The Instigator
DanT
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
KuriouserNKuriouser
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

Obama is a Fascist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 7 votes the winner is...
KuriouserNKuriouser
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/23/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,013 times Debate No: 25789
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (87)
Votes (7)

 

DanT

Pro

Rules;

1.) round 1 is acceptance only and for clarification of terms.
2.) No ad hominem attacks
3.) No citing wiki
KuriouserNKuriouser

Con


I thank my opponent for beginning this debate and look forward to his arguments.


Clarification of terms:


Obama: Barack Obama, the current President of the United States


Fascist: An advocate or adherent of fascism.


fascism: A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism (1).


Dictator: An absolute ruler (2).


(1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...


(2) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...



Debate Round No. 1
DanT

Pro

Clarification of terms:

Fascism: I disagree with this definition. Fascism is a collectivist political doctrine advocating strength through unity, the centralization of society and government, and the categorization of groups within society. (If you dispute this, than the definition of fascism would be decided over the course of the debate.)

Dictatorship: a government or country in which total power is held by a single dictator or a small group of dictators. (1)

Arguement:

1.)Origins of Fascism

The term fascist was first used by the Fasci Siciliani dei Lavoratori (the Sicilian Workers Leagues). The Sicilian Leagues were unionized workers, associated with the Italian Socialist Party. A fascio was a term used to refer to Italian guilds or unions. The first fascio was established by Giuseppe De Felice Giuffrida, who was among those latter expelled from the socialist party in 1912 for supporting the invasion of Libya. 2 years later Mussolini was also expelled from the Socialist Party for advocating Italy’s involvement in WWI (2)

2.)The Fascist Manifesto

In 1915 members of fascios started calling themselves fascists, and in 1919 a group of national syndicalists published the fascist manifesto. The manifesto called for workers’ rights, a heavily progressive tax, and the nationalization of factories, the confiscation of war profits, centralized planning, and the abolition of the senate. When the German national socialists released their 25 point plan in 1920, they included similar themes. A key element of the fascist doctrine is strength through unity, and collectivist principles. (3)





3.)
Clinton endorsed Obama by describing him as a Fascist at the 2012 DNC

At the 2012 Democratic Convention, Bill Clinton was asked to endorse Obama. When Clinton gave his speech he said “We Democrats, we think the country works better with… business and Government actually working together, to promote growth, and broadly shared prosperity. You see, we believe that we are all in this together is a far better philosophy”.

Clinton also said that Obama “believes we can build a new American… economy, driven by… cooperation,” and that Obama “has laid the foundations for a new modern successful economy, of shared prosperity.” Clinton said “President Obama’s approach embodies the values, the ideas, and the direction America has to take to build a 21st century version of the American dream; a nation of shared opportunities, shared responsibility, shared prosperity, a shared sense of community”

Clinton was describing Fascism in his speech at the Democratic National Convention.

4.)The American Nazi Party Endorsed Obama in 2008

Rocky Suhayda, the leader of the Nazi party said, "White people are faced with either a negro or a total nutter who happens to have a pale face, personally, I"d prefer the negro. National Socialists are not mindless haters. Here, I see a white man, who is almost dead, who declares he wants to fight endless wars around the globe to make the world safe for Judeo-capitalist exploitation...basically a continuation of the last eight years of Emperor Bush. Then, we have a black man, who loves his own kind, belongs to a Black-Nationalist religion, is married to a black women when usually negroes who have ‘made it’ immediately land a white spouse as a kind of prize that’s the kind of negro that I can respect." (4)



1.) http://oxforddictionaries.com...

2.) http://books.google.com...

3.) http://ebookbrowse.com...

4.)http://www.jewishjournal.com...

KuriouserNKuriouser

Con


Thank you to my opponent for his arguments in this debate.


Self-concocted definitions, Origins of Fascism &The Fascist Manifesto


Pro stated that R1 was the place for clarification of terms. I defined them at the time he himself appropriated, using an orthodox and objective source. According to custom, which says definition goes to the one who defines it first and his own stipulation, the terms were defined in R1. Pro gave no reason at all for disagreeing with these objective terms, yet attempts to create his own subjective version after the fact in R2. I do not accept his definitions.


