The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Bearded communists tend to be 'better' than non bearded communists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/2/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,623 times Debate No: 59815
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)




Notify in comments if you want to accept this debate.

For the purpose of this debate better will be defined as doing 'more good' and 'less bad'.My burden of proof is to show that bearded communists (communist leaders with beards) did more good for their people than their non bearded counterparts and did less bad to their people/enemies than them as well.

I will argue that the percent of 'good' bearded communists is more than the percent of 'good' non bearded communists.
Since there are a HUGE number of communists, only national leaders of communist countries or leaders of communist guerillas and revolutionaries will be included in the debate

Beard does NOT include mustache.
For example, Joseph Stalin is a non bearded communist despite his mustache.

Forfeiture = 7 points to other debater
1st round acceptance
No new arguments in round 4
Semantics may not be debated, if you do not understand what is being debated, ask me in comments.

Failiure to adhere to these rules results in loss of conduct (except for the forfeiture which results in loss of 7 points)


Privet Comrade! 
I happily accept this debate on our glorious leaders and hope that by the end of it we shall have a better idea of the role a healthy chin bush plays in bringing honour and happiness to our cause.

In my rounds I will be submitting several leaders for the judges' consideration. All of their faces are cherubic and clear of any underbrush. It will be my contention that this has in no way impeded them in making a significant and most valuable contribution to furthering the cause of Communism.
Along the way I shall also seek to place the achievements of my opponent's submissions into proper perspective whilst not intending to minimise or belittle their efforts in any way.

PRO has already done an excellent job of establishing the terms of our debate, and I am most pleased to acquiesce.
I urge the Judges to thoughtfully consider the total impact these leaders have had on Communism as we see it today. Sipping vodka while reading may help with this.
Also note that we have a gentleman's agreement as to how long the leader needed to sport the flavour-savour before they can be included into his team. Check the comments section if you are in doubt.

I look forwrad to this debate - Udachi!
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for engaing in this debate.
My arguments shall be divided into 2 parts, 1st part will discuss the non bearded communists and the 2nd part will put into attention the bearded communists. (reminder: only national leaders and revolutionary leaders). Con may rebut in this round and add more leaders into the 2 sides as he wishes.

To clarify any confusion, I am NOT arguing that beards make communists better leaders. I am arguing that communists who happened to have beards tended to be better leaders.

Non bearded side:

1) Pol Pot
2) Mao Zedong
3) Joseph Stalin

1) Pol Pot

After Cambodia gained independence from the French, it became a monarchy. The monarchy was a brutal authoritarian regime. Pol Pot fought a guerilla war against them (which was one of the few good things he did). After the US withdrew from Vietnam, "Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge army, consisting of teenage peasant guerrillas, marched into Phnom Penh and on April 17 effectively seized control of Cambodia."[1]

Yes, he employed teenage soldiers. Almost as bad as child soldiers.

He is most famous for his genocide where he targeted any intellectual, anybody with non cambodian ancestry (this includes mixed) paticularly ethnic vietnamese, thai and chinese. The number dead is around 3 million, 25% of Cambodia's population.[2]

To add insult to injury, after he seized power: "All businesses were shuttered, religion banned, education halted, health care eliminated, and parental authority revoked."
Unlike a normal communist leader who usually emphasizes education and health care, he eliminated them. Pol Pot was undisputably terrible.

2) Mao Zedong

Mao Zedong wanted to change china to become a communist industrial powerhouse. He is attributed for 2 main things as leader of China: The Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap forward

1.5 million people lost their lives as a result of the cultural revolution while many millions more were imprisoned, lost property, even tortured.[3]

In a franatic effort to industrialize china, he started what is known as 'The Great Leap Forward', the rapid industrialization came at a cost. Famine plagued China as a result. Mao did not stop however, forcing the farmers to work and overwork despite the fact that they were starving. This ultimately led to 45 million deaths (some sources even place this number at 60 million).

It is described as Pol Pot's genocide multiplied by 20.[4]

Mao Zedong was even worse than Pol Pot, being responsible for more deaths than even Adolf Hitler.

3) Joseph Stalin

Stalin is famous for similar atrocities that Mao committed. In his efforts to create a modernized Soviet Union, he brought great turmoil to Ukrainian peasants. He exported foods to other countries to gain money to build up his industry, but at a great cost. The lack of food resulted in a 'man made famine' very similar to what happened in Mao's China, with abysmal results.

7 million people died during this famine, but that did not deter Stalin. To be fair to him, if he slowed down the modernization efforts, the USSR could have suffered even greater losses in the 2nd World War. However, this was too extreme and surely there must have been SOME alternative.[5]

He is also known for his purges, where he 'took care' of his political opponents, most notable of them is Trotsky (a bearded communist, though the fact that he is bearded is irrelevant). In his eyes, this could even include civilians. 20 million innocent people were sent labor camps, 10 million died. Many officers of the Red army were killed (perhaps this led to USSR being less able to fight Nazi Germany).[6]

Joseph Stalin is most often seen as the worst leader of the Soviet Union, and for good reason.

