Obama is a Fascist

"To avoid an opponent using semantics on you, it is important to define your terms before the debate. The general debate custom is that whoever defines the terms first…" http://www.debate.org... In R2 my opponent made up his own definition of fascism without any reference using only a few loosely defined traits such as collectivism, unity and centralization that can be associated with Fascism. We must keep in mind, however, that in order for it to be said that something fits a particular term the necessary and sufficient characteristics must be met. We can then use these to determine whether something can be labeled by that term. In R2 I used the example of defining Mormonism to illustrate this point, but my opponent misunderstood my argument and I can see this was my fault for being unclear. I was not arguing that a definition such as Mormonism or Fascism can change. I was and am arguing that if we select only a few characteristics of a term, even if they are necessary conditions of the term, we have not necessarily constructed a sufficient definition. Let's pretend that polygamy is still encouraged in the church (Contrary to Pro's claim it hasn't been since 1890: http://tinyurl.com...). As I said, we could define Mormonism as "a religion that allows polygamy." We could then, as Pro has done with his definition of fascism, demonstrate that polygamy is indeed encouraged by the Church and may be a necessary condition for a religion to be considered Mormonism. Defining Mormonism in this way, however, is insufficient for determining whether a religion is indeed Mormonism. There are many other religions that encourage polygamy, but they are not Mormon. The failure of this definition, and of Pro's definition of fascism, is that they do not give sufficient definition to the terms so that we can differentiate those other systems that may share certain qualities with Mormonism (or fascism), but are also different in crucial respects. It is these crucial differences that Pro has failed to capture in the definition he made up without using an objective source. This would be very convenient for him, for it would eliminate most of his burden of proof in showing that Obama is a fascist. He simply created a definition that doesn't contain all the ways in which Obama is not a fascist. This is also completely false and I will now, largely using Pro's own sources, justify the dictionary definition of the term I established in R1, to which my opponent has never given a single reason for rejecting. Most of Pro's argument is that Obama is Corporatist. Let's assume it's true for argument sake. Let's also assume that it is a necessary condition of Fascism. According to his quote from Mussolini, equating Corporatism with Fascism, one might think that this is also sufficient for one to be a Fascist. However, in the very same manifesto that Pro takes this quote from Mussolini also states: "Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people." http://tinyurl.com... Pro himself quotes Mussolini in the same manifesto: “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” This is totalitarianism! In the beginning of R3, Pro attempts to support his definition of Fascism with a source this time: "Fascism is the belief in organizing society into interest groups..." What he says is actually a gross misrepresentation of the passage from his source. Pro's source describes how Corporatism fits the above description, not fascism. What it actually says about Fascism is: "In the above table (of Corporatist regimes from history) several of the regimes were brutal, totalitarian dictatorships, usually labeled fascist, but not all the regimes that had a corporatist foundation were fascist. In particular, the Roosevelt New Deal despite its many faults could not be described as fascist. But definitely the New Deal was corporatist." http://tinyurl.com... Pro's own source identifies Fascism with brutal, totalitarian dictatorships. His source confirms the dictionary definition that I used in R1. Also from Pro's own source, we can see that even if he can show that Obama is a Corporatist it does not mean that he is a Fascist. Also according to Pro's own source: "Although Corporatism is not a familiar concept to the general public, most of the economies of the world are corporatist in nature." Merriam-Webster offers the same definition as the source that I offered in R1: http://tinyurl.com... Rebuttals Many of Pro's rebuttals of my arguments fail to identify argumentum ad absurdum, or are straw man fallacies, distorting my arguments and arguing against something other than what I wrote so I will extend those arguments rather than waste space repeating them to clarify these distortions. My arguments above will be sufficient to show Pro fails his BOP. According to Pro's definition and arguments regarding Obama, the Constitution may be Fascist. Let's look at the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. http://tinyurl.com... Just here, we see the qualities of Pro's definition exhibited. I don't think such language is Fascist, but according to Pro's definition and analysis of Clinton's speech they could be considered so, and this I point out is absurd and so the definition obviously fails to define the term. Pro, of course, will point out as he did in R3 that there are other factors to consider that rule out the Constitution being Fascist. I agree, and that is exactly my point with his arguments about Obama. Nazi endorsement Pro drops my argument demonstrating that Sahayda's only reason for endorsing Obama was due to his own beliefs on racism. His reason is that America deserves to have a black president as "poetic justice" for our concern for minority groups in this country. There is no mention of any shared ideology at all, let alone Fascism. Conclusion Pro attempts to equate a few, mild qualities with Fascism. The reason Pro fails is that he fails to demonstrate many characteristics that are central to Fascism and without which someone can not be said to be Fascist. Pro ignores these. Pro failed to show that President Obama advocates a totalitarian regime, suppresses oppositional parties, or enforces censorship. He has not argued for dictatorial powers, such as the dissolution of Congress or the Supreme Court. Some of his advocated policies have admittedly been struck down by the Supreme Court. When this took place there was no coup or advocating of dissolution of that branch, rather the Obama Administration followed the due course of law and submitted to the checks and balances that limited his authority guaranteed by the Constitution. Although there has been an increase in economic controls the US is still rated in the top ten most economically free countries of the world, no where close to being considered "stringent" http://tinyurl.com... Mere collectivism is not sufficient for a Fascist definition; the description is "belligerent nationalism and racism." Pro has utterly failed to demonstrate this and Obama's immigration policies, to give one example, contradict such a claim. Pro fails to meet his BOP. According to his own sources he mistakenly equates Corporatism with Fascism and they actually support the objective definition I provided that includes totalitarian dictatorship, and has failed to show that President Obama fits into this category. There may be some similarities between Fascism and Obama, but these similarities are insufficient for such a label and the attempt to do so is a clear abuse of the word. Thanks to Pro & Reader