The Instigator
Kratos
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
MTGandP
Con (against)
Winning
45 Points

Che Guevara isnt a good guy.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
MTGandP
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/4/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,686 times Debate No: 8100
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (24)
Votes (8)

 

Kratos

Pro

Film makers have been erecting a romantic image of Che Guevara from the days of his youth, as in Walter Salles's film 'The Motorcycle Diaries," or his final days in Bolivia in Steven Soderbergh's " Che Guevara." It is important to highlight Guevara's actual message, actions, and legacy. Both films are a revisionist white wash that ignore both the atrocities committed, his hate filled writings, and their aftermath not only in Cuba but in the Americas. The image of Che Guevara hanging in the College dorms of student radicals in 2009 may be clich� but his message is not. In his Message to the Tricontinental Guevara argued that hatred was something to be harnessed and used: "Not only as an element to struggle against injustice," but to be used to perpetrate new injustices. Guevara describes the utilization of hatred or as he put it "relentless hatred to impel us over and beyond the natural limitations of man." This use of hatred to encourage the dehumanization of an adversary is but another manifestation of the doctrine found throughout the centuries to justify mass murder and torture. If hate was the solution to all problems then the heroes of the 20th century would have been: Lenin, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Guevara. Instead they are viewed in most quarters as mass murderers and criminals except for those who are blinded by their "relentless hatred" of their fellow human and/or their political ideology. History has demonstrated two fundamental approaches to change the world. One way views hatred of the other as an element of the struggle in which the ends justify whatever means and has been the way for the individuals listed above. Che Guevara was an admirer of Mao Zedong and his formulation of guerilla warfare is adapted from the Chinese leader. Che published influential manuals Guerrilla Warfare (1961) and Guerrilla Warfare: A Method (1963), which were based on his own experiences and partly chairman Mao Zedong's writings. Guevara stated that revolution in Latin America must come through insurgent forces developed in rural areas with peasant support. His international legacy of glorifying violence through an erroneous analysis of guerilla warfare, based on his experiences with the Batista army, which was too incompetent and corrupt to fight, and applying Zedong's writings on the subject led to bloodbaths in Argentina, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Chiapas, Congo, Angola and decades of military dictatorship and political violence. Nevertheless it could have been worse. Che was killed in 1967 in the jungles of Bolivia. Another disciple of Mao Zedong who adapted his theories was Pol Pot, who unlike Che achieved power in 1975 after a long guerilla struggle in Cambodia. He carried out a radical revolution modeled after Mao and ended by killing 25% of the entire population of his country: Cambodia. Children in Cuba beginning at age 5 are taught to chant " We will be like Che!" every Friday at school. They are taught to be like the man who saw people as material to be molded and shaped in Guevara's own words: " To build communism, you must build new men as well as the new economic base. Hence it is very important to choose correctly the instrument for mobilizing the masses. Basically, this instrument must be moral in character, without neglecting, however, a correct utilization of the material stimulus-especially of a social character." One method of material stimulus was the firing squad. Che Guevara personally carried out hundreds of executions and issued even more death warrants. According to journalist Luis Ortega, who knew him, Che sent 1,897 men to the firing squad. The consequences of building violent, selective, and cold killing machines is that these means lead to tragic ends that continue the cycle of violence and bloodshed. One example took place in the early morning hours of July 13, 1994 just six miles from Havana's sea wall, the Malecon, out in the ocean a tug-boat with more than 71 Cubans trying to head for sanctuary were attacked. These victims were met by other tugboats captained by Che's "new men" who used high pressure hoses to knock these refugees overboard into the sea, and later rammed and sank the boat drowning 41 passengers. 21 of the dead were women and children. Ten years after the massacre acts of remembrance were carried out around the world.
This is a radical alternative to Che Guevara and Mao Zedong, tragically an alternative that would have saved tens of millions of more lives in the past century. Its philosophical underpinning is found in the statement: " Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. This path has and continues to be followed by persons of such diverse backgrounds as Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel, Corazon Aquino, Desmond Tutu, Aung San Suu Kyi, and Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet. These men and women have demonstrated that hatred is something to be overcome, not an "element of struggle," but rather a stumbling block to freedom. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke of the challenge in November of 1960 in reference to sit-ins organized to protest segregation: The sit-in demonstrations seek to secure moral ends through moral means. And ever so often in history when men seek to achieve the splendid goals of freedom, human dignity, and justice they resort to methods of violence, such as guerilla warfare, such as assassination, and other methods of bloody revolution. We see here a crusade without violence, and there is no attempt on the part of those who engaged in sit-ins to annihilate the opponent but to convert him. I submit that this method is justifiable because it uses moral, humanitarian, and constructive means in order to achieve the constructive end. Guevara had been executed on October 9, 1967 and just months before his own assassination Martin Luther King Jr. called on his staff to combat the romantic illusion of guerilla warfare in the style of Che Guevara among young radicals concluding: "We must not be intimidated by those who are laughing at nonviolence now.Che Guevara argued in his writings and speeches that hatred is good because it, "transforms us into effective, violent, selective, and cold killing machines" Yet Mahatma Gandhi directly challenged this kind of thinking when decades before Che arrived on the political scene others advocated the same methods as Guevara in India arguing with great prescience: "It is a cowardly thought, that of killing others. Whom do you suppose to free by assassination? The millions of India do not desire it. Those who are intoxicated by the wretched modern civilization think these things. Those who will rise to power by murder will certainly not make the nation happy." Forty years after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. an African American will take the oath of office and become President of the United States in a country that has profoundly changed. What of the rest of Latin America? Guevara's call to action in a hemisphere with too many military juntajuntas after Guevara's Message to the Tricontinental. Other countries such as Chile who had known a military junta between 1924 and 1931 in reaction to communist threats embraced Augusto Pinochet in 1973 who remained in power for seventeen years. With the exception of Nicaragua Che Guevara's prescription for revolution in Latin America led to a generation of military dictatorships and harsh repression. In Nicaragua it led to a Marxist dictatorship and civil war. Oswaldo Paya Sardi�as addressing the European Parliament upon being awarded the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, declared: "The first victory we can claim is that our hearts are free of hatred. Hence we say to those who persecute us and who try to dominate us: You are my brother. I do not hate you, but you are not going to dominate me by fear." When you wear that shirt, you advocate not revolution, but execution.
MTGandP

