Yes. I'm reminded of the woman who had survived the Holocaust and was asked to be interviewed — where they would also bring on a Holocaust denier ... you know, for balance.
Thankfully, she declined. But the point is of course: here we are.
Context aside, that sounds like it would have been a powerful film. A denier face to face with an eyewitness, presumably with the eyewitness prepared with all of the innumerable pieces of indisputable evidence. Talk about losing, that's losing.
She would be eye witness talking about own experience. It is super easy to attack against that or manipulate to make her sound crazy. She is not historian to know nuances of stuff deniers talk about.
The denier would be prepared too.
Deniers often claim the extend of it was much smaller or that leadership had no idea. Victim being tortured cant speak of thosez historian could.
I've read and even said a lot of uncomfortable things on the internet, but seeing someone lament the loss of not pitting a holocaust survivor with a denier probably takes the cake.
A lot of holocaust survivors have made very cogent cases against deniers, you may be underestimating their strength. Maybe some people couldn't do that, but other people could. It is a lot of people we are talking about.
Hoisting someone up to get humiliated on national TV is giving them equal credence? It's impossible to give equal credence to Flat-Earth equivalents, except by engineering things so that they get to talk about their "persecution" without saying anything about what they believe. (That is a common trick, watch out for it and you'll see it in many fringe subcultures.) Get them talking about their beliefs on a concrete level and the credence goes out the window. Putting its head on a stake where everyone can see it will do nothing to assist it.
Thankfully, she declined. But the point is of course: here we are.