Fascism is on the Rise in the United States

I'm trying to keep this debate as light as possible; so it will only get more interesting, I hope. On my definitions, I'd like to point out that they're broad for a reason. We're looking at fascism on a general scale, not Umberto Eco's concept of Ur Fascism, in which Eco himself admits that "These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism." Next, though you assert that you aren't comparing the bulk of Christians to fascists, this brings up two interesting points. a.If the majority of Christian right-wingers aren't fascists, as you admit, clearly fascism is not ‘on the rise' in today's America. Having a small sect of extremists off to the far right does not constitute that kind of extremism being ‘on the rise'. The movement would have to be rapidly gaining popularity and followers, something clearly not happening as of the last election. b.My opponent actually goes on later to say that "To a large extent much of the American Christian right fits this description.", and even that "Additionally, given the religious character of it, the charisma and determination of a central messianic leader is the core of Christianity. Their particular view of Jesus Christ, however perverse and distorted, fits this perfectly." We now see pro beginning to contradict himself, arguing that Christianity isn't equivalent to fascism, but that for the most part, it kind of is. Pro even claims that, because there is some kind of underlying agreement between moderate conservatism and historical fascism, which is increased by the channeling of ideas between moderates and the small sect of extremists. However, we need to remember the association fallacy. Sharing some characteristics with another group does not MAKE them that other group. In round 1 I pointed out that, though I may share some answers on the BIG Issues with others on DDO, that doesn't make our political ideologies the same. My opponent also has an issue with the idea of post-religious fascism. While he asserts that this was more about Mussolini's vision than anything else, refer to my previous analysis. Religion tends to compete with the state for the peoples' loyalties, resulting in a number of churches being shut down or destroyed, or a sort of ‘civil religion' being instituted, in which the so-called deity would be the head of state. My opponent next argues that his logic did not equate conservatism with fascism, but that conservatives are simply influenced by these ideas. As I've argued before, this is merely an association fallacy; sharing ideas with fascists does not make them fascists. For example: Fascists tend to believe in capitalism – does that make everyone who supports capitalism a fascist? I think not. Pro asserts next that being ‘on the rise' doesn't equate an electoral majority. However, this is completely false – he argues that the Nazi party was marginal for a number of years before taking power, losing many elections; from here, it can be easily argued that, while losing elections, the Nazi party was clearly not ‘on the rise', as they were obviously not ‘rising' to any position of power. And, as proven in the last election, both in Congress and the White House, right-wing politics are less than championed. Also, special note: My opponent states that moderate conservatives are most opposed to right-wing extremists. Seeing as moderate conservatives make up the majority of the right-wingers (exemplified by the decision to put up John McCain as a candidate), fascism is clearly not rising in popularity, even with conservatives. Next, Pro discusses American militarism. Note the appeal to ridicule when he states that "To say that the United States has a volunteer armed forces and is not militaristic… is ridiculous", and that "this is… the most ludicrous statement". He has no logical backing, barring a definition – "Predominance of the armed forces in the administration or policy of the state." My opponent equates having a powerful military with being militaristic, but fails to understand that militarism entails having a government centered on military affairs; Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, all of these leaders conscripted soldiers, embracing military tradition in every aspect of society. In America, we respect our soldiers, but we do not embrace a militaristic mindset, nor are we drafted to fight in the Middle East, despite what my opponent might "feel". On racism, my opponent of course brings up accusations of racism towards those who do not support Obama. What Pro doesn't realize is that racial preference is also present on Obama's side, with 95% of black voters casting their ballot for Obama. Correlation doesn't imply causation, granted, but it's an interesting coincidence that, in one of the largest black voter turnouts in history, a nigh-unanimous majority backs Obama; furthermore, my opponent has yet to prove that conservatives' main issue with Obama is race, and not stimulus bills, healthcare packages, C.A.R.S., and numerous other liberal policies. On authoritarianism and the cult of tradition, my opponent admits that believing in traditional values doesn't equate fascism. ‘Nuff said. However, Pro's argument that traditional values are being taken to an extreme is, ironically, an extreme assertion. Insisting that America is a Christian nation is nothing new, and has been occurring for decades, if not longer. It's hard to blame Christians for asserting that our nation is based on Christian values, much like they assert that our world was created by God. It's less proof of the rise of fascism, and more stating the obvious. On the rejection of modernism, Pro continues to ignore my evidence regarding the fascists' embrace of a secular, post-religious agenda. As I've argued, the church competed with the state for the loyalties of citizens, making them targets. Fascist governments, like those in Italy, Germany, and Spain, tended to phase out, if not ban, spirituality and worship of deities. Furthermore, logical thought and applied reason are hardly seen as the breeding ground of corruption, evidenced by the advent of Christian scholars and theologians, like St. Thomas Aquinas nearly a millennium ago. While Pro argues a conservative attack on sep. of church and state, Conservapedia even states that "separation of church & state is good for the church, as it ensures religious autonomy." [http://conservapedia.com...] On Irrationalism, I should note that I don't need to attack your ‘examples'. Proof by example is a logical fallacy, and so I found it necessary to attack the logic behind the argument/examples, instead. Also, even assuming that we were talking about right-wing irrationality, all that Pro states is that right-wingers are irrational. There is no backing, no proof, and no logic (how ironic) to support his claim, besides asserting the absurdity of creationism/ID. On gun rights, my opponent states that our country is unique from others, and must be considered differently. On that thought, he asserts that "[a fascist movement] might rethink these gun rights as well". His argument stems from speculation and conjecture, assuming that, because other countries did it, we'll do it also, despite the fact that our country is "unique". Furthermore, he again asserts the irrelevance of my arguments, therein failing to attack them. The most important was the imposition of views argument. He says that action and elections are different, but we can look to historical precedent here. In the two most famed examples, Hitler and Mussolini both took power via legal means. In the same way, the alleged fascist movement would take power through elections, and go from there; however, as I've explained, both left and right-wingers can use elections to forcibly impose their views on our population.