If that wasn't sufficient (I think it is, but it's for the reader to decide) Pro's definition of fascism is vague, does not list the most crucial qualities that differentiate fascism from other political forms (see my definition) and distorts various terms in such a way that the term can be used in place of qualities that are not actually characteristic of fascism. He essentially argues that his made-up definition is superior to that of a reliable dictionary.


According to Pro's definition, Abraham Lincoln was a fascist for holding the Union together during the Civil War ("advocating strength through unity"), prohibiting the authority of states to secede (centralization of society and government) and operating as a member of a political party (categorization of groups within society). The founding fathers were all fascist for coming together as one voice to write the Declaration of Independence from the British ("advocating strength through unity"), dissolving the Confederation of states and forming the federal Republic via the Constitution (centralization of society and government), and forming political parties (categorization of groups within society). My opponent's made-up definition obviously leads to an absurd conclusion and is not sufficient. We'll stick with the objective definition I gave in the first place.


Besides making up his own definition Pro attempts to paint a distorted picture of what fascism is through historical origins and original manifestos. Throughout his brief picture he exaggerates specific characteristics that are not primary characteristics of fascism, but can be found in tandem with fascist regimes in history that also held other principles not characteristic of fascism per se, but of other political forms it may have been mixed with in that specific example. Again, this is why we can not make up our own definition and then look for specific cases that might happen to fit that definition. This is an abuse of what an objective definition is intended for.


For example, I can define Mormonism simply as "a religion that encourages racism and polygamy", go back to the original forms and texts of Mormonism and demonstrate that Mormonism fit this description, but this does not mean that such traits are sufficient criteria to define the religion or that they are even the primary traits. Mormonism does not, in fact, condone these practices anymore. This is analogous to Pro's attempt to create his own definition, interpret history and paraphrase manifestos in terms that he finds useful to his own ends to support his own definition.


Clinton's endorsement of Obama.


All my opponent cites here is the same kind of language that has been used by most any public figure when trying to rally the people to support a particular idea or goal. "We're all in this together", "business and Government actually working together". I honestly don't see how Pro makes any connection to anything resembling fascism. Business and government working in tandem with each other to promote national interest is not fascist, it's good economics. Should we have them work against each other to avoid being fascist? You could find any of the western leaders (i.e. Churchill) placing even more emphasis on this notion of standing together when making speeches to rally the people behind the effort to fight fascism in Europe during WWII. I don't really see anything to argue against here. I'm sure the reader will see this claim to be just as absurd as I do.


"The American Nazi Party Endorsed Obama in 2008"


First of all, the interview that was done with Mr. Suhayda was a personal interview of him expressing his personal beliefs, not an official endorsement by the ANP.


The chairman of the party personally endorsed Obama in 2008 and Pro claims this as evidence that Obama is fascist. However, Tom Metzger, former grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan endorsed him as well. Does this present as evidence that Obama is racist against blacks or advocates or adheres to Klan ideology? Of course not, and neither does the endorsement cited by Pro suggest evidence that Obama is a fascist.


The rest of Mr. Suhayda's quote in the original interview my opponent cited through a secondary source continued as follows:


"Any time that a prominent person embraces their racial heritage in a positive manner, it’s good for all racially minded folks. Besides, America cares nothing for the interests of the white American worker, while having a love affair with just about every non-white on planet Earth. It’d be poetic justice to have a non-white as titular chief over this decaying modern Sodom and Gomorrah (1)."


As the reader will see the only principles this chairman mentions in his reason for endorsing Obama are his own racist principles. He never mentions any principles of structure of government, distribution of power, or class relations. There is only a focus on racism and attitudes towards race and fails to make any similarities between the policies of Obama and those of his Nazi party, and certainly not fascism.


Summary


I have argued that, according to custom and Pro's own specifications my definitions from a reliable source should be accepted. I also showed why Pro's concocted definition is vague and leads to absurd conclusions. All of Pro's arguments were reliant on this fabricated definition of fascism, and so, completely fail to support his resolution. Regardless of this, I was still able to thoroughly refute any value his arguments may have had.


I thank my opponent for engaging with me in this discussion and look forward to his concluding remarks.


(1) http://www.esquire.com...



