"Moderates" That Sympathize With Extremists Are Not Moderates

Re: Contention 1 This point was void of any actual substance proving the resolution to be true. Pro simply defined the definition of an extremist and noted that by definition an extremist's views would not be tolerated by society. While this observation is indeed very matter-of-fact, unfortunately it has absolutely nothing to do with the support of political Moderates and therefore has zero relevance to the debate. Re: Contention 2 Pro's second claim is that without moderate sympathizers, people with extreme beliefs would not be tolerated in society. Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with proving that someone can agree with an extreme belief and still be considered a political moderate. I maintain that this is entirely possible. Someone is considered a political Moderate when they vote based on the candidates in question or certain views in particular, and appreciate the ideologies offered by several political parties instead of letting an idea about one party or issue (such as Pro Life sentiments) dictate their entire political agenda. For instance, one who is mainly socially liberal yet fiscally conservative may identify as a political Moderate (as opposed to a Libertarian, which offers other political sentiments entirely). Just because one might agree with some politically liberal social ideas - such as the legal implementation and recognition of gay marriage - doesn't mean that they will always be socially liberal, say with the proposed notion of legalized narcotics. Yet another instance where one may identify as a Moderate is if they agree with religious extremists about conservative social views; however, they believe in Christ's message of generosity, love, forgiveness and charity, and don't mind the government redistributing their wealth entirely. This is obviously a political identity with conflicts of clashing liberal and conservative POV. In all of these cases, individuals have established Moderate political identity in that their views vary across the political spectrum. They may agree with a particularly extremist POV on one issue; however, it doesn't negate the fact that their other views make it hard for them to fall into the category of the typical spectrum: Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, Socialist. In fact, if such an individual were to take one of several Political Quizzes offered online, they would probably end up with a Centrist or Moderate result given their scattered beliefs. And again, this contention did nothing to affirm the resolution. Re: Contention 3 Pro asserts that it only makes sense to include all those who aid the political group within the political group. He notes that Moderates that sympathize with Extremists cannot logically be considered Moderate. This is clearly flawed logic. For instance, during the Civil Rights Movement when many Jewish lawyers from the North aided the black population of the South in their struggle for Civil Rights, did their assistance or beliefs make those Jewish people black? No. Nor did it assert their political identity. It was simply one issue for which they felt a certain way. Not everyone who holds one view can be so easily pigeon-holed into one group. Thus to be in favor of an extreme political belief (including the notion of equal rights, which Pro himself has mentioned as a former extreme idea) does not 1 - automatically make you a bonafide this or that, or 2 - negate the fact that you have several views somewhere in between two or more extreme ideologies. Assuming one was an extreme liberal on one issue and an extreme conservative on another, it would make less sense to say that one was both extremely liberal and conservative as opposed to moderate. This is especially true if we view political ideologies as a spectrum (which is often the case). Using a scaling system of 1-10, with 1 being Liberal and 10 being Conservative, if someone rated a 5, it would make them fall under the category of moderate.