India needs sound policies and not a growing personality cult

I am hereby making an appeal to my opponent, to have the decency to take some time to actually frame an original argument, instead of copying someone else's work. I personally feel insulted, since I take a lot of time to carefully frame my arguments, while my opponent just copies someone else's. I would like to inform any potential voters and/or veiwers of this debate, that my opponents argument for this round is an unedited copy of a previous debate, the link for which I have provided here : . http://www.debate.org... With that done, I will start my rebuttal regardless of my opponent's indiscretions. My opponent(or his/her's source) says, "Narendra Modi is known for leading a simple lifestyle which makes him familiar with common people and their problems,. ." Does any simple person take a private chopper wherever they go? As a matter of fact, Narendra Modi does. Another line of my opponent's(or his/her source's) argument says,"Modi has also tried to turn his image from an Hindu Nationalist politician to an image of able administrator when he ordered the demolition of many Hindu temples that were built without proper government sanction" Well try as he might, he cannot deny his bias towards Hinduism. He claims to be a secular leader, but the fact remains that he is a Hindu fanatic, and no actions on his part can change this fact. To prove his bias, I would like to give the example of the Babri Mazjid(Mosque) demolition in 1992. On December 6, 1992, a large crowd of Hindu Karsevaks (volunteers) entirely destroyed the 16th-century Babri mosque in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, India, in an attempt to reclaim the land known as Ram Janmabhoomi(Sacred Hindu land). A 2009 report, authored by Justice Manmohan Singh Liberhan, found 68 people to be responsible for the demolition of the Masjid, mostly leaders from the BJP. Among those named were Vajpayee, Advani, Joshi and Vijay Raje Scindia. All these leaders were/are close associates of Narendra Modi. Vajpayee was also the Prime Minister of India for a brief period of time in 1996. Narendra Modi has on multiple occasions refered to Advani (L. K Advani ) as a great influence in his political career. This shows his clear bias towards Hinduism. Read More : . https://en.wikipedia.org... In his argument, my opponent(or his/her source) has shown many examples of Narendra Modi's success and good governance. I acknowledge all of them. But the fact remains that regardless of all the benefits, a personality cult WILL bring the country down. I find my opponent's argument in a clear contradiction of the argument he/she has to make. His/her debate topic requires him/her to demonstrate that India does NOT need sound policies. But the examples that she/he(or his/her source) has pointed out clearly show that Gujarat has been prosperous due to good governance and policy making. In actuality, all the points he/she(or his/her sources) have made, favour my argument. What my opponent has to show, is that India does not need policy making, but a personality cult. I agree, that Modi might make a great PM. But the fact remains, that his personality cult will create excessive centralization of power, which as I have explained before, will be disastrous for the country. Since my opponent did not clarify her/his usage of the idiom "two sides of a coin". I will have to rebut to his/her argument with my understanding of his/her usage. My opponent said : " If you are talking of the suicides of the farmers in Gujarat then you should consider both sides of the coin " The usage of the idiom 'two sides of the same coin' is explained by the Cambridge Dictionary as follows : 'If two things are two sides of the same coin, they are very closely related although they seem different' My opponent's statement in this usage makes no sense to me. I believe that my opponent wanted to say that there are pros and cons for a personality cult, as (s)he said, "Of course there are two sides of a coin. Modi has got a strong personality cult but I think he uses it for good. " If it was so, then I would like to say, that there are no 'pros' for a farmer committing suicide. A farmer's death can by no means be a good thing. Actually, I was not even making such a point earlier. I was only pointing the Gujarat Government's lies. With all these points clear, I rest my case.