Con

My opponent has plagiarized his entire argument from http://www.fiu.edu... (thanks to Puck for pointing this out). Because of this, my opponent was a) dishonest in presenting this as his own and b) did not provide any of his own arguments. This alone should be cause enough to vote CON.

If the judges are still not convinced, I will refute some of my opponent's arguments. The judges should take into account that my opponent has no definitions and no contentions, so his arguments are very unstructured and are more difficult to respond to.

"Both films are a revisionist white wash that ignore both the atrocities committed, his hate filled writings, and their aftermath not only in Cuba but in the Americas."
This, along with most of the beginning, is not an actual argument. Instead, it is an appeal to emotion: notice the emotionally arousing phrases like "atrocities" and "hate filled", which have no logical value and do not further my opponent's point at all.

". . . Guevara argued that hatred was something to be harnessed and used . . . to perpetrate new injustices."
This is an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary evidence. My opponent provides no evidence.

"If hate was the solution to all problems then the heroes of the 20th century would have been: Lenin, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Guevara."
More appeal to emotion without any logical statements or evidence. I ask the judges to please disregard any statements such as this one. Additional refutation: my opponent falsely associates Guevara with these others: Stalin and Hitler were fascist dictators, and Guevara liberated Cuba.

My opponent's post then has a very long segment with no real arguments. I will skip this part. The next real argument is that Guevara executed 1,897 men. My opponent does not cite a source, but accepting that it is true, it proves nothing. Maybe those 1,897 men were all national threats. Maybe they were all terrorists. Maybe they were all secret assassins sent by the Soviets to kill Guevara. My point is that those executions prove nothing.

"This is a radical alternative to Che Guevara and Mao Zedong, tragically an alternative that would have saved tens of millions of more lives in the past century. Its philosophical underpinning is found in the statement: "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you." This path has and continues to be followed by persons of such diverse backgrounds as Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel, Corazon Aquino, Desmond Tutu, Aung San Suu Kyi, and Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet. These men and women have demonstrated that hatred is something to be overcome, not an "element of struggle," but rather a stumbling block to freedom."
They have only "demonstrated" that hatred and violence are not necessary elements in rebellion. But there are many examples of successful violent revolutionaries, such as Pancho Villa, George Washington, and Che Guevara himself. In fact, nearly all successful revolutions have been violent; a peaceful revolution is the exception to the rule.

