If you wish to have a formal debate we should agree on what debate is. For me, debate requires a clearly defined binary, which you have not provided. It is not ad hominem for me to explain that statements are too ambiguous to refute. (Nor have you tried to give me a timestamp where your link gets any better or more to the point.)
Example of debate: On 16 Sep 1919 Hitler wrote that our purpose "must unshakably be the removal of the Jews altogether". I can join a binary on this by saying that Hitler was wrong because there was no formal judgment by which every Jewish man, woman and child was found guilty and subject to "removal", and because the later acts by which this removal was attempted did not constitute such a judgment. Today Germany has one of the top ten Jewish populations by country, so it appears Germans at large also disagreed with Hitler. Now you could join this debate by showing what evils the Jews did before 1919 and what competent body heard these charges and merited his judgment. If Hitler was right in 1919, the 100k+ German Jews today, without exception, still call unshakably for removal for the crimes 100 years ago. Maybe one of us can convince the other Hitler was right or wrong on this point, or maybe we will agree to disagree having refined what we know about him and about racism in general. But any of those would be preferable to declining to debate, such as by calling it a "prove it loop" (an exercise I have always found stimulating no matter how concretized the interlocutor).
Very funny Joe (username doesn't check out). According to you, even a board designed directly to host all the forbidden facts of the ConPro community can't handle them. This is the classic appeal to censorship fallacy so beloved among conspiracists. If your facts are such that I can only see them if I already see them, I'm not interested, I'm busy researching the motivations of the founding of the DAP based on demonstrable facts (not so interested in Nuremberg and the stuff I haven't commented on that you seem to presume my views on).
I proposed that, if Hitler was right in 1919, the German government should logically still be unshakably pressured to expel 100,000 Jews today. You have not joined the debate on whether Hitler was right about this, whether my conclusion is faulty, or whether he didn't mean it that way. Then you accused me of not debating.
Example of debate: On 16 Sep 1919 Hitler wrote that our purpose "must unshakably be the removal of the Jews altogether". I can join a binary on this by saying that Hitler was wrong because there was no formal judgment by which every Jewish man, woman and child was found guilty and subject to "removal", and because the later acts by which this removal was attempted did not constitute such a judgment. Today Germany has one of the top ten Jewish populations by country, so it appears Germans at large also disagreed with Hitler. Now you could join this debate by showing what evils the Jews did before 1919 and what competent body heard these charges and merited his judgment. If Hitler was right in 1919, the 100k+ German Jews today, without exception, still call unshakably for removal for the crimes 100 years ago. Maybe one of us can convince the other Hitler was right or wrong on this point, or maybe we will agree to disagree having refined what we know about him and about racism in general. But any of those would be preferable to declining to debate, such as by calling it a "prove it loop" (an exercise I have always found stimulating no matter how concretized the interlocutor).
I proposed that, if Hitler was right in 1919, the German government should logically still be unshakably pressured to expel 100,000 Jews today. You have not joined the debate on whether Hitler was right about this, whether my conclusion is faulty, or whether he didn't mean it that way. Then you accused me of not debating.
They are, subhuman kike. What’s your point.