It is better to be feared than loved.

I am not sure why the mention of power was raised because power is irrelevant to the debate. This is about whether it is better to be feared or loved, irregardless of power. Unless my opponent can substantiate the relevance of power to this debate resolution, I will choose to ignore this point and go on to address the rest of Pro's argument.The defense that your friends will turn on your if you comfort them is substantiated by the paranoid thoughts of a potentially schizophrenic philosopher who deemed all human beings to be narcissistic sociopaths. Sociopathy is a mental disorder that prevents one from being able to relate to others on a deep, emotional level of any kind and is a variant of Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) [http://www.mayoclinic.org...]. Narcissism is an excessive love of oneself and is also a mental disorder named Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. If my opponent wants to presume that everyone is an emotionless self-embracing egomaniac then he must justify this with an explanation and give evidence to support his claim. Only such a person would back-stab you and, ironically they are incapable of loving to begin with so that is truly irrelevant to this debate.Next, my opponent begins to hone into one of the most efficient monsters of history; Stalin. What he fails to mention is that Stalin was loved by his people because he'd fought off the 'evil Tsar' and 'evil Mensheviks' and had brainwashed many people, both adults and children, to live and breathe Stalinist Communism as well as having strategically outmaneuvered all his opponents by convincing the majority to love and trust him as their leader, whilst those who dared oppose him were the only ones who learnt to fear him. He was feeding off the love that people had given Lenin and transferring it all onto himself from Lenin's long-gone corpse. Stalin was loved by the masses, he was only feared by those in his social circle who dared to oppose him. He censored the media to always present him in a good light and people obeyed out of love for the the concept of communism and the 'greater good', not because they were scared of the guy with the moustache (only the others high-up in power were scared of him).(https://tinyurl.com...)(http://www.buzzle.com...)(http://www.sparknotes.com...)Pro then goes on to support Totalitarianism, in the context of the Nazis. We all remember where that ended up, right? Well, for those who don't, let me remind you. Hitler ends up killing himself, his wife and his dog. Then his staff got screwed over, one by one. Great example to raise. (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...)Pro then continues to outline the three fundamental arguments of his side of the debate.Let's observe the first one.My opponent states that fear creates love in the future. If anything it's the other way around. If you love someone, you fear hurting them or making them dislike you whereas if you fear them you don't care if they dislike you as long as they don't hurt you and would be willing to screw them over at the first given opportunity.Let's observe the other 2 as I will attack both claims in one go.The theory that states and countries ruling by tyranny/fear are more stable and cause higher abidance rates is preposterous.Every single nation that rules by fear is either extremely unstable (such as North Korea) or has, in recent years even, been overthrown.Qaddafi is one example of someone who ruled by fear, look how unstable his society was. They went on a lynch mob and killed the guy and now even his offspring are paying the price for his actions and will never be looked at as worthy of belonging in that community (nor anywhere else in their world). He has truly cursed them for life.http://www.newcivilisation.com...Saddam Hussein is another example, who reached the same fate of death.http://www.foxnews.com...Should I keep going?People like Osama bin Laden and Stalin succeeded because they made the people below them love them and respect them out of that love. the fear to disappoint them was the only fear their minions felt. Eventually they turned ugly and Stalin got a stroke whilst Bin Laden got wrecked by the Navy SEALs.People such as Gandhi did indeed meet an abrupt end too but it's about the legacy they leave behind.You see, once you die the only thing left will be your legacy and if it's one of being feared, people will loathe you, they may respect you but they'll loathe you. People will instead have much more pleasant and fond memories of you and you will live on as a legend sold to the children of generations to come as an idol, not kept hidden from them until they're old enough to know how bad a person you were.