Fascism is a superior form of rule than theocracy

Our format of debate will be the following:Rnd. 2: Arguments (no rebuttals)Rnd. 3: More Arguments and RebuttalsRnd. 4: Rebuttals onlyRnd. 5: Concluding StatementsI would like to thank the opponent for accepting my debate request, and I hope to have an interesting debate with him.Firstly, before I present my argument, I would like to define several terms in the motion presented today.Superior: Being better thanTheocracy: A form of rule in which the ruler, the state or the regime insists that a divine figure has installed its rule. With this defined, we can clearly negate regimes such as that of Israel, whose laws are only partly based on the Torah. We can also dismiss regimes with a state religion, as a secular state can coexist with a state religion.Fascism: A form of radical ultranationalism in which the state obtains total control of many aspects of life. With this in mind, we may not confuse many authoritarian states; authoritarian states do not have any legitimacy to rule, while a totalitarian fascist state does.For many years, god has been used to justified the existence of the state in many communities. From the Holy Roman Empire to the Ottoman Empire, theocracies have created sprawling economies and strong armies. But as the world got more rational, many questions rose. One of these questions directly attacked the justification for a state of all theocracies: the existence of a divine deity, also known as God.As the rise of Liberal Atheist Philosophy grew, theocracies were starting to fail. With many discoveries, like those of Darwin and Evolution, many people were becoming unsatisfied with the "truths" that religion once deemed to be true. With this also came an unstoppable rise of a new philosophy that was to change the world forever; nationalism.As science grew more intense in study, religion became weaker and weaker. The Liberal Atheist community, supported by science, grew with an unstoppable pace. By the beginning of the 20th century, many philosophers were influenced by liberal athiesm. Radicalism was on the rise; the creation of communism and anarchism, along with it's rise, led to the decline, albeit slight, of conservative culture. Soon, rule by divinity's right was no longer an accepted justification for the state. A new ideology was needed to salvage both the religious right and the modern left from the dustbins of history. And therefore, fascism was born.I would like to divide my arguments into two sections. Section one deals mainly with the faults of theocracy, while section two will move into benefits of fascism.Section One: The Social Contract of Theocratic Government has been in place in doubt, therefore creating more athiestic dissent internally and externally1. Internal Public Dissent from "Obsolete" IdealsWhen a country enacts a form of theocratic rule, they are in the same way enacting a government in which it's justification is based on several things that we have no way of proving mortally. These things highly revolve around God; the existence of God, the powers of God etc etc. As explained, the rise of liberal athiestic philosophy of the 19th and 20th century has led to several things; the doubting of religious authority is one of the unintended (one might say) consequences of the rise of liberal athiestic philosophy. Therefore, when a theocratic government comes to power, one under the system may ask "why is homosexuality wrong?" or "why did God shun the actions of greed"? When these questions go unanswered (or answered in only a religious context), unsatisfaction arises (as this question is answered in an obsolete manner), causing internal dissent. With secularism on the rise, even in theocratic countries, we can then see that internal disruption could be caused by such simple questions.2. External AbhorranceTheocracies are highly devoted to religion; they are fundamentalists in their own ways. Religion, although commonly seen by many as a force advocating for peace and prosperity throughout human culture, has led many "religious followers" to commit atrocities beyond human comprehension. Many theocracies, being highly religious themselves, have turned to support this action. An example of this is the Taliban's endorsement of Al-Qaida during it's regime in Afghanistan. Because of the Taliban's theocratic fundamentalism, Al-Qaida quickly took hold in Afghanistan and this soon led to 9/11 (and the destruction of the regime). Many theocracies do support fundamentalist groups, and therefore receive external hate from many other countries. This therefore leads rightfully to a view that theocracies are violent and rouge in nature; they always need to follow and support their brothers, even the most radical ones. As stated before, religion has now become a weaker justification of every government, since religion has been weakened by athiestic philosophy. Contention Two: The Benefits of Fascism1. Fascism destroys Internal and External DissentThis concept was embraced by the syncretic positions that fascism held; it was neither reactionary nor revolutionary. It was neither communist or capitalist. It was either athiestic or religious; fascism is a segment of that combined into one ideology. The social and political aspects of this are the ones that make the most relevance to us, although the economic aspects cannot be ignored. Fascism is superior to theocracy in the sense that it's social contract is not based upon a deity whose existence is still in question; it's social contract is based highly upon the existence, and the protection, of the people under the fascist state. Internal dissent under fascism is therefore almost limited and contained under one group of people, most notably, communists. Fascist governments usually confine these threats by simply outlawing the parties in question, and arresting key members of that party on the pretext that that member wants to destabilize the state. External abhorrance under fascism is also limited; before World War II, many conservatives and even some socialists saw fascism as either, in the conservative case, a "force built up to stop the rise of communism", or in the socialist case, the "bourgeiosie revolution" (the last step before a proletarian revolution under communist theory). With the two largest threats to the state confined by the inital nature of the fascist government, the fascist government presents a stable government (albeit a totalitarian one). Apart from this, the legitimacy of the fascist government goes unhindered; a fascist government is totalitarian, and a totalitarian government has complete legitimacy whatsoever (if it doesn't have legitimacy, then it is an authoritarian state, and not fascist)2. Fascism presents a modern economic model based on both capitalism and socialismThe Fascist Corporatist model is a model based on both capitalism and socialism; it is a corporatist model in which class interests are casted away in the sense that the national interest is put on key. Although religious macroeconomic models, such that those of Islam and Christianity, have proven to be successful, their economic systems have been outdated by the forces of capitalism that we are now presented with today. For example, modern economics have resulted in many Islamic banks (based on Islamic finance) losing profits. Zakat is also proven unneeded in a fascist state, as welfare programs under a fascist state would be huge; Zakat has become a widely obsolete part of the Islamic Finance system (as it is collected voluntarily, so evasion is easy. However, taxes aren't optional). Fascism is superior in the economic sense that it has the ability to destroy inflation in virtually 3 years by introducing Keynesian-based policies, and these policies can change to adapt with the period; for example, the economic policy of Francoist Spain before WWII and after were highly different because of changing times. However, theocracies can't change their economic policy, as it is fixed upon religion (unless that theocracy wants to change the religion itself)It is because of the theocratic states create internal and externa dissent, while fascist states don't and have a superior economic model, is why fascism is superior to theocracy. Citations:http://en.wikipedia.org...http://bev.berkeley.edu...