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

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" - PRONow 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. [1] . http://www.marxists.org...[2] . http://www.areyoukiddingme...sourceforthat!Itwasajoke!.com [3] . http://www.marxists.org...;[4] . http://www.socialistvoice.ca...;