Students Asked To Consider Arguments For Holocaust Denial

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Assumes facts not in evidence. Please rephrase the question.

Presupposes facts not in evidence do not exist, and disregards the legal penalties in Europe for questioning the numbers. Please rephrase the response to question.

So you're a revisionist.

Remember what I said about some things being so blatantly obvious and true that there's no point in arguing them?

I'm not going to beat my head against a brick wall trying to give you a lesson in basic history. If you haven't learned it by now, then you're beyond my help. I'll leave that to others with more patience than I.

EDIT.

P.S.: Also? Not the facts not in evidence I was referring to.

[Tekania]

That sounds like a perfectly reasonable assignment, though I entirely understand them backing down in the face of pressure.

Agreed, it's also quite a common theme in debate instruction to assign people topics that may be the opposite of what they hold, to get them out of their comfort zone for the purpose of teaching the mechanics of debate.

If you can put up a good defense for a position you don't hold, you become far more effective when arguing the ones you do.

[Neo-Angland]

Presupposes facts not in evidence do not exist, and disregards the legal penalties in Europe for questioning the numbers. Please rephrase the response to question.

So you're a revisionist.

Remember what I said about some things being so blatantly obvious and true that there's no point in arguing them?

I'm not going to beat my head against a brick wall trying to give you a lesson in basic history. If you haven't learned it by now, then you're beyond my help. I'll leave that to others with more patience than I.

EDIT.

P.S.: Also? Not the facts not in evidence I was referring to.

A Jewish Revisionist, if you are going to 'Pigeon-hole' people.

Ad hominems aren't in this case a valid argument, and say nothing more then you can't debate the issue as you haven't studied the multiple viewpoints.

[NERVUN]

Yes, 13.

US 8th grade...

That's nice. It's still not a requirement for anybody to participate in threads that make them uncomfortable, so it does not make sense to compare NSG to an assignment that students are required to do.

ah, can't make students uncomfortable then, right?

Except... reading the article, no parent or student complained until AFTER it was brought up by someone in LA.

Oh, and you missed the point, kids can find it, anywhere, so it seems silly to not equip them to deal with it.

[NERVUN]

Of course not, but there's no serious reason not to pick the Holocaust either.



Which can also be said about most controversies that would be used in a educational setting. There's an obviously stronger side of an argument for pretty much every issue.




Not at all. All the assignment serves to do is to train students in critical thinking. You're making it out to be more than it is, because you're being hyper-emotional and irrational. You cannot separate your sense of self-identification and emotions from a claim, so rather than face an opposing claim, you freak out about it. That's the opposite of critical thinking, and all the more reason to use the Holocaust to teach critical thinking. To avoid creating another generation that treats questions in such a manner.

This is to actual discussions of history what creation vs. evolution is to biology class. And you're making it out to be less than it is to the people that it would affect the most deeply. If you lack that base level of empathy, then I'm not sure how to explain to you why you're wrong.

Indeed, and yet you would make it so that children could not know WHY evolution is superior to creationism.

[Risottia]

...
“When tragic events occur in history, there is often debate about their actual existence,” the assignment reads. “For example, some people claim the Holocaust is not an actual historical event, but instead is a propaganda tool that was used for political and monetary gain. Based upon your research on this issue, write an argumentative essay, utilizing cited textual evidence, in which you explain whether or not you believe the Holocaust was an actual event in history, or merely a political scheme created to influence public emotion and gain. Remember to address counterclaims (rebuttals) to your stated claim. You are also required to use parenthetical (internal) citations and to provide a Works Cited page.”

Seems legit to me. Anyone who isn't a complete fuckwit isn't going to claim that the Nazi genocides didn't happen.
And the eventual fuckwits can be punished for not being able to find decent sources.

[NERVUN]

No, it's not, because this isn't about teaching Holocaust denail. I've already addressed this. This is about teaching critical thinking, by asking students to examine claims, take a stance, and argue that stance. It's completely different.

Likewise, if (for some reason) they wanted to teach critical thinking by having students argue theistic creationism against modern science, I'd have no problem with that either. I would, however, have a problem if they tried to teach theistic creationism, or Holocaust denial, as fact.




I'm not making it out to be less than it is to people. I'm fully aware of how it impacts people.

