The Democratic party is the party of fascism,intolerance and racism.

In reality the Democratic Party is now what it has been from the beginning—the party of subjugation, oppression, exploitation, and theft. The Democrats are not the party of justice or equality, but rather, of systematic injustice and inequality. Far from championing the cause of women, blacks, and other minorities, Democrats have historically brutalized, segregated, exploited, and murdered the most vulnerable members of our society. 

0. SOMETHING'S WRONG........
 
 
My opponent has mistaken the resolution of the debate. Whether accidentally or deliberately,I do not know,but he has.
 
 
 
Note that the title of the debate reads,"The Democratic party is THE party of fascism,intolerance and racism." How can a party be THE party of fascism and racism? It can be proved so based on past actions and historical data. Even in the description,I wrote "As evidenced by historical facts". The meaning of this resolution was to prove that the Democrats were the party which had supported fascism and racism and hence were consequently the party of racism and fascism. It can only be proved by showing evidence of their past behaviors.
 
 
 
While I appreciate the points my opponent has raised and I will certainly address them as well,I am afraid that the argument put forth by Con is absurd.
 
 
It's like I said in my opening round,the lawyer the lawyer who is presented with the murder weapon belonging to his client. Darn, he says to himself, I better think fast. “Yes,” he now admits, “my client did murder the clerk and rob the store. But he didn’t kill all those other people who were also found dead at the scene.”
 
 
 
In other words, progressives who are forced to acknowledge the Democratic Party’s pro-slavery history promptly respond, “We admit to being the party of slavery, and we did uphold the institution for more than a century, but slavery ended in 1865, so all of this was such a long time ago. You can’t blame us now for the antebellum crimes of the Democratic Party.”
 
 
Yes, but what about the postbellum crimes of the Democratic Party? Some progressive pundits know about it, but they don’t want to talk about it. Such talk, they figure, can only hurt today’s Democrats who, after all, can hardly bear responsibility for what JFK said or what FDR and Woodrow Wilson did.
 
 
 
But don’t we have some responsibility to the truth? Shouldn’t we lay out the facts of history and let people make up their own minds? The progressive answer to this question is no. Progressives detest the facts not because they are untrue but because they don’t fit in with progressive political interests. Facts constitute, as Al Gore
might say, an inconvenient truth.
 
 
 
 
To give you another example,it's also akin to the lawyer who says, “Yes, my client shot the clerk and killed all those people, but since then he has completely reformed and now lives a blameless life. Meanwhile, his accusers have all become criminals.” Actually, even if that were true, the man should still be held to account for what he did. He should be expected to make a confession of his crimes and make some reparation to his victims and to society. Progressives, of course, have no intention of doing any of this. Neither do Democrats.
 
 
 
 
Before continuing my next arguments,I will first rebut my opponent's arguments:
 
 
 
1. ALIGNING IS PROOF.
 
 
P2. That point is inherently wrong.
 
 
https://nypost.com/2018/01/04/keith-ellison-invites-antifa-to-the-party/
 
 
The biggest example is the Antifa. The Antifa does exactly what the blackshirts of Italy and the brownshirts of Germany used to do. They would go to a lecture hall,stand up and try to shout down the speaker. Or,they would attack the speaker or disrupt the event by starting fires and committing violence. And if they could get the lecture cancelled,they would count it as a victory. So,today the Antifa does exactly what the fascists of Germany used to do.
 
 
 
 
Con said fascists don't align with Democrats,and yet the No.2 man of the Democratic party,Keith Ellison,invited them to join the party. This goes against the argument that fascists don't align with the Democratic party.
 
 
 
Moreover,the important point is not that fascists are aligning with Democrats,but that the Democratic party itself has begun to develop fascist values.
 
 
 https://outline.com/z2J7HD
 
Go to the above link and you'll understand how.
 
 
 
I would like to point out that my opponent has posted sources from Wikipedia which is known to be notoriously inaccurate and is more of a reference than a source. Also,my opponent accuses me of ignoring certain facts and posting only those which were very convenient to me. I would like to say that that is a blatant lie and in fact,it is my opponent which has done so.
 
 
 
For example:
 
Con alleges that David Duke endorsed Donald Trump. He conveniently fails to mention that Donald Trump and Mike Pence denounced David Duke and his support.
 
https://www.huffingtonpost.in/entry/david-duke-trump-charlottesville_n_5991d6bae4b08a2472764798
 
 
 
And since Con posts articles from Wikipedia,let me also mention what else he conveniently failed to post.
 