Bearded side:

1) Ho Chi Minh
2) Fidel Castro
3) Vladimir Lenin

1) Ho Chi Minh

He led the Vietnamese Independence rebellion against the colonial rule of the French and, during WW2, the Japanese. He was obviously loved by his people for leading the Vietnamese to independence.[7]

He is also loved for uniting South and North Vietnam and establishing communist rule. According to US president Eisenhour, 80% of Vietnamese (north and south) wanted a united communist government. Ho Chi Minh provided what the people wanted, and he was not known for committing atrocities.[7]

Ho Chi Minh is a good leader because he fought French (and Japanese) Imperialism, gave freedom and unity to his people.

2) Fidel Castro

Fidel Castro is not as bloodless as Ho Chi Minh, he is known for the famous firing squads where thousands were put to death (the non bearded communists I mentioned killed millions).
However, those that were put to death were supporters of the regime before Castro which was the brutal authoritarian US puppet regime of Fuegencio Batista. So in a way, Fidel Castro was brutal to the bad guys, which is good because there was almost no risk of the hated Batista coming back into power and due justice was served. The people loved him for it.[8]

Fidel Castro led communist rebels into a victory to overthrow Batista, with huge popular support for Castro.
Castro brought about free healthcare, brought literacy rate to a 100% and of course, he 'freed' Cuba from American influence. The only people that had a problem with him were supporters of the Batista regime and the United States.

Castro allowed people to leave Cuba if they wished (which is a freedom that is rare for communist countries) which is why there are a good number of Cubans living abroad[8]

Fidel Castro brought literacy, healthcare, removed a hated puppet regime and gave Cuba a freedom that many communist nations unfortunately did not have, that is the freedom to leave the country if one wishes.

3) Vladimir Lenin

Lenin was the founder of the Soviet Union. Prior to 1917, Russia was ruled by Czars/Tsars (Monarchs).
Russia's devestating defeat in WW1 is largely attributed to the poor leadership of Czar Nicolas II. To make matters worse, Czar Nicolas's rule resulted in soaring inflation and abject poverty of the Russian people. [9]This was the perfect place for a Marxist Revolution which was what happened.

After Lenin seized power, he took land from the former Czar, the church and the nobles and redestributed it to the poor. Lenin gave workers far more rights than what they had under the Czar. The Czar's regime had factories where basic human rights of workers were neglected. Lenin's government changed this and improved worker's job conditions.[10]

Before lenin, Russian working class children were not allowed to go to school but instead were forced to work (child labour). Lenin removed this restriction and provided free education to the masses.
Lenin gave women rights to education and employment which were previously denied.[10]

Vladimir lenin
overthrew a terrible ruler under which the Russian economy collapsed and he reformed the country such that the comman man AND woman had more human rights both at employment and education.

It should be easy to see that the bearded leaders Minh, Castro and Lenin were far better leaders than Pot, Zedong and Stalin all of whom do not have beards. With that, I hand the debate to Con.


[8];(obviously a video, its interesting, do watch this)


Pivet everyone and welcome to this exciting debate in which PRO will attempt to prove that the ratio favouring "Good" communists over "Bad" communists is greater among our bearded comrades than it is among our non-bearded comrades.
It's a shame for me that this list is only allowed to include people in a leadership role, but I shall attempt this anyway.

Before I start, I'd like to declare my personal feelings on the subject of beards specifically and facial hair in general, lest I offend some of my more hirsuit judges.

Like the majority of the world's population, I LOVE beards. Although I'm no Karl Marx, I sport a little foliage myself and with the exception of scaring a few babies, I've had no adverse affects from this. I certainly don't find myself drawn to execute the masses in firing squads because of it. It's therefore my conclusion that while growing hair out of your face does make women love you and men want to be you, it certainly is not enough alone to cause you be a good or bad person. You should probably blame your skinny-as chicken legs for that. Those things will MESS YOU UP.

PRO has opened his round with a predictable trio of dastardly communist leaders, all of which are without beard growth. I'll make quick comment on each of these, although as you'll see, I'm prepared to admit that these all fall into the less than desirable category.

POL POT: Honestly this guy is undefendable. His one redeeming feature is that he successfully fought the French, but really, beating the French in battle? No offense to my Froggy cousins, but it's not exactly hard is it? Get their morning croissants a little damp and they're already halfway to Paris. I have no intention to defending this guy, rather, I'm happy to have him take up the first of my Bad Baldies. Nice one PRO.

MAO: This guy I'm classing as a "Man for the times". Estimates of around 70 million lives is what it cost China to throw off the Japanese and attain solid independance with a strong economic and technological future. This is a high price to pay and nobody is disputing this. That being said, with over 1.3 billion people today[1], it can hardly be said that they couldn't afford it. The cold hard truth is that for a country of peasants to have acheived what they did - it was ALWAYS going to cost them human lives; and to stay the course they were on was going to cost them human lives as well - almost certainly more than 70 million. Today, Mao is still perceived as a hero [2] who had the courage to do what needed to be done FOR the greater good of the people. This is a principle entirely in keeping with communist ideals, so while he may be perceived as having been more "bad" by non-communists, the case is not so for HIS people - which is what this debate is defined as. He's one of our Clean Champions.