I'm saying to hell with your emotions. They're in direct opposition to crticial thinking, knowledge, and truth in this case. They have no place in this context. The Holocaust may upset you, fine. You may be upset that people deny it, fine. That doesn't give your argument any special credence however, and the situation deserves no speical treatment. It's a claim that deserves to be analized, like any other. If you can't accept that, if your emotional bias prevents you from allowing that, I reiterate. To hell with your emotions. To hell with petty, irrational feelings.

You're missing the entire point.

The reason that we don't need to critically examine this has absolutely nothing to do with my emotions. The reason that we don't need to critically examine it is that the evidence is so utterly convincing and overwhelming that it would be pointless to investigate the claim with any sort of skepticism. The totality of the evidence is there, and presents as convincing a case as has ever been made in history. The film evidence, the files, the memoranda, the diaries, the documents, the eyewitness accounts from both inmates and Nazis, the bodies, the ovens, the everything. This happened. This happened, it was real, and the facts of the matter are indisputable. To question it is as it would be to question gravity, or evolution, or germ theory. Therefore, there is no particular reason to pick this one topic, and indeed, to even suggest that there could be a valid opposing point of view is to grant the hint of legitimacy to monsters who would insult their memory through the most blatant and vicious slanders and libels against an entire people. You might as well have them seriously discuss the pros and cons of NAMBLA.

You REALLY are too emotionally involved in that you keep clinging to your strawman, one that you already acknowledged as being false. The assignment was not to question it, it was noting that some people DO question it. That too is a fact. What the assignment was aiming for (again, apparently given we don't have the lesson plan) was equipping the kids with the ways and means to spot the BS arguments and counter them when they find them.

But, no, that would hurt people's feelings.

Not the people in the school per se because apparently no one had as issue, but it hurts people's feelings anyway.

[Bezombia]

Assumes facts not in evidence. Please rephrase the question.

Presupposes facts not in evidence do not exist, and disregards the legal penalties in Europe for questioning the numbers. Please rephrase the response to question.

ITT the USSR never underestimated the amount of people that died somewhere

[Imperium Sidhicum]

Pity they didn't have the balls to go all the way through with that assignment.

The moment some aspect of history becomes untouchable and unquestionable, it becomes a dogma, and teaching dogmatic science is no different from religious indoctrination, since it teaches to unquestioningly accept certain ideological tenets, the doubting of which is heresy.

Holocaust is just this kind of dogma, perhaps the most heavily politicized historical event and one of the most heavily politicized issues along with race and sexuality. Any kind of unbiased, objective research in Holocaust is practically impossible, since the researcher is expected simply to reaffirm previous finds, or is immediately denounced as a denier and Nazi sympathizer if his finds happen to contradict the officially approved version, much like there's hardly an objective research possible on race or sexuality where no political pressure would be involved.

[Sdaeriji]

I love self-demonstrating NSG threads.

[Vissegaard]

I love self-demonstrating NSG threads.

^ This ^

[Farnhamia]

I love self-demonstrating NSG threads.

"Self-demonstrating"?

[Greed and Death]

Presupposes facts not in evidence do not exist, and disregards the legal penalties in Europe for questioning the numbers. Please rephrase the response to question.

So you're a revisionist.

Remember what I said about some things being so blatantly obvious and true that there's no point in arguing them?

I'm not going to beat my head against a brick wall trying to give you a lesson in basic history. If you haven't learned it by now, then you're beyond my help. I'll leave that to others with more patience than I.

EDIT.

P.S.: Also? Not the facts not in evidence I was referring to.

No he is not a revisionist. People need to stop treating revisionism as a bad word, it is a useful tool in history. A revisionist looks at facts and reinterprets the results.

An example of revisionism would be revising the number down from 4 million killed at this particular site to 1.5 million killed after looking more closely at the facts. Another example would be German War guilt (for WWI), in the 1920's everyone blamed Germany, now if you tried to academically argue WWI was solely Germany's fault you would be laughed out of town.

A denialist is someone who deines facts as a means to avoid an uncomfortable truth. And that is what Neo-Angland is.

[Murkwood]

It's fine as a critical thinking experiment, but 8th graders? That's something for collage kids.

[The USOT]

This is a perfectly fine critical thinking assignment. Almost any honest research attempt will come to the conclusion that the holocaust was real. Also I often make my best arguments for the opposite of my belief.

My one reservation is 8th graders are a tad young for this topic. Senior in high school or university students would be a better fit.

Really?

I don't think we had any problem as 8th graders to handle such topics(for example, we had several units on slavery and such), and certainly the topic is too easy for university students.