Debate Round No. 2
DanT

Pro

Definitions & Origins of Fascism

I said round 1 was only for acceptance and clarification of terms, I did not say clarification of terms was limited to round one, only that no arguments were to be presented in round 1. Every debate I ever participated in definitions had to be agreed upon, so I don’t understand where con got the idea of 1st come first serve.

Con claims my definition is made up. It is nothing of the short. Fascism is the belief in organizing society into interest groups known as “syndicates” or “corporations”, which is unrelated to business corporations, other than a common etymology. A major aspect of corporatism/syndicalism is collective bargaining, and the promotion of social justice. (1)(2)

Mussolini said, “Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power.” (3)

Corporatism is neither Capitalism nor Marxism combining aspects of both to achieve to create a “third way”. Corporatism aims to achieve de facto nationalization without achieving de jure nationalization. (1)(2)

Fascists/corporatists believe in allowing private ownership, but believe in controlling how property is used. Mussolini described fascism as “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”

A typical aspect of Corporatist regimes is large government projects that are “too large to be funded by private enterprise”. (1)(2)

An example of fascism is the German labour front. The German labour front was a national union designed to help workers, and to give the state a means to control and direct industries. It was through the German Labour Front that the Nazis built the Autobahn (4)

The New Deal was influenced by Italian corporatism, and was the basis of programs such as the TVA, and the recovery act. (1)

Abraham Lincoln was a Fascist. Abraham Lincoln was a nationalist, who believed in national republicanism. Lincoln advocated the creation of a unitary state. Lincoln’s political affiliation is not the topic of this debate.

Con claims that the declaration of independence is fascist. It’s nothing of the short. The declaration of independence is individualist. The declaration of independence does not advocate strength through unity, it advocates secession. Con contradicted himself, first claiming that opposing secession was fascist, than claiming advocating secession was fascist. The declaration of independence also promotes individual liberty, over the collective good.

Con also claims that a federation is fascist; this is false. In a federation the member states and union state shares sovereignty. For it to be fascist, the constitution would have to establish a unitary state. Under the US constitution the State governments have more powers than the federal government.

21st century fascism

Con claims that 21st century fascism is not the same as 20th century fascism. To back up this outrageous claim he says that 21st Mormonism is not the same as 19th century Mormonism, because they “don’t condone [polygamy] anymore”. In actuality they still do condone polygamy, and they still follow the book of Mormon. I urge con to watch sister wives on TLC.

Clinton's endorsement of Obama.

Con didn’t refute Clinton’s endorsement of Obama. He simply said it was normal political rhetoric. According to the agreed definition of a fascist, a fascist is someone who advocates or adheres to the principles of fascism.

Business and Government actually working together to promote broadly shared prosperity

Take for example Obamacare. Although Obamacare is not de jure nationalization, it is de facto nationalization. It requires that every citizen purchase health insurance, and grants the federal government the authority to regulate how insurance companies should conduct business. Obamacare organizes hospitals and individual medical practices into Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs). ACOs are fascist corporations, designed to help government organize and coordinate the private sector for the collective good. (5)(6)

Shared opportunities, shared responsibility, shared prosperity, a shared sense of community

In 1995 Obama said in an interview, “We, collectively, can decide on our fate, that things like technological change, things like mass media, things like the market are all subject to our control, that we can make decisions for better or for worse and continue to move forward and progress.”

Collectivists advocate collective decision making. They believe if that what is good for the aggregated community is best, rather than what is good for the general community.

(adj) corporate, collective (done by or characteristic of individuals acting together)(7)

(adj) collective (forming a whole or aggregate) (7)


The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is a collectivist policy, where the state promotes growth in selected industries at the expense of the individuals within the community. Stimulus spending is collectivist in that it puts the aggregated good above the general good. (8)

Another collectivist policy is protectionism. Protectionism is a form of economic nationalism which imposes economic policies designed to promote the national economy over the international and regional economies. Obama has backed protectionism on tire imports from china, which would not only harm the global economy, but also regional economies that depend on those imports.

