the debate

Question: Is fascism a viable form of government that can meet the needs of the governed?

The fascists (Nick, Laura, Liz, Alex): Had a persuasive opening statement on why capitalism and liberal democracy have led to a loss of common purpose and to failure, and that in its place needed to be a new birth of unity. While this was a very good argument against a democratic government, that is not who they were debating. They were debating Anti-fascists, as Mia pointed out, they were not necessarily democrats. After Nick’s statement Charlie pointed out that Fascism was too militaristic, he held that a belief that war was necessary for human progress would inevitably lead to disaster. It took the fascists some time to respond to this. Nick and Laura tried to gain the offensive, claiming that the values established by the entire state could not be incorrect, but Mia was able to regain the offensive by calling the stability generated by fascism forced, which would lead to revolts.

The other folk (Charlie, Sam, Justine, Grace, Mia): Did not have an actual stance on a form of government that would be better than Fascism. Charlie quickly rebuffed Nick’s point about the safety and stability created by Fascism, claiming that these are illusions, and the people actually become more vulnerable. From this point on, mostly because the other folk didn’t actually have a platform to defend, they were on the offensive. When Mia questioned the ideal of Fascism, as well as how they would establish it; the fascists took some time, they even tried to sidestep the question. Once Nick responded, however, Justine was able to refute his point about Fascism keeping deviants from performing evil acts by asking how the fascists judged what evil was.

In general the anti-fascists, or other folk, had the advantage, because there wasn’t anything for the fascists to attack, and they were therefore forced on the defensive. Disregarding this however, as the teams were chosen randomly, I award the victory to the anti-fascists.