STALIN: Ahh Stalin. Look, on the positive side, he can be seen in a similar light to Mao, as a "Man for the times". It is undisputed that in his time Russia needed a firm guiding hand. He wrestled control of that country and did what needed to be done. As a result, Russia survived the War and within 10 years was completely transformed technologically. Within a short space of time they would dominate the space race and become one of the first global Superpowers of the modern age. On the negative side, the way that he acheived this leap forward was, to put it delicately, by being a bit of a douche.
When evaluating whether Stalin makes it into the evil baddies camp or the misguided goodies camp, it might serve us to acknowledge the opinion of one of PRO's bastions of Communist righteousness, Signor Castro who in an interview said,
"I believe Stalin made big mistakes but also showed great wisdom. In my opinion, blaming Stalin for everything that occurred in the Soviet Union would be historical simplism"
He then goes on to say,
"He established unity in the Soviet Union. He consolidated what Lenin had begun: party unity. He gave the international revolutionary movement a new impetus. The USSR's industrialization was one of Stalin's wisest actions, and I believe it was a determining factor in the USSR's capacity to resist." [3]

I'd like to remind you that PRO's own bearded champion said this.
Plus Stalin had the undisputed title of best mustache until Thomas Magnum came along. The Slug has to count for something.
I do not concede that Stalin deserves to be placed in the "Bad" category.

I'll now submit for your review a bevy of Smoothies - all of which have contributed mightily to cause of Communism, despite being hampered by having no muzzle-lashings.

EMMA GOLDMAN: "Emma Goldman was undoubtedly one of the most notable and influential women in modern American history, consistently promoted a wide range of controversial movements and principles including (in addition to those listed above) freedom
of thought and expression, radical education, sexual freedom and birth control, and the eight-hour day." [4]
Emma Goldman was a leader in the Anarch-Communist movement. Her anarchist view of communism favoured the government being completely dissolved, thus handing complete power to the people. It was in that sense even closer to true socialist ideals than Marxism.[5]

EMSN was an Indian Politician and founder of the Communist Party of India, (CPM). During the China-India war of 1962, he was outspoken in his view that peace should be acheived through talks.
"Namboodiripad was elected chief minister of Kerala in 1957. During his tenure he oversaw land reforms, increased salaries for civil servants, and helped attract new private industrial investment to the state. " [6]

"When the men are silent, it is our duty to raise our voices in behalf of our ideals" - Clara Zetkin
Clara Zetkin was an outspoken advocate for Women's rights. She created the first International Women's Day in 1911 - a fact which she is still celebrated for today. Despite being born and raised in Germany, she staunchly opposed both World Wars. A fact which got her exiled by Hitler during the Second World War.
She was the instigator of the "United Front"policy which was adopted by the worldwide communist movement in 1921. This policy called for ALL parties to band together and demand better rights for the working class. [7]
Among her accolades are the Order of Lenin and the Order of the Red Banner. Her mug was also placed onto the German 10 mark note and 20 mark coin. And that wasn't because she was hot.
Because she wasn't.

Debate Round No. 2


Its not like I do not know how to zoom in, but Con's font is too small. I would appreciate if he enlarges it in the next rounds.
*underlined and italicized text are quotes from Con.*

Non Bearded Side (Counter Rebuttal):

Pol Pot:

beating the French in battle?.... it's not exactly hard is it?

My god this actually made me laugh. I ask voters not to take conduct from Con for this. Sorry, its just too funny XD. I have nothing much to rebut because even Con accepts that Pol Pot was terrible.

Mao Zedong:

Estimates of around 70 million lives is what it cost China to throw off the Japanese and attain solid independance with a strong economic and technological future. This is a high price to pay and nobody is disputing this.

Mao Zedong did not Overthrow the Japanese. Though he fought against them, the leader in the war against Japan (for the Chinese side) was Chiang Kai shek who was an enemy of Mao (but they put aside their differences).

That being said, with over 1.3 billion people today, it can hardly be said that they couldn't afford it

So what if there are 1.3 billion people in China today? Just because they can recover from a bad leader's actions, it does not mean that the leader was good.

By Con's logic the holocaust was not bad since Jews recovered and have their own country now.
We cannot discredit atrocities even if there is a recovery.

The cold hard truth is that for a country of peasants to have acheived what they did - it was ALWAYS going to cost them human lives

I disagree. If only Mao would have slowed down the industrialization of China then:

a) He would have spared tens of millions of lives(more manpower for his new economy)

b) China would still be industrialized but instead of happening in 3 years, it would take 10 years. Long term result is the same.

I would also like to remind con of the disastrously high Pollution levels in China caused by the very heavy industrialization starting from Mao's era.

