Instigator / Pro
Points: 13

Socialism and Fascism are the most misused words in our language, they have been so perverted they are meaningless

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 3 votes the winner is ...
TheRealNihilist
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
One day
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Required rating
5
Contender / Con
Points: 20
Description
Due to the anti intellectual nature of American discourse it is hard to know exactly what people mean when they claim something is fascist or Socialist, almost like the terms are inter change able, which if you look at the dictionary even with a skim you see how wrong that is , people might as well be grunting and throwing their poo, that makes about as much sense
Round 1
Published:
people feel that they can define a word any way they want a term has certain specific qualities, this is indicative of how anti intellectual Americans have become
Published:
In order to understand what is going we must first start from the start.

Language is used to communicate with one another. In order to have the best use of language it would be optimal for people around you to speak the same language so that you are hearing and stating the same language. This is due to different languages having different societal norms attached to it. A joke in one language would be really offensive in another.

Now speaking about the two words directly:

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management, as well as the political theories and movements associated with them. Social ownership can be publiccollective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far right-wingauthoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy[3] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.

So if it wasn't clear if people follow these two different they are referring to two different things.

people feel that they can define a word any way they want a term has certain specific qualities, this is indicative of how anti intellectual Americans have become
For this to be fulfilled my opponent requires to show some sort of data that anti-intellectual Americans state this. I await for them to do so. I above have shown they are two different things so it is on my opponent to state otherwise. 
Round 2
Published:
But they dont https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4ZwqPa9mnU Americans simply dont value smart stuff https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwV3kuKG4Nw
Published:
But they dont https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4ZwqPa9mnU Americans simply dont value smart stuff https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwV3kuKG4Nw
This isn't your argument. You are using someone else's. Please next round give your argument or have the consent of the people making the video.

1st Source is Simpsons. It is an exaggeration and a cartoon.
(Side Note: Fun Show)

2nd Source is a book. You didn't link a book you linked a video talking about a book. No evidence was given in the video nor in the comments. 
(Side Note: Pakman is better but Destiny is the best. If you can't take Destiny beating Michael Brooks in a debate then your loss)
Round 3
Published:
Okay my argument is there have been books by experts written about how unbleivably stupid americans are and if you want from of that? i've posted the proof already, so there
Published:
You posted a video of a person talking for a radio. 
Another is Simpsons.

Your burden was not fulfilled and I have fulfilled mine. 
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
************************
RM's vote is bordelrine, thus it is allowed to stay
***********************
#4
Added:
--> @Ragnar
Well yes about the vote and okay to your comment.
*Praying to bsh1 to protect me*
Contender
#3
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
I assume you are referring to how quickly my vote came in? Just a coincidence of timing, and a very easy debate to vote on.
#2
Added:
--> @Ragnar
Thanks.
Are you stalking me?
Do I need to pray to m'lord bsh1 for my safety?
Contender
#1
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Neither side discussed the resolution. Con says Pro never met BoP but Con never lays out what BoP there is in any Round before the one where Pro can no longer reply.
Con copy and pastes WIkipedia introductions to Socialism and Fascism, doesn't put them in quotation boxes and only gives any credit to the original source by making the bolded words (which were bolded by Wikipedia anyway) link to the Wikipedia URL. This is lazy, deceptive use of sources as was the way that meeting BoP was only discussed in a Round where Pro no longer could meet it or argue back that they had a more passive BoP to meet than the one that Con demanded there and then.
Con pastes definitions and says that Pro has to give proof of an 'anti thing' while Con gives zero proof of the actual intellectual Americans or that Americans support intellectualism. I used to be a lazy debater but I have seen first-hand that this is too lazy to qualify as a true win. The worst part of Con's conduct, I feel, is that what Pro was doing with pasting the videos was giving the 'data' demanded by Con to show anti-intellectualism by Americans and all that Con does in response is decribe each with a biased narrative and fails to ever, once, explain that the pasted Wikipedia definitions are not themselves evidence of how meaningless and perverted that the words have become. For example, if Con had simply expanded on the definitions and explained the difference between them as well as what the words inside the definitions meant, in the context of politics, law, history etc. then he would have got the win, in my eyes.
Conduct to Pro because Con unfairly tries to control the dynamic of the debate throughout, only telling Pro they had to meet a BoP more so than Con did in a Round when Pro no longer could meet that BoP, nor reply to it. This is compounded by the Round 1 ending, where Con dictates to Pro what to present data on and then in Round 2 punishes Pro for trying to present the demanded data. Pro is new to debating and performed poorly but Con tried to capitalise on it in the laziest way possible and I don't approve of it.
Con used sources more actively as he had context to the copy+pasted exerpts and is exact on what part of the source to look at (Pro didn't even timestamp where in the videos to look).
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro's argument was abandoned in favor of an argument about American intelligence based on anecdotal evidence. Neither argument effectively.
Con. Stated definitions.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
BoP...
Seriously, pro never talked about either word in question in the resolution, so BoP could not be met. I did however enjoy that classic Simpson's bit.
The con case is the definitions of the words, showing they have meaning, negating the resolution until such time as pro offers evidence they are indeed misused (oh they are, at least by some groups, but pro has a duty to show it, and to show it).