More on Mike Enoch

A Proposed Format for Our Holocaust-denial Debate

While insisting that he is not backing out of our 17th June debate on Holocaust denial, Mike Enoch has refused for 20 days to respond to my emails attempting to pin down the basic structure of the debate—how many parts will the debate comprise, the length of those parts and the total debate, whether we will take audience questions, what time will it start, and so on.

Refusing to confirm the basic structure of the debate is an obviously bad-faith tactic that is unfair to the debate’s viewers, who (after all this hype and delay) deserve a full discussion on the Nazi Holocaust.¹ I should also note that none of the three other persons who debated against me (Marshall Lore, Jim Rizoli, and Thomas Dalton) behaved in such a fashion, but rather worked with me promptly to confirm a fair debate structure.

Mike’s conduct has compelled me to unilaterally propose the following format for our 17 June Debate:

Time: 7 PM EST

Moderator: Richard Spencer

Venue: Live Stream in My YouTube channel: History Speaks

Parts:

Uninterrupted Openings (Max 25 minutes each)

Uninterrupted Rebuttals (Max 20 minutes each)

Back-and-Forth (Twenty-five minutes)

Audience Q&A  (Three from revisionists/deniers for me, three from anti-deniers for Mike).²

Uninterrupted Concluding Statements (10 minutes max each)

If Mike wishes to negotiate some aspects of my proposed format, he can contact me on email and set up a Discord, telephone, or other verbal conversation to discuss this at length. This should not take more than 20-30 minutes, and I have no interest in contacting him after we resolve these matters.

However, if Mike refuses to reach out and set up a conversation by 9 June, I will interpret that as an implicit acceptance of my proposed format: a format that is completely fair and offers equal speaking opportunities to both sides.

One final note: Mike owes me a copy of all sources he plans to use in the debate, per our agreement.³ See:

If Mike does not submit his sources for my consideration by 9 June, I will consider myself exempt from the requirement of using only the sources I have submitted, since he will have failed to live up to his end of that bargain. This is more than generous, given the 1.5 years (!) he has had to review my sources.

1. Mike previously suggested that we debate for as little as 30 minutes. This is an absurdity—we cannot cover the major elements and evidence for a trans-continental genocide with 15 minutes speaking each, including introductions and closing statements—and obviously an attempt on his part to avoid discussing the matter at length.

2. If there are not enough questions from one side, we will reduce the questions from each side proportionally. E.G. if there are only two questions asked for me by deniers, Mike will only have to answer two questions from the anti-deniers.

3. Mike has insisted that he will only debate this topic against someone who provides him all the evidence he will use beforehand. I agreed to do this under the reciprocal condition that Mike did the same. He has failed to do so.