Bring it.

Summary- Pro is expected to prove every leader is a tyrant, even though he denies this in R2.- Pro implicitly agrees with me on what a tyrant is.- Pro agrees with me that there are leaders who are not tyrants.- Pro agrees with me that there are political leaders who are not tyrants.- There are religious leaders who are not tyrants.DetailPro is evidently bitter toward politicians and religious leaders. So he decided to start a debate to express his feelings. Did he make any kind of effort to write a topic that indicates what the debate is about, or an R1 post that clearly lays out what he is trying to prove or what he expects his opponent to argue? No. He chose "Bring it." as his topic and said literally nothing in R1 other than that all leadership is tyranny. Not all political and religous leadership. Just "leadership".It is Pro's responsibility to define, clearly, what the debate is about before the debate begins. Therefore, his R1 post should be taken at face value. It should be assumed that he wins only if he convinces the voter that indeed every leader is a tyrant. If he may redefine the debate in R2, then that defeats the purpose of even having a topic and an R1. If everyone could get away with that, then what would be the point in debating?Now, if "leadership" truly means "leadership" and not "politics and religion", then what is tyranny? I define it in R1. Pro in R2 indirectly refers to this definition with the non sequitur phrase "not Plato and Aristotle's definitions". But he offers no different definition. If he really disagreed with me and cared to prove his point, then he would have offered one. Therefore, we can assume he agrees with me on what a tyrant is.So, is every leader a tyrant?Clearly not. I say in R1 that a parent is a leader over a family. There are parents who are not tyrants. Pro does not contradict either of these statements (and therefore agrees with both). That counterexample disproves his position.Furthermore, not every political leader is a tyrant. I say in R1 that a US congressman is a leader. I also prove congressmen are not tyrants. Pro does not contradict either of these statements (and therefore agrees with both). That counterexample disproves his position.I am honestly having a hard time understanding the grammar of Pro's second paragraph in R2. But wooing allies and competing against adversaries is hardy "tyranny". There is no rule without law. There are neither extreme nor cruel tactics. Furthermore, the very fact that they must compete against each other proves they have no capability to become tyrants. You know what they compete for? Votes. From the citizens. This competition forces politicians to act in the citizens' interest, because citizens would not vote for someone who completely disregarded them. Sure, politicians have a selfish motive to preserve their career. But if they truly only acted in their own interests, then their careers would end very soon.Furthermore, not every religious leader is a tyrant.There are religious leaders who do not rule at all. When you organize a couples' retreat for your church, you are certainly taking a leadership role, but you have no authority over the people attending. They may leave at any time.There are religious leaders who rule (stretching the definition of "rule") by law. The Presbyterian Church of America has the Book of Church Order (BCO) [1] which outlines, in great detail, their form of church government and their disciplinary rules. They have several levels of leadership. At every level, a leader is expected to follow the BCO or else be removed from church office.These are three general counterexamples to Pro's claim.You know who is a tyrant? Joseph Stalin. Pol Pot. Kim Jong-Il. Mao Zedong. If "tyrant" can refer both to these people and to US congressmen, then it is a useless term because it conveys no information.[1] http://www.pcaac.org...