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

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. Summation: 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. [1] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2] . http://russiapedia.rt.com... [3] . http://dictionary.reference.com...[4] . http://www.schoolsdebate.com...