Depends if we are in agreement. If we are, no. If we aren't and we want to have a sincere discussion, yes.
If all you do is come, claim that the Holocaust happened in a certain way, and hoped to call it a day without any proof nor evidence, that's just a demonstration of your own bad faith and intolerance.
Luckily for many, the internet is filled with evidence about it, so any good faith argumenter should have little difficuty doing so.
The only people averted to do so are people not interested in a proper discussion, at which point, they should just leave rather than spout baseless claims. Even if their conclusion is correct, poor arguments do nothing more than hurt the pursuit of the truth (normally for spreading intolerance, which helped the Holocaust happen).
Yes, of course, the perceived editorial line of the Economist is similar to the Holocaust. Also, it is quite easy to do in the later case, you can link the relevant wikipedia article.
Depends if we are in agreement. If we are, no. If we aren't and we want to have a sincere discussion, yes.
If all you do is come, claim that the Holocaust happened in a certain way, and hoped to call it a day without any proof nor evidence, that's just a demonstration of your own bad faith and intolerance.
Luckily for many, the internet is filled with evidence about it, so any good faith argumenter should have little difficuty doing so.
The only people averted to do so are people not interested in a proper discussion, at which point, they should just leave rather than spout baseless claims. Even if their conclusion is correct, poor arguments do nothing more than hurt the pursuit of the truth (normally for spreading intolerance, which helped the Holocaust happen).
Yes, of course, the perceived editorial line of the Economist is similar to the Holocaust. Also, it is quite easy to do in the later case, you can link the relevant wikipedia article.