The smog problem in China resembles Nuclear winter.[1][2]
This is not to say industrialization is bad. But the extent of industrialization Mao desired and the trend that continued even through today was really dismal for the environment.

In conclusion, 70 million people died to pollute the earth faster. What a great leader this Mao is! (sarcasm)

Joesph Stalin:

Plus Stalin had the undisputed title of best mustache until Thomas Magnum came along
That is....irrelevant to say the least.

Con main rebuttal was that Stalin was infact a good leader because of his industrialization (similar to Mao). He further consolidates this argument by quoting Fidel Castro in where he says that Stalin made mistakes but portraying him in ONLY a bad light is wrong.

Castro makes a fair point, but he is not saying that Stalin was a great leader. He is only saying good things about Stalin because he wants to give credit where credit is due (atleast that is the mood portrayed by the quotes). Though we should give credit were credit is due we should not forget his atrocites committed.

Perhaps it can be said that without Stalin's radical actions, the USSR would have lost WW2.
I have 3 points here:

1) Mother Russia has her deadly winter with or without Stalin. Attrition casualties for German soldiers is not lessened.

2) Hitler would still be an idiotic commander demanding troops to NEVER retreat (I won't go into details but this is one reason they lost the war)

3) Stalin weakened the red army by purging its officers and hence its leadership and coordination. Not to mention that the 20 million innocent sent to labour camps could have assisted in the war effort (that is a LOT of manpower Stalin threw down the drain)

Looking at the facts, I believe that Stalin made things worse for the USSR in WW2.

So the point still stands, Stalin was the worst leader of the Soviet Union (at the time where USSR needed a good leader the most)

Con's Non bearded side rebuttal:

Emma Goldman:

She was a leader of a movement (not a revolution but meh, its acceptable). But how did she change her country for the better? Was there any positive change in her country that was directly caused or atleast influenced by her?

Elamkulamm Manakkal Sankaran Namboodiripad:

He was a leader of a communist party and he did rule Kerala. I will say that unlike Emma, this guy definitely changed his country for the better (albeit only one small state).

But he only changed one state compared to the leaders I gave which changed their whole country (overthrowing colonialists and dictators) and completely reformed their country.

Sorry Elamkulamm, you are a good guy but the good things you did does not outweigh Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro or Vladimir Lenin.

Clara Zetkin:

She was the instigator of the "United Front"policy which was adopted by the worldwide communist movement in 1921. This policy called for ALL parties to band together and demand better rights for the working class

This leaves me confused. The policy called for ALL parties to band together. Does this mean that every single political party in the world United for better workers rights? Or is it only one specific country? Or only communist parties worldwide? I request Con clarify.

New Non bearded communists:

Kim Jong Un:

This guy needs no introduction.

Con likes debating about leaders and their contribution to communism.
Well, this man has gave communism's reputation such a scar that many people outright hate the ideology now, despite communism being about equality.

His regime is currently the most oppresive, absolutist authoritarian regime in the world. This man has abused communism greatly for his own personal gains.

There are many stories of extreme repression for example, it is against the law to watch south korean tv. One woman was forced to drown her baby for watching a forbidden soap opera (probably south korean tv). 3 generations of family members are sentenced to life imprisonment if you commit 'crimes'.[3][4]

Kim Jong Un is not the only one, there are his predecessors Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il with the same barbaric policies.

These 3 rulers of North Korea ruled it in the name of commnism and spat on its principles. They did bring equality to the masses however, oh yes they did. Abject poverty to everyone (its equal but completely unacceptable).

These 3 are worse than even Stalin in their human rights abuses, not to mention their taking advantage of and degrading communism itself.

No wonder the USSR was not very friendly to them. Only the non bearded Maoist China, supported (and still supports) their terrible regime.



End Note:

Unfortunately it seems many communist leaders did not have beards, I have failed to find any more communist leaders with beards who were leaders. I could include Trotsky and Guevara, but they are not really 'leaders' as I described. However Con may argue against them if he wishes since there are only 3 on the bearded side.

I await Con's response and remind him that this is his last chance to make new arguments and add new leaders to both my side and his, since no new arguments in round 4 as specified by the rules. (also clarify the Emma Goldman thing, elaborate)

sorry if I seemed too provacative. :)


I thank my opponent for his last round. I trust this font size will be more to his liking.

In this round I would like to begin by answering his questions and addressing his rebuttal, before looking at some of the men that he has submitted to represent the Good of the Beardies.

Rebuttal points:
Mao -
I'm sorry, I didn't actually say Mao overthrew the Japanese by himself - although as mentioned, he DID bring his Communist Party fight alongside the Nationalists. The Guerrilla tactics [1] that he employed against the Nationalists proved just as effective against the Japanese. As a general he was undeniably brilliant, defeating not only the Japanese, (alongside the Nationalists) but also the Nationalists and Chiang Kai Shek himself, despite being grossly outnumbered.
The disputed 70 million that my opponent attributes to Mao includes people killed during the struggle for independance and the aftermath of the bitter fighting, both in the Sino-Japanese and the Chinese Civil wars.
I thank PRO for this clarification though.

