Fidel Castro is and will always be Cuba's national hero because he's got balls.

" Well he (Hitler) isn't a hero because of the Holocaust, not because of lack of "balls". I didn't say "Everyone that has balls is a hero", I said that being brave is what makes Fidel a Cuban national hero." This is in essence a contradiction. If the statement "everyone that has balls/is brave is a hero" is not true," then having balls/being brave is not a sufficient condition for being a national hero. It's pretty basic logic here. If it is a sufficient cause, no amount of holocausts will cancel it. Now if you want to argue "everyone who is brave AND does not perpetuate a holocaust is a hero," that's fine, but it is not your resolution. "If you actually read my whole argument you'd see that Cubans DID support Fidel Castro's cause. And people forget that, that's why I started this debate. " Some cubans did. Not all cubans. Plus, a similar proportion of germans supported hitler as cubans supported castro. Since we have already established that Hitler is not a national hero, being supported initially by a given number of your populace is not enough to make you a hero. "Well if I didn't state that limit then you'd argue George Washington is braver than Fidel. 1st of all the time they live in makes that argument impossible. 2nd of all, all Americans would vote against me due to their patriotism and love for George Washington." That's entirely irrelevant. This does not give you an excuse to bar evidence. You cannot simultaneously argue that Castro was braver than ALL US presidents and bar evidence about most of those that weren't. Also, in the twentieth century I rather think Eisenhower has a shot, even though I dislike a number of things about him. :D. " Haha! You make me laugh. John McCain being tortured doesn't make him brave at all. Did he choose to be tortured? No. Were the Vietnamese agreeing to stop torturing him if he had given them information they wanted? No. He had no choice! " Last I checked it was implied that the torture would stop if the vietnamese received what they wanted. " I did not suppose that Castro's administration was positive, I'd be pretty insolent to suppose that. However, I did suppose that actions made by him in order to gain power in Cuba were positive, and many of his actions were BRAVE. " See your first round: "these were the best 49 years Cuba has ever had for a long time. " That seems to suppose positivity to me. " 1st of all, I am not defending Fidel's administration. Second of all get you facts straight, Fidel's a socialist, not a communist. Giving the middle finger to America is heroism. It's like giving the middle finger to a boss that overworks you. Except America was the kind of boss that would kill you." He leads the Communist Party of Cuba. If he were not a communist, he would not allow the party he leads to be called such. Also, can you clarify what distinction you see between socialism and communism? Because every socialist and/or communist I talk to has a different definition of the term. I've heard self-described communists declaring the soviet union or cuba or whatever was/is not socialist but communist, or not communist but socialist, and I've heard each of the same from self-described socialists, and NONE of them were willing to give a coherent definition. Marx has several definitions for each term, many of them contradictory. If you are going to join them in supposing the semantic distinction, please help clean up the mess a bit by clarifying this. Please? If America were the "kind of boss that would kill you" as you claim, Castro would be dead. What they were were an enemy. A boss has a presupposed victory. Plus, I do not consider giving the middle finger to a boss that holds you to your contract to be heroism, so your analogy demonstrates nothing. Even giving the middle finger to someone who deserves it isn't heroism, it's just a hand gesture. Heroism requires positive achievement under difficult conditions. In order to be a national hero, your achievement has to be positive for the nation in question. " Why would Cubans not consider him a hero after all he did for Cuba, liberating Cuba from Batista, and indirectly liberating Cuba from America?" False premise behind your question. He did not "liberate" cuba from anyone. He eliminated one master and then replaced them. Not for a moment could cuba be considered "liberated." The wise in cuba will not put the label of hero to he who continued their enslavement far longer than the previous master could have, however much chutzpah it may have taken to do so.