Leon Trotsky would've done more good than harm had he succeeded Lenin.

Much of my refutations towards my opponent"s arguments will also defend mine, so I will cross link them as needed and I hope that it doesn"t get confusing. == PRO"S CASE == 1) WW2 This is section is actually not really needed. As asked in the comments, if we were comparing him to Stalin or just viewing him on his own, it was said that we were viewing him on his own. Therefore any argument where Stalin allowed something and Trotsky wouldn"t isn"t really a part of this debate. Anything regarding what Stalin had allowed (or anyone else for that matter) that he wouldn"t. However, I will refer to this section to show contradictions in my opponent"s agruments. 2) Anti-fascism This is inherently against my opponent"s refutation of my arguments. Here, he says, "Trotsky would've acted boldly to prevent the spread of Fascist sentiments in Europe and the world. We can assume he would go out of his way to quell the fascist side of any revolution and support the Communists," then he later says, "he would not risk the wellbeing of his entire country by starting too many Communist revolutions too quickly let alone start invading. " These two statements are at odds with each other and only one can be accurate. If we want to think about which is actually accurate, there are many works [1] on the subject. "In his view, conflict with Poland, a potential "Red bridge" to the West, was inevitable. None of the Bolsheviks doubted the necessity of "forcing the Polish bridge"; the only question was when and how to do it. " [2] 3) Democracy Tortsky may have made a number of quotes that seemed flowery and friendly towards democracy, but his actions speak very much against it. As argued already, Trotsky supported conscription (we are going to be tying this part into defending my arguments). While my opponent may argue that he only felt that it was some kind of needed evil, the fact that they used conscripted military fighting the White army, then the Black army (their former allies), then the Polish; all of which, he supported (this goes on to show that he is pretty comfortable with the military and aggression). Conscription itself is inherently anti-democratic, as it is taking choice and voice away from people. The support for violent uprisings is also going against the roots of democracy. Obviously, if there was democratic support by the people, a violent uprising would not be needed. My opponent claims that Tortsky would support political measures and non-violent means, however, we can see from his very actions that this is not the case. He supported a violent uprising in Russia, and failed violent uprising in Germany [3], Bavaria [4], and Hungary [5]. He says things that are Pro-democracy all the time, but his actions and support shows that he clearly only supports democracy when communism is what is democratically picked. When the people do not want communism, he supports executions and violence (seen in [3], [4], and [5]). 4) Command Economy My opponent once again contradicts himself. In this section he says "the USSR needed to absorb other nations' economies" he was for the absorption of other Nations into the USSR" the key word being "needed. " The USSR didn"t have a choice, meaning that they had to force it upon others. This "need" is the very reason that he was for aggression and violence and all the uprisings. This clearly goes against what my opponent has said regarding democracy. I"m not going to argue for or against command economy in general, however, nothing that my opponent has shown that Tortsky would be effective at running a command economy, as such an economy is HEAVILY dependent upon the people commanding it (his link for the command economy model did not work). This addresses all of my opponent"s points, as well as his refutations in his R3. Thank you, [1] . http://web.ku.edu... [2] . http://books.google.com... [3] . http://www.historicaleye.com... [4] Munich: Hofbrauhaus and History [5] . http://www.workmall.com...