Also from Mao, there was a point made about China's current population lessening the severity of the significant loss of life mentioned above. Any loss of life is a delicate matter, and I would hate for my comment to be misconstrued as dismissive. Allow me to carify:
70 million people represents over 17 times the CURRENT population of my country, New Zealand.
In 1976, 70 million people represented a little over 7% of the total population. And bear in mind these facts:
1. These deaths were accrued over the space of at least 12 years, not in a single year.
2. The figure of 70 million is a HIGH estimate. Most non-chinese researchers place the figure between 30 and 40 million.
3. Most of these deaths occured due to Famine. Since it can't be said that Mao WANTED his own people to die, it could be argued that China simply could not afford the resources to take care of them. It should be pointed out that this came after 20 years of internal and international war.

Re: the Holocaust comparison - nice try but no. I never said that these deaths were not good. Of course they were tragic, as was the Holocaust. But consider this:
Which is worse - 20 million Jews are killed, the nation never recovers and Jews are extinct today - or 20 million Jews are killed, the nation recovers and today they have their own country?
You see? Neither is "good", both are bad - but one is worse than the other.

Should Mao have gone slower?
Debatable but not relevant to this debate. PRO has not proven that Mao's intention in attacking the industrialisation of China was to commit attrocities. His intention is to use the number of deaths to paint Mao in a certain malicious light. Sorry, but no dice. Pol Pot on the other hand...

Stalin - Stalin's Mustache is more relevant than China's industrialisation! At least it's facial hair!
It's been estimated that Magnum PI's slug was single handedly responsible for NZ's baby boom during the 80's and that it inspired some of the greatest music ever.[2] If I could tie Magnum's slug to Stalin's, it would show undeniable proof that he acomplished tremendous good in the world.

Regarding the rest of PRO's rebuttal - I don't think he read my source material. In it, Castro speaks glowingly about Stalin. I quoted some of it earlier, but you've been so good, here's a little more:

"In my opinion, blaming Stalin for everything that occurred in the Soviet Union would be historical simplism, because no man by himself could have created certain conditions. It would be the same as giving Stalin all the credit for what the USSR once was. That is impossible! I believe that the efforts of millions and millions of heroic people contributed to the USSR's development and to its relevant role in the world in favor of hundreds of millions of people.One of Stalin's - and the team that supported him - greatest merits was the plan to transfer the war industry and main strategic industries to Siberia and deep into Soviet territory."

"I believe Stalin led the USSR well during the war. According to many generals, Zhukov and the most brilliant Soviet generals, Stalin played an important role in defending the USSR and in the war against Nazism. They all recognized it." - Fidel Castro [3]

Again, this is PRO's own hero saying this. Notice that in his mind, he sees the greater good that Stalin acheived.

Emma Goldman:
PRO asked how she changed her country for the better. The source material actually elaborates a lot on that. As with many a political activist she didn't directly cause any significant change in her time, although she has directly helped hundreds and definitely influenced thousands.
The fact that Emma Goldman was not as famous as some of the world leaders that my opponent has submitted shouldn't hurt my case. Emma Goldman was a communist leader. She was not bad, in fact she was good and stood for good things. PRO hasn't brought a single accusation against her. She had no facial hair at all. This debate is about percentages not attrocity totals. Which percent does Emma Goldman fall into?
Based on PRO's criteria, Emma Goldman's single check mark in the "good" column cancels out Pol Pot.
Hey don't blame me, I didn't make the rules!

EMSN: Same argument. PRO concedes that EMSN was a good commie. Percentagewise, that's another check in the "Good" column. If only we'd stipulated that it was compounded totals! Then again, I'd never have agreed to debate that.

Clara Zetkin: PRO again does not dispute her "good" status. She goes into the pile with the rest of them.
In answer to PRO's question - broadly speaking, yes, the "United Front" movement called for all political parties to unite for better conditions for the working class. It was a good thing that helped a lot of people and I'm not wasting my characters explaining it here. If you like, you can read all about it here --> [4]

Normally I'd be introducing a bunch of new cleanies here but instead...

On To the Beardies!

OK - there's been an exciting development here!
In his last round PRO revealed that the three bearded gentlemen that he's nominated are, by his account, the ONLY people that meet the criteria!
I quote:
"Unfortunately it seems many communist leaders did not have beards, I have failed to find any more communist leaders with beards who were leaders" - PRO

Now this basically means that this debate has become a truism. I certainly can't argue that these three upstanding leaders of Communism have anything dodgy going on under their beards - if PRO can't either and can't produce any bad beardies, then why has he even set this debate up?
Bad form! I was planning on winning this debate by showing that for every "bad" beardless commie, there are two "good" ones - it was to be my contention that my pecentage rate was going to be higher than PROs!
Now he has revealed that in fact there were ONLY THREE bearded leaders and all of them were good! Well if he knew that, why set this debate up?

