Obama is a Fascist

Self-concocted definitions, Origins of Fascism &The Fascist Manifesto Pro stated that R1 was the place for clarification of terms. I defined them at the time he himself appropriated, using an orthodox and objective source. According to custom, which says definition goes to the one who defines it first and his own stipulation, the terms were defined in R1. Pro gave no reason at all for disagreeing with these objective terms, yet attempts to create his own subjective version after the fact in R2. I do not accept his definitions. If that wasn't sufficient (I think it is, but it's for the reader to decide) Pro's definition of fascism is vague, does not list the most crucial qualities that differentiate fascism from other political forms (see my definition) and distorts various terms in such a way that the term can be used in place of qualities that are not actually characteristic of fascism. He essentially argues that his made-up definition is superior to that of a reliable dictionary. According to Pro's definition, Abraham Lincoln was a fascist for holding the Union together during the Civil War ("advocating strength through unity"), prohibiting the authority of states to secede (centralization of society and government) and operating as a member of a political party (categorization of groups within society). The founding fathers were all fascist for coming together as one voice to write the Declaration of Independence from the British ("advocating strength through unity"), dissolving the Confederation of states and forming the federal Republic via the Constitution (centralization of society and government), and forming political parties (categorization of groups within society). My opponent's made-up definition obviously leads to an absurd conclusion and is not sufficient. We'll stick with the objective definition I gave in the first place. Besides making up his own definition Pro attempts to paint a distorted picture of what fascism is through historical origins and original manifestos. Throughout his brief picture he exaggerates specific characteristics that are not primary characteristics of fascism, but can be found in tandem with fascist regimes in history that also held other principles not characteristic of fascism per se, but of other political forms it may have been mixed with in that specific example. Again, this is why we can not make up our own definition and then look for specific cases that might happen to fit that definition. This is an abuse of what an objective definition is intended for. For example, I can define Mormonism simply as "a religion that encourages racism and polygamy", go back to the original forms and texts of Mormonism and demonstrate that Mormonism fit this description, but this does not mean that such traits are sufficient criteria to define the religion or that they are even the primary traits. Mormonism does not, in fact, condone these practices anymore. This is analogous to Pro's attempt to create his own definition, interpret history and paraphrase manifestos in terms that he finds useful to his own ends to support his own definition. Clinton's endorsement of Obama. All my opponent cites here is the same kind of language that has been used by most any public figure when trying to rally the people to support a particular idea or goal. "We're all in this together", "business and Government actually working together". I honestly don't see how Pro makes any connection to anything resembling fascism. Business and government working in tandem with each other to promote national interest is not fascist, it's good economics. Should we have them work against each other to avoid being fascist? You could find any of the western leaders (i. e. Churchill) placing even more emphasis on this notion of standing together when making speeches to rally the people behind the effort to fight fascism in Europe during WWII. I don't really see anything to argue against here. I'm sure the reader will see this claim to be just as absurd as I do. "The American Nazi Party Endorsed Obama in 2008" First of all, the interview that was done with Mr. Suhayda was a personal interview of him expressing his personal beliefs, not an official endorsement by the ANP. The chairman of the party personally endorsed Obama in 2008 and Pro claims this as evidence that Obama is fascist. However, Tom Metzger, former grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan endorsed him as well. Does this present as evidence that Obama is racist against blacks or advocates or adheres to Klan ideology? Of course not, and neither does the endorsement cited by Pro suggest evidence that Obama is a fascist. The rest of Mr. Suhayda's quote in the original interview my opponent cited through a secondary source continued as follows: "Any time that a prominent person embraces their racial heritage in a positive manner, it’s good for all racially minded folks. Besides, America cares nothing for the interests of the white American worker, while having a love affair with just about every non-white on planet Earth. It’d be poetic justice to have a non-white as titular chief over this decaying modern Sodom and Gomorrah (1). " As the reader will see the only principles this chairman mentions in his reason for endorsing Obama are his own racist principles. He never mentions any principles of structure of government, distribution of power, or class relations. There is only a focus on racism and attitudes towards race and fails to make any similarities between the policies of Obama and those of his Nazi party, and certainly not fascism. Summary I have argued that, according to custom and Pro's own specifications my definitions from a reliable source should be accepted. I also showed why Pro's concocted definition is vague and leads to absurd conclusions. All of Pro's arguments were reliant on this fabricated definition of fascism, and so, completely fail to support his resolution. Regardless of this, I was still able to thoroughly refute any value his arguments may have had. I thank my opponent for engaging with me in this discussion and look forward to his concluding remarks. (1) . http://www.esquire.com...