Che Guevara isnt a good guy.

My opponent has plagiarized his entire argument from http://www.fiu.edu... (thanks to Puck for pointing this out). Because of this, my opponent was a) dishonest in presenting this as his own and b) did not provide any of his own arguments. This alone should be cause enough to vote CON. If the judges are still not convinced, I will refute some of my opponent's arguments. The judges should take into account that my opponent has no definitions and no contentions, so his arguments are very unstructured and are more difficult to respond to. "Both films are a revisionist white wash that ignore both the atrocities committed, his hate filled writings, and their aftermath not only in Cuba but in the Americas." This, along with most of the beginning, is not an actual argument. Instead, it is an appeal to emotion: notice the emotionally arousing phrases like "atrocities" and "hate filled", which have no logical value and do not further my opponent's point at all. ". . . Guevara argued that hatred was something to be harnessed and used . . . to perpetrate new injustices." This is an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary evidence. My opponent provides no evidence. "If hate was the solution to all problems then the heroes of the 20th century would have been: Lenin, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Guevara." More appeal to emotion without any logical statements or evidence. I ask the judges to please disregard any statements such as this one. Additional refutation: my opponent falsely associates Guevara with these others: Stalin and Hitler were fascist dictators, and Guevara liberated Cuba. My opponent's post then has a very long segment with no real arguments. I will skip this part. The next real argument is that Guevara executed 1,897 men. My opponent does not cite a source, but accepting that it is true, it proves nothing. Maybe those 1,897 men were all national threats. Maybe they were all terrorists. Maybe they were all secret assassins sent by the Soviets to kill Guevara. My point is that those executions prove nothing. "This is a radical alternative to Che Guevara and Mao Zedong, tragically an alternative that would have saved tens of millions of more lives in the past century. Its philosophical underpinning is found in the statement: "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you." This path has and continues to be followed by persons of such diverse backgrounds as Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel, Corazon Aquino, Desmond Tutu, Aung San Suu Kyi, and Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet. These men and women have demonstrated that hatred is something to be overcome, not an "element of struggle," but rather a stumbling block to freedom." They have only "demonstrated" that hatred and violence are not necessary elements in rebellion. But there are many examples of successful violent revolutionaries, such as Pancho Villa, George Washington, and Che Guevara himself. In fact, nearly all successful revolutions have been violent; a peaceful revolution is the exception to the rule. "With the exception of Nicaragua Che Guevara's prescription for revolution in Latin America led to a generation of military dictatorships and harsh repression." My opponent has no citation or evidence for this claim. Even if we assume that it is true, Cuba had a dictator in place before Guevara. "When you wear that shirt, you advocate not revolution, but execution." This final sentence is a very good example of an appeal to emotion. *** Now for my own contentions. Definitions Good: Virtuous, right, commendable . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Contention 1: There are no bad guys. Everyone has some amount of good in them. So to claim that Che Guevara "isn't a good guy" is to presume too much. It is not possible that Guevara is not at all good, so this resolution cannot possibly be true. The world just does not work that way: there are no good guys and bad guys; everyone is a shade of gray. Contention 2: Che Guevara was a prominent figure in the Cuban Revolution. Before Fidel Castro, the government of Cuba was put in place by the United States. Cuba had not even chosen its own government. Fulgencio Batista served as the dictator of Cuba, until he was overthrown by Fidel Castro with the help of Che Guevara. This was a change for the better; even if "change for the better" cannot be objectively assessed, the people of Cuba were certainly happy with it: after all, look at how they have idolized Che Guevara. He was a great revolutionary; at the least, he was not "not a good guy". *** Why the vote should go to me: My opponent had no sources, so the sources vote goes to me. My opponent just had a single painful-to-read paragraph (as well as some smaller mistakes such as misspelling "isn't" in the resolution), so grammar goes to me as well. My opponent plagiarized, so conduct also goes to me. Most convincing arguments is a more ambiguous point, but I will let my contentions and rebuttals speak or themselves. Vote CON. Sources: (1) http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk... (2) http://www.time.com... (3) http://en.wikipedia.org... (4) http://en.wikipedia.org...