I'm afraid it appears I've been completely niave assuming that the instigator would not stoop to this level, but I accept that it's my fault. I hereby throw myself at the mercy of the judges.

Thank you.

[2] http://www.areyoukiddingme...sourceforthat!Itwasajoke!.com
Debate Round No. 3


Mao Zedong:

We may never know the real number of deaths caused by the great leap forward and the ensuing famine but lets put it at a moderate estimate of 45 million.
Yes, most of those deaths were caused by famine but the problem is that Mao's policies brought about that famine, as I discussed in earlier rounds.

it could be argued that China simply could not afford the resources to take care of them.
China had resources to industrialize its huge country in 3 years but could not feed its people?

it can't be said that Mao WANTED his own people to die,
Of course, he did not WANT them to die. However, when people did die, Mao did not CARE. He continued to allocate resources for rapid industrialization in his so called great leap forward but does not allocate resources to help the poor,
completely opposite to what a communist should have done.

PRO has not proven that Mao's intention in attacking the industrialisation of China was to commit attrocities
Again, he did not want to commit atrocities, but he did. He obviously would have heard of news that people are starving, the gov. officials are overworking them etc. but he still did not stop, he continued.
Its not like the 45 million died at one time. It was an ongoing process and it is inexcusable for a national leader to not know about this and even more so for not caring.

I think I need to clarify why Mao's industrialization made him a bad leader and why that point is relevant:

Mao wanted to turn China into an industrial economic powerhouse which is good. But to do this, he started mass building factories. He wanted the industrialization to be very rapid. To accomplish that, he exported agricultural produce a.k.a food so that he could pay for the factories.

It is not a co incidence that the famine ensued after the mass exporting of food by Mao to pay for his industrialization. The famine killed 10s of millions and Mao did nothing about it, except export more food and build more factories (a very idiotic thing for a leader to do).[1]

Joesph Stalin

According to many generals, Zhukov and the most brilliant Soviet generals, Stalin played an important role in defending the USSR and in the war against Nazism.

If Zhukov did not say that, he would be purged just like other red army generals. Just saying.

I never denied that Stalin did do good things for the USSR, but we must not forget the atrocities he committed as well and the fact that many of those atrocities hindered the USSR in its fight against Nazi Germany.

Like I said earlier as well, Castro is speaking good about Stalin because he is giving credit where credit is due.

Emma Goldman

PRO asked how she changed her country for the better. The source material actually elaborates a lot on that

Con expect me and the readers to check his source for arguments, this is not appropriate.

Based on PRO's criteria, Emma Goldman's single check mark in the "good" column cancels out Pol Pot.

The fact that she helped hundreds of people does not cancel out the millions killed by Pol Pot.

Con uses this statement I made the first round against me: the percent of 'good' bearded communists is more than the percent of 'good' non bearded communists.
Con has resorted to using such tactics, which severly undermine his credibility and the quality of his arguments. I mean really con? This is not semantical arguments but is just as bad.

Elamkulamm Manakkal Sankaran Namboodiripad:

Con makes the same arguments as Emma Goldman, the fact that he is good (even if not as good as Castro or Lenin) is enough, its not about HOW good they are. This again undermines his arguments.

Clara Zetkin:

PRO again does not dispute her "good" status.

I could not have disputed something which I was not clear about

In answer to PRO's question - broadly speaking, yes, the "United Front" movement called for all political parties to unite for better conditions for the working class. It was a good thing that helped a lot of people and I'm not wasting my characters explaining it here. If you like, you can read all about it here --> [4]
Con has not answered my question about the all political parties thing, was it for only that country? was it only for communist parties worldwide? was it EVERY SINGLE policial parties? Define all, because it seems unlikely that she will call for all political parties to unite. That seems more like a utopian goal and an attempt at something impossible.

Again, Con expects me and the readers to go through the source (not to mention that he had plenty of charectar space left, his round was not that large). To make matters worse for Con the link he gave does not work.

If PRO can't either and can't produce any bad beardies, then why has he even set this debate up?...Now he has revealed that in fact there were ONLY THREE bearded leaders and all of them were good

I would like to point out that it is CON's job to find bad bearded communists. Why would I do research on bad bearded communists, when con clearly has not done any research on that?

I did my research on bad non-bearded communists and a great part of my argument was on that. Why does con expect ME to do HIS research?

I even gave him 2 peoplesuch as Trotsky and Guevara, both of whom have beards (but are 2nd in command), he could have argued them but he failed to do so, instead he resorts to complaining about my lack of prior research into HIS arguments.

Con has failed to do his resarch and show that any bearded leaders have committed any atrocities. On top of that he expects ME to do his resarch.

In this round Con's main argument seems to be about percentage of people who were good (but not taking into account how good they are).

If Con really wants to look at percentages then fine, I shall oblige.

Bearded side:

Con has not proven any of them to be bad, and I have fulfilled by BoP of showing that they are all good.
Hence 3 out of 3 are good which means 100 % of bearded communists were good.