Other than economic collectivism, Obama has also supported social collectivism. The national security measures passed by the Bush administration have been expanded by the Obama administration, and now they now apply to US citizens. Obama has unconstitutionally authorized the assassination of US citizens abroad, by unconstitutionally declaring them traitors. He has also reversed the 1878 ban on using the military for domestic issues. (9)

The American Nazi Party Endorsed Obama in 2008

Con claims that an endorsement by the chairman of a party does not reflect the ideals of the party. Adolf Hitler was the chairman of the Nazi party in Germany, and Mussolini was the chairman of the fascist party in Italy. It is safe to say that endorsement by the chairman/fuhrer of a fascist party is tantamount to endorsement by the party.

Ku Klux Klan endorsed Obama

Con claims that the KKK endorsed Obama, and therefore an endorsement is not a sign of similar ideology. The fact of the matter is the KKK endorsed Obama because the KKK tends to vote democrat. It might not be reflective of Obama’s personal beliefs, but it is reflective of their shared political beliefs. The longest sitting Democratic Senator (Robert Byrd) was a KKK leader, who filibustered the civil rights act.

In addition to this, good ol' boys tend to be more sexist than racist. The KKK would rather have a black man as president than a white woman. If Hillary was a guy, the KKK would have endorsed Hillary over Obama.

Summary
Fascism is the collectivist doctrine advocating strength through unity, the centralization of society and government, and the categoration of groups within society. Obama has advocated the aggregated good over the general good. Obama is a corpratist who believes in de facto nationalization without de jure nationalization. Obama believes in promoting national security over individual liberty.

1.) http://www.sjsu.edu...

2.) http://www.princeton.edu...

3.) http://www.brainyquote.com...

4.) http://www.feldgrau.com...

5.) http://seekingalpha.com...

6.) http://www.healthcare.gov...

7.) http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

8.) http://www.recovery.gov...

9.) http://www.allgov.com...

KuriouserNKuriouser

Con

"To avoid an opponent using semantics on you, it is important to define your terms before the debate. The general debate custom is that whoever defines the terms first…"

http://www.debate.org...

In R2 my opponent made up his own definition of fascism without any reference using only a few loosely defined traits such as collectivism, unity and centralization that can be associated with Fascism. We must keep in mind, however, that in order for it to be said that something fits a particular term the necessary and sufficient characteristics must be met. We can then use these to determine whether something can be labeled by that term.

In R2 I used the example of defining Mormonism to illustrate this point, but my opponent misunderstood my argument and I can see this was my fault for being unclear. I was not arguing that a definition such as Mormonism or Fascism can change. I was and am arguing that if we select only a few characteristics of a term, even if they are necessary conditions of the term, we have not necessarily constructed a sufficient definition. Let's pretend that polygamy is still encouraged in the church (Contrary to Pro's claim it hasn't been since 1890: http://tinyurl.com...). As I said, we could define Mormonism as "a religion that allows polygamy." We could then, as Pro has done with his definition of fascism, demonstrate that polygamy is indeed encouraged by the Church and may be a necessary condition for a religion to be considered Mormonism. Defining Mormonism in this way, however, is insufficient for determining whether a religion is indeed Mormonism. There are many other religions that encourage polygamy, but they are not Mormon.

The failure of this definition, and of Pro's definition of fascism, is that they do not give sufficient definition to the terms so that we can differentiate those other systems that may share certain qualities with Mormonism (or fascism), but are also different in crucial respects. It is these crucial differences that Pro has failed to capture in the definition he made up without using an objective source. This would be very convenient for him, for it would eliminate most of his burden of proof in showing that Obama is a fascist. He simply created a definition that doesn't contain all the ways in which Obama is not a fascist. This is also completely false and I will now, largely using Pro's own sources, justify the dictionary definition of the term I established in R1, to which my opponent has never given a single reason for rejecting.

Most of Pro's argument is that Obama is Corporatist. Let's assume it's true for argument sake. Let's also assume that it is a necessary condition of Fascism. According to his quote from Mussolini, equating Corporatism with Fascism, one might think that this is also sufficient for one to be a Fascist. However, in the very same manifesto that Pro takes this quote from Mussolini also states:

"Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people." http://tinyurl.com...

Pro himself quotes Mussolini in the same manifesto: “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” This is totalitarianism!

In the beginning of R3, Pro attempts to support his definition of Fascism with a source this time: "Fascism is the belief in organizing society into interest groups..."

