I will argue the Auschwitz holocaust claims are unsubstantiated. I will prove the claims are impossible using engineering, chemistry and architectural concepts. I will provide video and periodical testimony of Jews who admitted to lying about Auschwitz. I will provide links and video of scientists who made these tests and their testimony of findings. I will provide interpretive arguments based on the existing evidence that are inductively stronger arguments than the Auschwitz Holocaust arguments. I'm open to the standard set of rules, but I demand the arguments be structured with discipline or I will not waste my time arguing. If you don't have the energy or the discipline it takes to be formal with me, don't bother even trying to challenge me. I propose that written arguments themselves must follow these rules: 1. Each person must make an argument that declares the writer's position on the argument at hand. 2. Each argument must have a set of clearly defined premises that illustrate the argument's line of reasoning. 3. Each premise must be supported with evidence that validates the argument's premise. 4. Each argument must end in a conclusion that can be deductively drawn from the premises or end in an inductively strong conclusion that can be drawn from the premises.