Non Bearded side:

PRO has opened his round with a predictable trio of dastardly communist leaders... I'm prepared to admit that these all fall into the less than desirable category.

Seems odd that Con bothered to defend the 3 leaders in previous rounds (Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin) but then says that its all about percentage rather than exactly how good or bad.

But since Con himself says that Stalin, Pot and Mao all fall into the less than desirable category
0 out of 3 non bearded communists are good thus far.

But then you have Emma Goldman and Elamkulam who I am prepared to say are good. That means that 2 out of 5 non bearded communists were good.

Then I bring up Kim Jong il, Kim Jong un and Kim il sung. All 3 of whom are indisputably bad. Con himself failed to argue for them.
That leaves 2 out of 8 non bearded commists being good, this means that 25% of non bearded communists were good.

I missed out Clara Zetkin because con never really convinced me that she was 'good' the same way he did for emma and Elamkulam.
However, Even if we take into account Clara that leaves the non bearded side at 3 out of 9 being good which is a mere 33%

Including Clara or not still leaves the result the same, Bearded communists tend to be better than non bearded communists.

Bearded side = 100%
Non bearded side = 25-33%

100>25 and 100>33

I would like to remind Con that it is against the rules to bring up a new leader in his concluding round.

Con wanted to talk about simple percentage, I did so and on that basis this is a Bearded side victory. I wanted to talk about the quality of exactly how bad and good they were, on that basis this is still a Bearded side victory (because Castro and Ho Chi did far better things than Emma Goldman ever did).

No matter how you want to assess this, Bearded communists are better than non bearded communists. As such, vote for Pro.



I'd like to once again thank my comrade for his latest round. My summation will be short but I would like to just address one or two things my opponent has said.

Points regarding Chairman Mao:
I'm not going to address all of these points as doing so would require me to submit new evidence. This being the final round, my opponent would have no chance to rebut this evidence.
All I'm going to say in regards to Mao is that the criteria PRO specified when he set this debate up, was that the Men and Women be judged to be Good or Bad. In his attack on Mao - especially in this latest round, he is having a hard time separating the Man from the Country. From attrocities committed in his name as opposed to tragedies which happened for a variety of factors.
It's important to note that my opponent concedes that Mao's intention was pure. His desire was to fashion China from an awkward backwater into a stable and strong country. He acheived this desire and his countrymen prospered because of it. His intention was good, his goal was good and he acheived his goal, taking a MINIMUM of 93% of his people with him.
NET benefit.

Points regarding Stalin:
By not rebutting them, my opponent has conceded all my points in Stalin's favour. His only rebuttal to the points made, not merely by me, but by bearded good guy, Fidel Castro, is that they HAD to say Stalin was awesome or they'd have been killed.
Without him submitting any evidence for this opinion, this is complete subjective fabrication. Nevermind that the source material indicates that those Generals said this AFTER Stalin had died, but the Generals' comments were backed up by Castro himself - who had NO reason to fear being purged by Stalin.

Points regarding Goldman and EMNS:
  • I DO expect people to read my source material. That's why I list it. On the other hand, I accept that people might not, which is why I quoted it and listed the relevant points. PRO asked for elaboration, I provided it. In doing so, I mentioned that the information was available from the same source I'd quoted in the second round, in case anyone got enthused and wanted to do some further research. Emma Goldman is pretty famous. I live in NZ, am not really interested in Politics at all and I'VE heard of her. I feel like it was pretty reasonable for me to give the amount of elaboration I gave, especially since I have never heard of even ONE person who has accused her of being "bad"
  • IMPORTANT POINT - (Just in case you missed the bold heading, I'm probably going to repeat this point later, because it's important.)
    PRO seems to be incinuating that MY side has come up with this ranking strategy. We haven't. Check his first round rules. He CLEARLY states that this debate will rank internally the good communists against the bad communists, arrive at a percentage total OF COMMUNISTS*, and then compare the percentages of the Good ones that HAVE beards and the Good ones that DON'T have beards. Whichever total is higher, is the winner.

    *As opposed to Accumulated Impact on their People.

    On these criteria, Pol Pot equals one bad egg. He is cancelled out by Emma Goldman, who was a good egg. That's how tallies work. [1]
    This was not MY idea - this was his. He was very clear on this, and I don't appreciate him trying to blame me for it.

Points regarding Clara Zetkin:
Dear oh dear - poor old Clara Zetkin! Hers was the very first name I thought of when I saw this resolution! She is HUGELY famous - probably the single most influential and well known woman in the history of Communism! And it appears that, despite setting this debate up, my opponent has never heard of her. For heaven's sake, they created a public holiday in her honour! Not just a silly national one, like Independance day or Thanksgiving, but a proper GLOBAL one, like International Women's Day!
I think something that illustrates just how important this lady was is the fact that despite me saying it TWO times, he STILL doesn't appreciate the enormity of her actions. When I say, ALL political parties, I mean "ALL" Political parties. ALL of them. Every single one in every single country. Clara Zetkin was passionate about her cause, rather than her party. She was willing to set aside party differences for the greater good of better conditions for the working class.
You know what happens when you're that good? They give you all sorts of awards and make a holiday for you.
I'd like PRO to think about the people that appear on his money. Judges, think about the people that appear on YOUR money. Excepting people like her Majesty that may appear on EVERY denomination - how many people appear on MORE than one denomination? I'll bet not many. Clara Zetkin does. She was on TWO.
Frankly, it's embarrassing that I've to even write all of this. My opponent lists himself as a Socialist yet he asks for clarification on Clara Zetkin?! Lenin would be rolling in his grave.

