The United Socialist Dictatorship of America

Pro begins with ad hominem attacks and insulting my intelligence. This speaks volumes about Pro's character and inability to win an argument without resorting to insults. Classy. However, Pro's first jab in R2 is insinuating (with no proof, evidence or justification) that I do not know any other type of socialism outside of Marxian Socialism. You'll notice that Pro never included any other definition or example of socialism, making this a moot point. For Pro's first argument, he challenges the assertion that Obama is an economimc liberal. He brings up the point that Obama has cited a "right" to health care, and notes that other socialists agree with this statement. Not only is this a horrible argument, but it commits a logical fallacy. First let's observe how this contention has absolutely no relevance. Suppose Pro supports the legalization of marijuana, and he is a libertarian. Suppose I also support the legalization of marijuana, but I am a liberal. Supporting marijuana legalization is both a libertarian and liberal position [1, 2]. Therefore, simply proving that Obama and the socialist party agree on a certain issue(s) in no way proves that they belong to the same party or adhere to the same ideology. This is common sense. For those, like Pro, who cannot understand this poor analogy, we can look to logic for an explanation as to how Pro's reasoning is fallacious. He commits the affirming the consequence fallacy: the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A. A) Someone is a socialist B) Someone thinks health care is a right In short, noting that both Obama and socialists view health care as a right does not prove in any way that Obama is, in fact, a socialist. In fact, Pro's other notations hold little weight as well. It's common knowledge that certain beliefs for different ideologies overlap; however, that does NOT make the ideologies identical or synonomous. For instance, both a libertarian and a conservative would advocate laws that cut taxes. Both republicans and democrats supported the government bail outs. Pro points out Obama's stance on comprehensive immigration reform. However, it's fairly obvious that this is a LIBERAL position [3] -- Politicians like Ted Kennedy (D), Robert Menendez (D) and Janet Napolitano (D) all advocate the same thing... as democrats, not socialists. Again, comparing similarities between two parties -- the only evidence Pro has offered thus far -- do NOT make two parties equal. Considering Pro has given us no other parameters for defining socialism, I think he'd agree to several key points about the ideology. There are certain principles that are common to all forms of socialism: 1. The abolition of private property 2. The elimination of social and economic classes 3. Production according to ability, and distribution according to need Essentially socialists seek to eliminate the capitalist form of distribution [4]. Obama seeks to REGULATE capitalism - not ELIMINATE capitalism. Overall, Obama will not set up a government agency to plan the economy. He will not require businesses to meet targets for production. He will not outlaw profit. He will not put workers in charge of companies (unless it is negotiated between unions and management). In short, *the government will not run the economy.* Therefore just because Obama seeks to have more regulation, higher taxes and greater protection of unions does NOT indicate in any way a socialist system [5]. Instead, it represents a very left-leaning economic ideology that espouses sociocapitalism [6]. Again, Pro's "proof" that Obama is a socialist is the fact that he wants to redistribute wealth by advocating a progressive tax system. This of course is a moot point when you consider the reality that *nearly every Democrat/liberal* advocates the same thing. Obama is not the only democrat pushing for this redistribution of wealth or health care bill (and many before him have implemented the same ideals). Does this make all democrats socialist, or all liberals socialist? Obviously not. Next, Pro points out that 55% of Americans believe that Obama is a socialist. This is another fallacious argument (argumentum ad populum) -- just because a majority of people believe something does not make it true. Nearly 1 in 5 Americans also think that Obama is a Muslim [7]; however, he is not. Again just because people believe something does not make it true. Consider the fact that you've got right wing talking heads all over Fox News blabbing on about how Obama's the Muslim socialist -- of COURSE people are going to believe such nonsense when people keep making these false accusations and comparisons to socialism that have no merit (like the ones we've seen so far, proving nothing of the sort). Pro's final argument is that Obama must be a socialist because his father was a communist, and his mother sympathized with communists. First, Pro has committed the genetic fallacy: where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. Second, I'd like to point out that Pro's very own source notes that Obama's father abandoned him when he was just 2 years old. As such, it is completely illogical to deduce that the political ideology advocated by Obama's father had any impact on his son whatsoever considering they did not have a relationship. Third, it's pretty obvious that what his mother "sympathized with" is not necessarily what Obama either (a) believes, or (b) enacts into legislation as a politician. My mother's fairly conservative, my step-father is a libertarian and my father is a liberal... yet I am neither of those three things. Finally, even if Obama's mother's affiliation was pertinent, communism =/= socialism making this an entirely moot point with no relevance. On a final note, consider the fact that socialism seeks to eliminate private property and companies - not revive them. On the contrary, Obama was in favor of bailing out the big 3 car companies, investing in infrastructure, and regarding health care implementing a public *option* not public *mandate.* His policies are directed at rescuing companies, revitalizing the capitalist economy, helping families and small businesses, and creating competition. These are all things actual socialists would cringe at. -- CONCLUSION -- Pro has offered four arguments in favor of Obama being a socialist: A) Obama agrees with socialists on some issues ----> I've pointed out how this is irrelevant; it doesn't make them synonymous, and they're different in many ways B) Obama advocates wealth distribution via tax cuts and other social programs ----> I mentioned how this doesn't prove a thing; most liberals agree with Obama's policies as did most liberals before him C) Many people believe Obama is a socialist ----> So? Most people still believe in creationism too. People believe a lot of stupid things that aren't true. D) Obama's parents may have been communist ----> I highly doubt I'm the only one who sees that this has nothing to do with anything. As you can see, Pro has not proven in any way whatsoever that Obama is a socialist. Furthermore, he completely failed to make an argument as to how the United States could possibly be a dictatorship (which is actually what the resolution states, a.k.a. what he should be trying to prove). On the other hand, I have explained exactly why Obama is not a socialist, and proven how the U.S. is not - and under our current system could not - be a dictatorship. Resolution negated. Thank you. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com...