It isn't so much about it being easy as much as it is about promoting research + critical thinking studies. A lot of people even at the university level don't know where to begin for research. I for instance had to help a class with just such a problem a few months ago.

So something as obvious as "the holocaust happened" is a good starting point for people to actually read history books, think about how they recognise the validity of the content etc.

[Greed and Death]

The Diary of Anne Frank is a well known, well respected piece of lit. It's on the reading lists for just about every state in the US, and that means addressing the Holocaust. Not in as much detail as a history class would take it, but still.

It is regarded as a respectable piece of lit in several countries. I just don't get why it would be revisited in any other context but historical. That's all.

Very few pieces of nonfiction are regarded as purely literature.

[Aurora Novus]

You're missing the entire point.

The reason that we don't need to critically examine this has absolutely nothing to do with my emotions. The reason that we don't need to critically examine it is that the evidence is so utterly convincing and overwhelming that it would be pointless to investigate the claim with any sort of skepticism.

That's not why people were up in arms over this, you and I both know that. People were upset that it was the Holocaust, not because they had any serious intellectual disagreement with the school.

Therefore, there is no particular reason to pick this one topic, and indeed, to even suggest that there could be a valid opposing point of view is to grant the hint of legitimacy to monsters who would insult their memory through the most blatant and vicious slanders and libels against an entire people.

There's entirely a point to it, you just refuse to acknowledge the point. Even if you think it's a poor point, it's still there. Rather, you go for the sensationalist and demagogic way of criticising them, which just goes to show what I was talking about earlier. You're talking out of your ass when you try and say this isn't about your emotions. That's entirely what it's about. You wouldn't be up in arms like this if it was an issue of debating the notion of a flat earth with a round earth.

[Wind in the Willows]

They should be able to consider arguments for any subject that they wish. Although we may disagree with their views, they still have the right to express their opinions.

[Aurora Novus]

Everyone understands that this isn't a free speech issue, right? Because I keep seeing so many people like the above pop in and talk about letting people voice their opinions and such.

This isn't a free speech issue. The school has the right to restrict whatever speech it feels the need to restrict. The issue here is people wanting to make special cases when it comes to subjects being critically examined and certain claims being put to the test. That's the problem. People who claim to want to teach critical thinking, but then as soon as a claim they are emotionally invested in is examined, suddenly cry foul.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

A Jewish Revisionist, if you are going to 'Pigeon-hole' people.

Ad hominems aren't in this case a valid argument, and say nothing more then you can't debate the issue as you haven't studied the multiple viewpoints.

If you are Jewish, that would speak more to your motivations than to your ability to understand facts. I have less than no interest in your motivations. My description of you as a revisionist was just that: a description. Not an attack, although you may see it that way.

As far as the picture goes, the four million figure was one provided by the Soviets, and was not taken seriously by any source on the Holocaust, meaning that it was never added to the six million figure.

Indeed, and yet you would make it so that children could not know WHY evolution is superior to creationism.

Nonsense. I simply wouldn't give an assignment that asked students to argue either creationism or evolution, depending on what they believed, since that's not how science works. Similarly, I wouldn't give students an assignment to argue whether or not the Shoah really happened, since that's not how history works.

You REALLY are too emotionally involved in that you keep clinging to your strawman, one that you already acknowledged as being false. The assignment was not to question it, it was noting that some people DO question it. That too is a fact. What the assignment was aiming for (again, apparently given we don't have the lesson plan) was equipping the kids with the ways and means to spot the BS arguments and counter them when they find them.

But, no, that would hurt people's feelings.

Not the people in the school per se because apparently no one had as issue, but it hurts people's feelings anyway.

Actually, it asked them to argue what they believed, not to provide an argument against the revisionists and deniers. I would not ask them to write a paper either defending or attacking evolution depending on their beliefs.

A denialist is someone who deines facts as a means to avoid an uncomfortable truth. And that is what Neo-Angland is.

You're right. I stand corrected.

Everyone understands that this isn't a free speech issue, right? Because I keep seeing so many people like the above pop in and talk about letting people voice their opinions and such.

This isn't a free speech issue. The school has the right to restrict whatever speech it feels the need to restrict. The issue here is people wanting to make special cases when it comes to subjects being critically examined and certain claims being put to the test. That's the problem. People who claim to want to teach critical thinking, but then as soon as a claim they are emotionally invested in is examined, suddenly cry foul.

