“What is the best way to debate proponents of the Holocaust?”

Prosecutor Prosecutor

A person by the pseudonym ‘Midori’  asked me via e-mail:

“What is the best way to debate proponents of the Holocaust?”

For the most part it’s a WASTE OF TIME trying to explain anything to these people. BUT posting quotations may be very useful, people will re-post them elsewhere.

One thing to consider is that most of these people are are fanatics, just like McCarthy (kaput), Andrew E. Mathis and Roberto Muehlenkamp. They think they are prosecutors and you have to answer their questions; but even in a trial, you don’t try to convince the prosecutor, you try to convince the JURY. But you’ve got to plan your case; you can ignore everything the other side says; and if you’ve got one good point you can hammer away at it and win your case. Simple!

For example, there is a rule that cross-examination can only proceed on the basis of information brought out on direct.  One guy, I forget his name, did a two-question direct on a conspirator in a murder case who turned state’s evidence: “what were you doing on the night of?” “I murdered so and so.” “Why did you do it?” “I was paid to do so by the defendant.” End of direct examination. The other side was helpless because they couldn’t bring up any of the shitload of stuff they had ready for cross examination!

PS:

Think of them as prosecutors, don’t argue for them, argue for the jury.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *