Fascism is on the Rise in the United States

While my opponent asserts that his definition fits the bill, the only section he truly elaborates on is the palingenetic aspect; ultra-nationalism and populism are entirely absent, save one or two passing remarks. The rest of his argument essentially links us to an essay, which isn't an argument in itself, so much as his statement that all of these different groups share ideas. But, as I've stated so many times (and as my opponent has agreed), sharing ideas with a group does not equate being a member of that group. Hitler and Mussolini believed in capitalism, but that hardly makes all capitalists fascists. In the same way, Christian groups obviously believe in traditional morals, but that hardly proves that they share space with far-right extremists, or even that such extremism is ‘on the rise'. One other thing, by the way: "One does not need to be fascist in order to receive such ideas". First of all, hearing an idea doesn't equate belief in that idea; second of all, if we're not looking at fascists, then the statement "Fascism is on the rise…" is clearly false. Next, my opponent argues that equating fundamentalist Christianity to fascism is simply ‘one interpretation'; I'd like to point out that being able to interpret something a certain way does not MAKE that interpretation correct. I could interpret liberalism as being a stoned-out hippie movement, but that doesn't mean that it IS a stoned-out hippie movement. Ambiguity is no excuse for misinterpretation. Equivocation, good sir. Notice another contradiction; at one point, he claims that "I am not arguing that "for the most part" Christianity is like fascism", yet he later counterclaims: "The Dominionist idea… has obviously caught on, along with reviving a supposed "Christian nation." Their ideas now reach millions, directly and through mainstream conservatives that now increasingly share that perspective." He's basically arguing that conservatives aren't fascists, except for when they reach a large audience – then fascism is on the rise. On religion, there are only a couple of points that I need to make. a.He again ignores the evidence that I've given, stating that fascists tend to embrace a secular, post-religious agenda. b.For the sake of argument, I'll grant my opponent that there is a proto-fascist movement in America; however, the issue with this argument is that existence of the movement doesn't equate that movement being on the rise; if that were the case, we could say that the Green Party is on the rise, or the Constitution Party, or the American Communist Party, and so on. As evidenced by the recent election, fascism is clearly not on the rise. One last thing – let me hand you a quote from scholar Roger Griffin: "[Fascism is] a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti-conservative nationalism. As such it is an ideology deeply bound up with modernization and modernity". I feel like there's another issue that I need to clear up. "The Nazis clearly were still "on the rise" while losing the elections." Let me say this as tactfully as possible. Are you f*cking serious? This is entirely unwarranted – if the party was losing elections, then it could not have been ‘on the rise', since that phrase requires a rise in position, something the Nazis were not yet gaining. Furthermore, where is the evidence to back up this further assertion that elections are decided based on 5% of the electorate? As far as my evidence is concerned, the last election brought 56.8% of the voting-age population to the ballot box – the highest turnout in decades. [http://www.infoplease.com...] Question to the voters: How many of those 56.8% voted for the fascists? :) Next, we look at McCain, who my opponent claims embraced the religious right, when nothing is further from the truth. McCain only had marginal support from the religious right due to his VP selection, Sarah Palin. McCain was often touted as extremely moderate in comparison to candidates like Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. On militarism, Pro's argument unravels further. While he refers to historical, rhetorically-pleasing quotes, there is little empirical substance to support his assertion that "we do center on military affairs to a large degree." When compared to fascist societies, every facet of which was wrapped around military affairs (and gaudy rallies, I might add), the U.S. is nowhere near as military-minded as Pro would have you believe. As far as I know, there aren't soldiers marching through our streets, we haven't asked for Lebensraum, and we haven't invaded Manchuria or Poland. Or Russia. Heil God, am I right? On racism, Pro becomes slightly incoherent. He disregards the blatant racial preference in Obama's supporting demographics (with 95% of blacks coming out to cast their vote in his favor), and simply reasserts the "race-baiting" at town halls, the likes of which has yet to be explained, or even supported, for that matter, apart from the term "Crypto-racism" and another baseless appeal to ridicule concerning the "blatant expression of racial hatred, which you apparently do not see, is more obvious than ever." On my argument that logic and reason aren't viewed as a "breeding ground" for corruption, Pro claims that "That one seems so obvious as to be undeniable." I'm not exactly sure what he means here. It sounds to me like he just agreed with my argument that conservatives don't see logic/reason as corrupt. That works for me. Oh, also note the warrantless ad hominem against Thomas Aquinas, as opposed to attacking the actual argument that religious conservatives and theologians clearly don't throw reason out the window; clearly, this line of thought is not "in the minority". On the "proof by example" argument, Pro claims that irrationality is widespread, and uses ID and creationism as shining examples. First of all, he's simply asserting that these two concepts are entirely irrational. Let me arrange my opponent's logic into a syllogism. 1.ID/Creationism are irrational. (unproven) 2.Conservatives believe in ID/Creationism. 3.Therefore, conservatives generally hold irrational beliefs. Hopefully, you find this logic as flawed as I do. On gun rights, he tries to argue that I contradict myself, but he misses the argument that I am making. I argue that fascists generally take away gun rights. He claims that we haven't (taking credibility from his argument of rising fascism), further claiming that we might "rethink" such rights in the future; I then point out that, if our country is as unique as he claims, he can't base his argument off of other countries. I see no contradiction on my part. Finally, Pro argues that action and elections are different, and that while Italy and Germany were won legally, other countries didn't experience it that way. On that argument, I'm curious as to what kind of military force the fascists are going to use to march on Washington. If our military is as glorified and super-tough as Pro claims, then there should be little trouble with a fascist revolt. :) Note that Pro even agrees that left and right-wingers can use legal means to "impose" their views upon the public at large. Even Pro's conclusion is based in fallacy – appeal to fear, to be exact. In his last ditch effort, he implies that voting Con will lead to negative consequences, namely a fascist dictator trampling on our Constitution, taking away our civil liberties, and so on. My opponent even has the audacity to claim that I have been arguing with a straw man throughout the course of our debate. If anything, I lit the straw man on fire, cleverly catching my opponent in the burning field. Out of this debate, only one thing is certain: Fascism is NOT on the rise in the United States. Thank you, good night, and may (insert appropriate head of state here) bless you.