Jimmy walks up to Johnny on the playground and socks him on the nose. Many people on the playground saw this. Those who didn't at least saw Johnny's bloody nose, the blood on Jimmy's hand, and Jimmy running from the scene. Jimmy, after being presented with the evidence, admits to having done this Johnny says that he did it. Jimmy's friends who were there say that he did it. Johnny's friends say that Jimmy did it. In Jimmy's backpack, we find a note saying "Note to self: walk up to Johnny on the playground and punch him in the face". In determining Jimmy's guilt, exactly how much critical thinking is it necessary to apply?

[Aurora Novus]

Everyone understands that this isn't a free speech issue, right? Because I keep seeing so many people like the above pop in and talk about letting people voice their opinions and such.

This isn't a free speech issue. The school has the right to restrict whatever speech it feels the need to restrict. The issue here is people wanting to make special cases when it comes to subjects being critically examined and certain claims being put to the test. That's the problem. People who claim to want to teach critical thinking, but then as soon as a claim they are emotionally invested in is examined, suddenly cry foul.

Jimmy walks up to Johnny on the playground and socks him on the nose. Many people on the playground saw this. Those who didn't at least saw Johnny's bloody nose, the blood on Jimmy's hand, and Jimmy running from the scene. Jimmy, after being presented with the evidence, admits to having done this Johnny says that he did it. Jimmy's friends who were there say that he did it. Johnny's friends say that Jimmy did it. Jimmy's friends say that Jimmy did it. In Jimmy's backpack, we find a note saying "Note to self: walk up to Johnny on the playground and punch him in the face". In determining Jimmy's guilt, exactly how much critical thinking is it necessary to apply?

I'm not sure what this post has to do with what you were responding to.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Jimmy walks up to Johnny on the playground and socks him on the nose. Many people on the playground saw this. Those who didn't at least saw Johnny's bloody nose, the blood on Jimmy's hand, and Jimmy running from the scene. Jimmy, after being presented with the evidence, admits to having done this Johnny says that he did it. Jimmy's friends who were there say that he did it. Johnny's friends say that Jimmy did it. Jimmy's friends say that Jimmy did it. In Jimmy's backpack, we find a note saying "Note to self: walk up to Johnny on the playground and punch him in the face". In determining Jimmy's guilt, exactly how much critical thinking is it necessary to apply?

I'm not sure what this post has to do with what you were responding to.

It means that not all opinions are equally valid, and not all historical facts need to be the subject of critical scrutiny in terms of whether or not they occurred. It's a waste of class time to do so. The evidence is there, it's overwhelming, and since the only people who seriously argue holocaust denial nowadays do so in the name of a rather nasty anti-Semitic agenda, there's really no more place for it in class than there is to argue the biological inferiority of black people. Not all opinions need to be given equal time, nor, for that matter, any time at all.

[Aurora Novus]

I'm not sure what this post has to do with what you were responding to.

It means that not all opinions are equally valid, and not all historical facts need to be the subject of critical scrutiny in terms of whether or not they occurred.

Not all opinions are equally valid, of course. However, yes, all claims deserve to be examined. There no such thing as a claim that people should be shielded from because it harms your precious sensibilities. You keep trying to portray the people who oppose this as having some intellectual disagreement with the school. Everyone knows that's not the case, and even you know that's not the case, when you continue to try and paint this assignment as some form of anti-semetic propaganda. Knock it off.

The fact is, your emotions do not determine truth. Critical examination of claims do. Crying foul because a particular claim makes you upset should not fly in acedemia. Again, if this were a matter of flat-earth vs round-earth, you wouldn't be complaining. You are only complaining because of the nature of the claim makes you upset. Grow up and get over it.

[The Serbian Empire]

This is a perfectly fine critical thinking assignment. Almost any honest research attempt will come to the conclusion that the holocaust was real. Also I often make my best arguments for the opposite of my belief.

My one reservation is 8th graders are a tad young for this topic. Senior in high school or university students would be a better fit.

I concur... The other thing is that I believe the Holocaust can include all Russians, Poles, Serbs, and other Slavic speaking people killed in WWII other than Croatian Ustashe who duped the Germans into believing that Croats weren't Slavic.

[Sdaeriji]

Not all opinions are equally valid, of course. However, yes, all claims deserve to be examined.

How many times does a claim deserve to be examined before we can safely call it properly examined and get the fuck on with our lives?