Thatcherism is a force for good

Defense: Overall view of ThatcherismPro began to criticize my point on the milk snatcher by claiming that she hold a ministerial position. So? Point being is whether it acts a force for good or acts a detriment to society. I have proved in each instances in the debate that She did this out of election pledges and she was willing to sacrifice children for the sake of it. This shows that Thatcherism isn't a platform with economic reasons. It is more or less affiliated with Pure Ideology, using evidence to justify the premise instead of using the evidence at hand to conclude what was right. Moreover, Pro asserted that people would stop wasting money on milk no one would ever drank. The mentality of this argument however, is that it is too simplistic and it serves as an attempt at generalizing that every child no longer need milk without considering various economic backgrounds of children. Pro's argument came with no evidence, no consideration of various types of school such as Grammar School, Westminster, Faith Schools whatsoever. Pro makes way too much assumptions and argue things of which are irrelevant to the debate. Next, Pro criticize on the failures of socialism in order to reconcile with Thatcherism. Pro is trying to shift the goal post by saying on the premise that 1. Socialism Fails2. Therefore Thatcherism is soundHow is this conclusion valid when in the first place, it involves an entirely different ideology. Both policies are different but what we are dealing here is on Thactcherism, not socialism. Pro's argument is irrelevant at hand. Furthermore, Pro's argument on homeless is unbelievable. Pro attacks the credibility of homeless, using personal attacks that they were actually 'mentally retarded'. I am shocked by his concession. Just look at his exact quote"In addition to this, I'd like it if you would listen to the video on the homeless you linked carefully. Mrs. Thatcher said that SOME of the homeless were 'mentally retarded' because they WERE"We have already passed Post World War period of which anti-semitism and Facsism are a thing of the past and here you came with an absurd claim similar to how Hitler deported and sterilized Gypsies because they were inferior and 'retarded' just like your argument. Your argument is full of fallacies. Your second point on attacking source credibility is a concession. Inequality is a huge issue, are you telling me that Inequality is irrelevant? the distribution of chances of success are not based on merit but on status? This Classism nonsense is absurd. Inequality raised in the UK is greater than any other OECD country(5. . http://uk.reuters.com...). Pro's argument is guilty of classism, ignoring inequalities in a feeble attempt to prove that Thatcherism is a force for good. I will not delve in such class discrimination. Success should be dependent on efforts, not on 'which class you came from'. In addition to that, Thatcher's policy resembles similar to what Monetarists advocate, controlling inflation at any cost. However the policy that Thatcher advocated weighs more cons than pros. One evidence was when Thatcher proposed the Poll Tax which involves lower classes to pay more than the rich in terms of their income(6. . http://en.wikipedia.org...). A clear evidence of discrimination. This ran polar opposites to socialists, the socialists favour the working class while the thatcherites favour the rich class, neither of which proves that thatcherism is a force for good. There is clear discrimination of which my opponent ignores here. What perhaps strikes me the most is when Pro claimed that the homeless is mentally retarded because they were, and the claim that inequality is irrelevant when it clearly suggest otherwise. My opponent brings no such evidence with only his subjective merit to be taken into account. His argument involves too much generalisations with poor reasoning. The ideology isn't a force for good neither is it a platform with sound economic reasons. The resolution is negated.