Bearded communists tend to be 'better' than non bearded communists

Mao Zedong:We may never know the real number of deaths caused by the great leap forward and the ensuing famine but lets put it at a moderate estimate of 45 million. Yes, most of those deaths were caused by famine but the problem is that Mao's policies brought about that famine, as I discussed in earlier rounds. it could be argued that China simply could not afford the resources to take care of them.China had resources to industrialize its huge country in 3 years but could not feed its people? it can't be said that Mao WANTED his own people to die, Of course, he did not WANT them to die. However, when people did die, Mao did not CARE. He continued to allocate resources for rapid industrialization in his so called great leap forward but does not allocate resources to help the poor, completely opposite to what a communist should have done.PRO has not proven that Mao's intention in attacking the industrialisation of China was to commit attrocities Again, he did not want to commit atrocities, but he did. He obviously would have heard of news that people are starving, the gov. officials are overworking them etc. but he still did not stop, he continued. Its not like the 45 million died at one time. It was an ongoing process and it is inexcusable for a national leader to not know about this and even more so for not caring.I think I need to clarify why Mao's industrialization made him a bad leader and why that point is relevant:Mao wanted to turn China into an industrial economic powerhouse which is good. But to do this, he started mass building factories. He wanted the industrialization to be very rapid. To accomplish that, he exported agricultural produce a.k.a food so that he could pay for the factories.It is not a co incidence that the famine ensued after the mass exporting of food by Mao to pay for his industrialization. The famine killed 10s of millions and Mao did nothing about it, except export more food and build more factories (a very idiotic thing for a leader to do).[1]Joesph StalinAccording to many generals, Zhukov and the most brilliant Soviet generals, Stalin played an important role in defending the USSR and in the war against Nazism.If Zhukov did not say that, he would be purged just like other red army generals. Just saying.I never denied that Stalin did do good things for the USSR, but we must not forget the atrocities he committed as well and the fact that many of those atrocities hindered the USSR in its fight against Nazi Germany.Like I said earlier as well, Castro is speaking good about Stalin because he is giving credit where credit is due.Emma GoldmanPRO asked how she changed her country for the better. The source material actually elaborates a lot on thatCon expect me and the readers to check his source for arguments, this is not appropriate.Based on PRO's criteria, Emma Goldman's single check mark in the "good" column cancels out Pol Pot.The fact that she helped hundreds of people does not cancel out the millions killed by Pol Pot.Con uses this statement I made the first round against me: the percent of 'good' bearded communists is more than the percent of 'good' non bearded communists.Con has resorted to using such tactics, which severly undermine his credibility and the quality of his arguments. I mean really con? This is not semantical arguments but is just as bad.Elamkulamm Manakkal Sankaran Namboodiripad:Con makes the same arguments as Emma Goldman, the fact that he is good (even if not as good as Castro or Lenin) is enough, its not about HOW good they are. This again undermines his arguments.Clara Zetkin:PRO again does not dispute her "good" status.I could not have disputed something which I was not clear aboutIn answer to PRO's question - broadly speaking, yes, the "United Front" movement called for all political parties to unite for better conditions for the working class. It was a good thing that helped a lot of people and I'm not wasting my characters explaining it here. If you like, you can read all about it here --> [4]Con has not answered my question about the all political parties thing, was it for only that country? was it only for communist parties worldwide? was it EVERY SINGLE policial parties? Define all, because it seems unlikely that she will call for all political parties to unite. That seems more like a utopian goal and an attempt at something impossible.Again, Con expects me and the readers to go through the source (not to mention that he had plenty of charectar space left, his round was not that large). To make matters worse for Con the link he gave does not work. If PRO can't either and can't produce any bad beardies, then why has he even set this debate up?...Now he has revealed that in fact there were ONLY THREE bearded leaders and all of them were goodI would like to point out that it is CON's job to find bad bearded communists. Why would I do research on bad bearded communists, when con clearly has not done any research on that? I did my research on bad non-bearded communists and a great part of my argument was on that. Why does con expect ME to do HIS research? I even gave him 2 peoplesuch as Trotsky and Guevara, both of whom have beards (but are 2nd in command), he could have argued them but he failed to do so, instead he resorts to complaining about my lack of prior research into HIS arguments. Con has failed to do his resarch and show that any bearded leaders have committed any atrocities. On top of that he expects ME to do his resarch.In this round Con's main argument seems to be about percentage of people who were good (but not taking into account how good they are).If Con really wants to look at percentages then fine, I shall oblige.Bearded side:Con has not proven any of them to be bad, and I have fulfilled by BoP of showing that they are all good. Hence 3 out of 3 are good which means 100 % of bearded communists were good.Non Bearded side:PRO has opened his round with a predictable trio of dastardly communist leaders... I'm prepared to admit that these all fall into the less than desirable category.Seems odd that Con bothered to defend the 3 leaders in previous rounds (Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin) but then says that its all about percentage rather than exactly how good or bad. But since Con himself says that Stalin, Pot and Mao all fall into the less than desirable category 0 out of 3 non bearded communists are good thus far.But then you have Emma Goldman and Elamkulam who I am prepared to say are good. That means that 2 out of 5 non bearded communists were good.Then I bring up Kim Jong il, Kim Jong un and Kim il sung. All 3 of whom are indisputably bad. Con himself failed to argue for them.That leaves 2 out of 8 non bearded commists being good, this means that 25% of non bearded communists were good.I missed out Clara Zetkin because con never really convinced me that she was 'good' the same way he did for emma and Elamkulam. However, Even if we take into account Clara that leaves the non bearded side at 3 out of 9 being good which is a mere 33% Including Clara or not still leaves the result the same, Bearded communists tend to be better than non bearded communists.Bearded side = 100%Non bearded side = 25-33%100>25 and 100>33 I would like to remind Con that it is against the rules to bring up a new leader in his concluding round. Con wanted to talk about simple percentage, I did so and on that basis this is a Bearded side victory. I wanted to talk about the quality of exactly how bad and good they were, on that basis this is still a Bearded side victory (because Castro and Ho Chi did far better things than Emma Goldman ever did). No matter how you want to assess this, Bearded communists are better than non bearded communists. As such, vote for Pro. Sources:[1]http://chronicle.uchicago.edu...;