As Godwin's Law states, "as a discussion on the Internet grows longer, the likelihood of a person being compared to Hitler, or another Nazi reference, increases." However, even though the theoretical probability of an infinitely long conversation including any term should approach 1.0, in practice, conversations cannot be infinite in length, and this long-accepted axiom is impossible to observe. By analyzing 199 million Reddit posts, we note that, after a certain point, the probability of observing the terms "Nazi" or "Hitler" actually decreases significantly with conversation length. In addition, a corollary of Godwin's Law holds that "the invocation of Godwin's Law is usually done by an individual that is losing the argument," and, thus, that comparisons to Nazis are a signal of a discussion's end. In other words, comparing one's interlocutor to Hitler is supposed to be a conversation-killer. While it is difficult to determine whether a discussion on a given topic ended or not in a large dataset, we observe a marked increase in conversation length when the words "Hitler" or "Nazi" are newly interjected. Given that both of these observations challenge widely accepted and intuitive truisms, other words were run through the same set of tests. Within the context of the initial question, these results suggest that it is not inevitable that conversations eventually disintegrate into reductio ad Hitlerum, and that such comparisons are not conversation-killers. The results moreover suggest that we may underestimate, in the popular imagination, how much conversations may actually become narrower and therefore may tend to have a more impoverished or limited vocabulary as they stretch on. All of these observations provoke questions for further research.