What he says is actually a gross misrepresentation of the passage from his source. Pro's source describes how Corporatism fits the above description, not fascism. What it actually says about Fascism is:

"In the above table (of Corporatist regimes from history) several of the regimes were brutal, totalitarian dictatorships, usually labeled fascist, but not all the regimes that had a corporatist foundation were fascist. In particular, the Roosevelt New Deal despite its many faults could not be described as fascist. But definitely the New Deal was corporatist."

http://tinyurl.com...

Pro's own source identifies Fascism with brutal, totalitarian dictatorships. His source confirms the dictionary definition that I used in R1. Also from Pro's own source, we can see that even if he can show that Obama is a Corporatist it does not mean that he is a Fascist.

Also according to Pro's own source: "Although Corporatism is not a familiar concept to the general public, most of the economies of the world are corporatist in nature."

Merriam-Webster offers the same definition as the source that I offered in R1: http://tinyurl.com...

Rebuttals

Many of Pro's rebuttals of my arguments fail to identify argumentum ad absurdum, or are straw man fallacies, distorting my arguments and arguing against something other than what I wrote so I will extend those arguments rather than waste space repeating them to clarify these distortions. My arguments above will be sufficient to show Pro fails his BOP.

According to Pro's definition and arguments regarding Obama, the Constitution may be Fascist. Let's look at the preamble:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. http://tinyurl.com...

Just here, we see the qualities of Pro's definition exhibited. I don't think such language is Fascist, but according to Pro's definition and analysis of Clinton's speech they could be considered so, and this I point out is absurd and so the definition obviously fails to define the term. Pro, of course, will point out as he did in R3 that there are other factors to consider that rule out the Constitution being Fascist. I agree, and that is exactly my point with his arguments about Obama.

Nazi endorsement

Pro drops my argument demonstrating that Sahayda's only reason for endorsing Obama was due to his own beliefs on racism. His reason is that America deserves to have a black president as "poetic justice" for our concern for minority groups in this country. There is no mention of any shared ideology at all, let alone Fascism.

Conclusion

Pro attempts to equate a few, mild qualities with Fascism. The reason Pro fails is that he fails to demonstrate many characteristics that are central to Fascism and without which someone can not be said to be Fascist. Pro ignores these. Pro failed to show that President Obama advocates a totalitarian regime, suppresses oppositional parties, or enforces censorship. He has not argued for dictatorial powers, such as the dissolution of Congress or the Supreme Court. Some of his advocated policies have admittedly been struck down by the Supreme Court. When this took place there was no coup or advocating of dissolution of that branch, rather the Obama Administration followed the due course of law and submitted to the checks and balances that limited his authority guaranteed by the Constitution.

Although there has been an increase in economic controls the US is still rated in the top ten most economically free countries of the world, no where close to being considered "stringent" http://tinyurl.com...

Mere collectivism is not sufficient for a Fascist definition; the description is "belligerent nationalism and racism." Pro has utterly failed to demonstrate this and Obama's immigration policies, to give one example, contradict such a claim.

Pro fails to meet his BOP. According to his own sources he mistakenly equates Corporatism with Fascism and they actually support the objective definition I provided that includes totalitarian dictatorship, and has failed to show that President Obama fits into this category. There may be some similarities between Fascism and Obama, but these similarities are insufficient for such a label and the attempt to do so is a clear abuse of the word.

Thanks to Pro & Reader

Debate Round No. 3
87 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DanT 4 years ago
DanT
You don't have to respond to my comments.

When people put words in my mouth, or claim I didn't say something I did say; yeah I'm gonna comment. When people take my words out of context; yeah I'm gonna comment. When people claim the resolution, definition of words in the resolution, and BOP of the resolution is irrelevant, yeah I'm gonna comment.
Posted by KuriouserNKuriouser 4 years ago
KuriouserNKuriouser
Oh, and DeFool's original RFD is in the beginning of the comment section, where he gives a better explanation. He added the explanation into his voting window later because people didn't see his RFD in the comments. Cheers.
Posted by KuriouserNKuriouser 4 years ago
KuriouserNKuriouser
Quit whining like a sore loser, DanT. If you do the math, you'll see you would have lost even if DeFool hadn't voted at all, let alone if he gave me only points for argument. You are a real pain in the a$$ to debate due to your horrible sportsmanship in the comments section. I hope I never have to go through the ordeal of debating you and listening to your endless whining ever again. Peace out.
Posted by DanT 4 years ago
DanT
Once again, defeated by vote bombers.

