480
Joined: 19 May 2021, 14:56
Contact:

Re: Nessie is trying to weasel out of a debate he now wishes he never accepted

Post by Bobcat »

been-there wrote: 02 Jul 2021, 08:39
Bobcat wrote: 01 Jul 2021, 22:07
nessie wrote:So why do you want to debate me?
Because I wanted to see if you were afraid to defend your statements of fact that can be found in this thread in a more formal type of debate. I assumed that in a more formal type of debate, there would be rules, and a moderator to enforce them, that would reduce the nonstop compulsive obfuscations and lies constantly spewed from a deeply stupid and insane individual.

But now I see that you are afraid to abide by those rules by insisting that we abide by your own special set of rules (See: narcissistic personality disorder).

I knew you would come up with some kind of excuse — it's what you have always done in the past.
I don’t think you will get a reasonable, fair exchange with any of the current crop of ‘holocaust’ narrative defenders, Bobcat.
When Scott gave me permission to create that section of RODOH, I was naive and assumed that there were Holocaust believers who would want and welcome a fair and reasonable debate about the issues of contention. I now am of the opinion that besides Roberto Muhlenkamp, there weren’t — and currently aren’t — any such believers and defenders of this compulsory, legally protected pseudo-history.
My time posting at Skeptics also confirmed that.
Which is why my last attempt at reasoning with them was the cause of them banning me.
That last attempt I archived here.

I am now of the opinion that just posting historical facts and explaining alternative perspectives of the contentious details will never be enough. The problem seems to me to be a psychological resistance to accepting correction.

“It is difficult to reason a person out of a position that they didn’t arrive at through reason”
Been-there, since this thread is the subject of a formal debate and that debate is based on statements of fact that must be taken directly from this thread, I request that this thread be locked.
User avatar
Hüntinger
Posts: 11014
Joined: 20 Aug 2018, 04:56
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh.Österreichisches Deutsch
Contact:

Re: Nessie is trying to weasel out of a debate he now wishes he never accepted

Post by Hüntinger »

Bobcat wrote: 02 Jul 2021, 14:56 Been-there, since this thread is the subject of a formal debate and that debate is based on statements of fact that must be taken directly from this thread, I request that this thread be locked.
I think you should take this up with Scott who runs the show.
User avatar
Depth Check
Site Moderator
Posts: 1183
Joined: 15 Jun 2012, 11:49
Contact:

Re: Nessie's Admission That there Is No Archaeological Proof Of Mass Graves At Treblinka II

Post by Depth Check »

I have locked the topic and made it a sticky.

Those wishing to discuss this debate as it progresses can do so in the usual place.

Open Thread for COMMENTS questions in new subforum


:)
User avatar
Depth Check
Site Moderator
Posts: 1183
Joined: 15 Jun 2012, 11:49
Contact:

Re: Nessie's Admission That there Is No Archaeological Proof Of Mass Graves At Treblinka II

Post by Depth Check »

The debate has been terminated. Thread unlocked.
Post Reply