"With the exception of Nicaragua Che Guevara's prescription for revolution in Latin America led to a generation of military dictatorships and harsh repression."
My opponent has no citation or evidence for this claim. Even if we assume that it is true, Cuba had a dictator in place before Guevara.

"When you wear that shirt, you advocate not revolution, but execution."
This final sentence is a very good example of an appeal to emotion.

***

Now for my own contentions.

Definitions
Good: Virtuous, right, commendable . http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Contention 1: There are no bad guys.
Everyone has some amount of good in them. So to claim that Che Guevara "isn't a good guy" is to presume too much. It is not possible that Guevara is not at all good, so this resolution cannot possibly be true. The world just does not work that way: there are no good guys and bad guys; everyone is a shade of gray.

Contention 2: Che Guevara was a prominent figure in the Cuban Revolution.
Before Fidel Castro, the government of Cuba was put in place by the United States. Cuba had not even chosen its own government. Fulgencio Batista served as the dictator of Cuba, until he was overthrown by Fidel Castro with the help of Che Guevara. This was a change for the better; even if "change for the better" cannot be objectively assessed, the people of Cuba were certainly happy with it: after all, look at how they have idolized Che Guevara. He was a great revolutionary; at the least, he was not "not a good guy".

***

Why the vote should go to me:

My opponent had no sources, so the sources vote goes to me. My opponent just had a single painful-to-read paragraph (as well as some smaller mistakes such as misspelling "isn't" in the resolution), so grammar goes to me as well. My opponent plagiarized, so conduct also goes to me. Most convincing arguments is a more ambiguous point, but I will let my contentions and rebuttals speak or themselves. Vote CON.

Sources:
(1) http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk...
(2) http://www.time.com...
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(4) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by abbadon 7 years ago
abbadon
"Training starts at six."

thats insane. i never knew that.
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
"Kratos, i must admit, i didnt think anyone would hire an assassin at 15."

Training starts at six.
Posted by abbadon 7 years ago
abbadon
Kratos, i must admit, i didnt think anyone would hire an assassin at 15.
Posted by Kratos 7 years ago
Kratos
"A 23-year-old anarchist with a high school education making $150,000. What's your secret Kratos.
Rosa Luxembourg was a communist anarchist."

actually, im 15. i just always put i was born in 1985. and im an assassin >:D
Posted by Kratos 7 years ago
Kratos
"All right, that's fine. I hope you kicked your friend's butt figuratively. XD"

lol, but no i got suspended. i dont like cheaters.
Posted by Justinisthecrazy 7 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
1 round debate? con wins
Posted by RedShirt 7 years ago
RedShirt
MTGandP,

I did not say your arguments were bad. Your arguments were more adequately crafted than those of your opponent. But in this case, you didn't win on the strength or merit of your arguments (there were many exploitable weaknesses) you won basically by default due to the inability of your opponent to launch a proper debate. In other words, you won on style or form rather than a vigorous testing of your argument's content.
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
"Che was a coward, a murderer and a thug.

MTGandP did not "win" this debate. Kratos self destructed."
If Kratos self destructed, then I won. And please try to keep your personal opinions out of the debate: just because I argued for the side that you disagree with doesn't mean my arguments were bad.

"Yes MTGandP, i realize this. however, in the essence that i have accepted already that my friend had plagiarized this i must also know that i plagiarized my friend's plagiarism. i would go on, but i have accepted defeat and kicked my friend's butt. you do not need to point out the obvious"
All right, that's fine. I hope you kicked your friend's butt figuratively. XD
Posted by RedShirt 7 years ago
RedShirt
Che was a coward, a murderer and a thug.

MTGandP did not "win" this debate. Kratos self destructed.
Posted by Kratos 7 years ago
Kratos
Yes MTGandP, i realize this. however, in the essence that i have accepted already that my friend had plagiarized this i must also know that i plagiarized my friend's plagiarism. i would go on, but i have accepted defeat and kicked my friend's butt. you do not need to point out the obvious
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Justinisthecrazy 7 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
KratosMTGandPTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Its-you-or-me 7 years ago
Its-you-or-me
KratosMTGandPTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
KratosMTGandPTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Aziar44 7 years ago
Aziar44
KratosMTGandPTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
KratosMTGandPTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Icarus57 7 years ago
Icarus57
KratosMTGandPTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Coremeister13 7 years ago
Coremeister13
KratosMTGandPTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
KratosMTGandPTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07