And DeFool did vote bomb. Look at his justification. It's an obvious vote bomb. He gave no explanation to his vote bomb; he simply just repeated the category that he was voting on, he didn't explain why he voted the way he did in those categories.
Posted by KuriouserNKuriouser 4 years ago
KuriouserNKuriouser
DanT, awarding all seven points is not necessarily votebombing, if the voter can justify his/her decision in an RFD, which DeFool did in the comments. From the DDO website:

"-votebombing: Is a practice on DDO where a member puts all of his votes towards one member either because he agrees with that member or because he wants that member to win. Never, ever votebomb, and if you feel it is necessary to put all 7 votes towards one member, make sure to leave a Reason For Decision (RFD) that explains your reasoning."
http://debate.org...
Posted by DanT 4 years ago
DanT
TrasguTravieso , awarding Con all 7 points is vote bombing
Posted by DanT 4 years ago
DanT
Mormonism isn't political
Posted by proglib 4 years ago
proglib
Mormonism isn't collectivist? Romney is a Mormon.
Posted by DanT 4 years ago
DanT
Romney wasn't fascist, because he is individualist. Romney is against the collectivist centralization of government. Romney is conservative, not nationalist. Many republicans are nationalist, but Romney was not.
The 4 main ideologies are;
Fascism (collectivist)
Libertarianism (individualist)
Conservativism (right-traditionalist)
Progressivism (left-reformist)

They can be split into 8 sub-ideologies;
Nationalist (right wing fascism)
Socialism (left wing fascism)
Anarchism (left wing libertarianism)
Classic-Liberalism (right wing libertarianism)
Traditional-Conservative (collectivist conservative)
Liberal-Conservative (individualist conservative)
Populism (collectivist progressivism)
Social-Liberalism (individual progressivism)
Posted by proglib 4 years ago
proglib
Posted by DanT 2 hours ago
"The American Nazi party is fascist. The ANP is white-Nationalist, and therefore Fascist. The KKK is also fascist, as they promote white nationalism. The New Black Panther Party is fascist because it promotes black nationalism.

"Fascism is not necessarily racist, or immoral. Lincoln was a fascist, because he was a nationalist. Hamilton and the short lived Federalist Party was also fascists, which is why ex-Tories were usually federalists."

George W. Bush?
Mitt Romney?
Republican Party?
Mormon Church?

I.e., how discriminating is your definition of facism? smile:)
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago
TrasguTravieso
DanTKuriouserNKuriouserTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: DeFool was not vote bombing. Once Microsuck changes his vote I will award Con Arguments and Pro sources
Vote Placed by proglib 4 years ago
proglib
DanTKuriouserNKuriouserTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Damn, an "Obama is a fascist" debate with at least one seriously smart debater. Can't wait to read and vote! ... Damn. I think Pro won this debate, LOL. I still agree with Con, but IMHO he got caught up in semantics, rather than respond to Pro's arguments. Obama is no more a fascist than 99.9% of U.S. politicians, however, he is as much of a fascist as Lincoln or Romney.:p
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
DanTKuriouserNKuriouserTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: see comment
Vote Placed by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
DanTKuriouserNKuriouserTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Dan T was able to prove that Obama exhibits some of the facets of fascism. Dan T also used more sources.
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
DanTKuriouserNKuriouserTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: On all measures, Kuriouser has destroyed every argument put forward by Dan. Agree before: Kuriouser After: Kuriouser Conduct: Kuriouser who was not using abusive argumentation Grammar: Kuriouser, who was not unclear as to definitions Arguments: I was convinced by Kuriouser Sourcing: Kuriouser Website credibility: low. At least as low as the credibility of DanT argument
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
DanTKuriouserNKuriouserTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This was really just a matter of semantics. Ultimately, though, DanT very weakly correlated true "fascism," by its popular definition, with Obama's administration. DanT cherry-picks aspects of the definition that best characterize Obama's regime. Then, he vaguely contextualizes these small facets of the definition to make them seem more germane than they are. When we look at the clear-cut definition of "fascism," however, we see through it all.
Vote Placed by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
DanTKuriouserNKuriouserTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Coutner bomb deFool