After meeting Clara Zetkin in 1920, Lenin said, "We cannot exercise the dictatorship of the proletariat without having millions of women on our side. Nor can we engage in communist construction without them." [2]
I respectfully suggest that PRO might like to expand his knowledge on the subject.

Regarding the final three clean shaven communists:
As I explained, in my last round, I have not even attempted to rebut these guys. In fact without referring to them now, I couldn't even tell you who they were. This is explained in my summation below.

Judges, I feel that I have been somewhat duped in this debate. This is fully my fault for assuming that PRO was attempting to engage in a subject which COULD actually be debated - and I do accept my lumps if you deem them due.

HOWEVER, I urge you to consider the fact that by his own admission PRO, a self-proclaimed Socialist, has confessed that there are actually NO MORE THAN THREE communist leaders, who fit the terms as he's defined them, who are bearded. This matches my own research, and I completely endorse his assessment that those three men are net beneficial.

This makes this debate a Tautology - impossible to win from a CON position. [3]

"Choosing a meaning that does not allow the Opposition room for debate would not be a reasonable definition. Truisms and tautologies leave the Opposition no room for debate and are clearly illegitimate." - Defining Motions and Constructing Debates [4]

Please note that this was not apparent to me upon entering this debate. As previously stated, I'm not especially politically minded and not even a Socialist, I just really like Beards and I get a lot of enjoyment from discussing them.
My opponent IS a Socialist. He also set up this debate.
If the spirit of what he was postulating was that there were more good bearded communists than unbearded ones, then why only include leaders?

I feel that having written a set of terms which made sure that only THREE people were eligible for his side, was bad form. If you agree, then I'd urge you to make this a tied debate. Perhaps then we can debate this resolution fairly.

Despite feeling a little foolish, I do thank my opponent for the rousing debate. It has been a real thrill to revisit some of these great men and women. Regardless of your specific political stance I think we can all agree that collectively, these men and women all had some positive contributions to be made for their respective countries.
Except for Pol Pot - he was just a douche.


Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Theunkown 7 years ago
Irrelevant to the debate, Fidel Castro looks plain awesome. Dat beard though....
Posted by Theunkown 7 years ago
This debate should make the front page.
Posted by Theunkown 7 years ago
NOTE: in my round 2 argument My 8th source URL is now on the video on the top of the round (the video only is relevent to the fidel castro section obviously)
Posted by nzlockie 7 years ago
Haha - disregard. Obviously I worked it out. Go for it, and m1;k6;k2;m5;l0;!
Posted by nzlockie 7 years ago
Oh you know what - I don't think I can do this debate. You must have screened out us newbies. It's saying I'm not ranked high enough to do this.

Posted by Theunkown 7 years ago
"only national leaders of communist countries or leaders of communist guerillas and revolutionaries will be included in the debate"

I never used the word 'I' so the rule applies to both of us.
Posted by nzlockie 7 years ago
Happy with that. To be honest, I'm just looking for any old debate that'll get me my voting rights.

Don't get me wrong, I still plan on beating you, but I just want to get this thing started!
Posted by nzlockie 7 years ago
Oops, quick clarification - when you said, "I only do national leaders ..." did you mean just YOU? Or both of us?
Because that kind of screws an already lopsided debate more towards your side since a lot of them like to copy people like Marx.

I'd like to submit clean shaven commies who may have technically been second or third tier. Risky I know, but when you don't have many to choose from...
Posted by Theunkown 7 years ago
if they had beards (not facial hair, BEARDS ONLY since mustache does not count) for the majority of their rule as national leader or head revolutionary then yes they are on my side. If you look up a leader and the most results show him having a beard, then yes he is on my side. If people think of that leader and imagine his appearance and if a beard is included then yes he is on my side. If campaign get my point
Posted by nzlockie 7 years ago
Sweet. I'm only planning to do a couple anyway and they're both long dead.

One last thing - since hair grows, and hair styles change until people realise how much cooler they look with a beard - did you have a criteria in mind as to how to handle influential communists who may have had no facial hair at one stage? For example Comrade Castro? Maybe we could say, if the evidence shows that they have had facial hair for the majority of the time since they first joined the communist party, then they're on your team?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 7 years ago
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was far less troll-y than I expected. In the end, though, I think that Pro showed the resolution was true. Con's arguments regarding "truism" would have been on firmer ground in R1--pointing it out in later rounds just read like a concession. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.