/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16101522
Holocaust hoax affirmers start off every debate with an attempt to shame their opponent into submission.

When this doesn't work they grudgingly engage in discourse with the least effort they can manage. Sometimes they dissemble. Sometimes they move goalposts. Sometimes they gish-gallop. They never stop with the ad homs though.

Finally they tire and return to base name-calling. As has happened in this thread.

The one thing they never do is provide credible for their assertions that can survive scrutiny.

Often they can't even explain what their position is. Revisionists often find ourselves holding Holocaust-affirmer's hands as we attempt to lead them to a rational discussion. We have to define basic terms like "holocaust" and "revisionism" for them.