 
Duke joined the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) in 1967. Duke first ran for the Louisiana Senate as a Democrat from a Baton Rouge district in 1975. During his campaign, he was allowed to speak on the college campuses of Vanderbilt University, Indiana University, the University of Southern California, Stanford University, and Tulane University. He received 11,079 votes, one-third of those cast.
 
 
In October 1979, he ran as a Democrat for the 10th District Senate seat and finished second in a three-candidate race with 9,897 votes (26%).
In the late 1970s, Duke was accused by several Klan officials of stealing the organization's money. "Duke is nothing but a con artist", Jack Gregory, Duke's Florida state leader, told the Clearwater Sun after Duke allegedly refused to turn over proceeds from a series of 1979 Klan rallies to the Knights. Another Klan official under Duke, Jerry Dutton, told reporters that Duke had used Klan funds to purchase and refurbish his home in Metairie. Duke later justified the repairs by saying most of his home was used by the Klan.
 
 
In 1979, after his first, abortive run for president (as a Democrat) and a series of highly publicized violent Klan incidents, Duke quietly incorporated the nonprofit National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP) in an attempt to leave the baggage of the Klan behind.
 
Duke allegedly conducted a direct-mail appeal in 1987, using the identity and mailing-list of the Georgia Forsyth County Defense Leaguewithout permission. League officials described it as a fundraising scam.
 
 
I know this is shocking because this shows that while David Duke was a white supremacist he was a part of the Democrats,not the Republicans. He left the KKK before joining the Republicans. He also left the KKK 40 years before as of now. 
 
 
 
Con also conveniently(deliberately?) ignored the fact that while Donald Trump denounced David Duke's support,Hillary Clinton called Robert Byrd who was also a KKK member as her "mentor" and President Obama actually eulogized him. This actually proves that the Democratic party is the party of fascism.
 
 
 
But most importantly,here is the most shocking fact of all:
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United_States_politics
 
 
 
A total off 20 members have been proven to be in the KKK who later joined US politics. Out of these 17 members were Democrats while only 3 were Republicans.
 
 
 
And before anybody accuses me of invalid sources,this is the same source which Con used: Wikipedia,so spare me.
 
 
 
 
Con accuses Republicans of taking money from white supremacists which amounted to a total of 300$ out of 16 million$ of the total campaign donations;not to mention the fact that the RNC condemned those donations as is clear in the same source which Con posted.
 
 
 
https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2019/02/20/why_is_the_fec_ignoring_hillary_clintons_84_million_campaign_finance_scandal_111066.html
 
 
However,Con doesn't seem as concerned about the 84 million$ of illegal donations that the Democratic party received,even allegedly diverting funds from the Clinton Foundation. That seems ironic,though not surprising.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2. RACISM.
 
 
Before I get on with my argument,let's clear up the ridiculous argument that "only whites are racist".
 
 
 Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another, which often results in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity. 
 
 
Nowhere does it mention anything about whites or blacks. With that in mind:
 
 
 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/02/17/white-male-democrats-2020-225101
 
 
I quote from the above article,"Of the nine candidates officially running in the Democratic presidential primary, only one is a heterosexual white man."
 
 
And Joe Biden who's running from the Democratic ticket has a history of saying racist things.
 
 
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/joe-biden-once-said-democrats-needed-a-liberal-george-wallace
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Also,I would like to say regarding your 8th source,I went to the site and I saw an electoral map. There was nothing about racism in the South. It showed that most states in the South voted for the Republicans. So,voting for Republicans is racist now? Boy,and they say that Republicans are intolerant.......
 
 
 
Also,"The southern states most affiliated with recent overt racism; Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, etc are all staunch Republican States. This clearly shows that Racists clearly affiliate with the Republicans." 
 
 
By the same logic,most Democrats are violent thugs because out of the 20 dangerous major cities in America,19 are governed by Democrats.
 
https://www.apnews.com/cd60b6d9b1e34e20b9b0c19205c2cae6
 
 
 
 
Before getting on with the next point,let's get real. The face of bigotry has changed in America. Today,the KKK would be lucky to even get 50 members in its protests.
Hell,just last week in Dayton,Ohio,only 9 PEOPLE SHOWED UP FOR A KKK PROTEST. The protesters outnumbered them 10 to 1. This is very different from The Klan of a century ago,when they used to gather tens of thousands of people and march along the streets of New York shouting racist slogans and burning crosses.
 
http://time.com/5596103/kkk-rally-dayton-ohio/
 
 
 
The real fascists and racists today are the Antifa who are being backed by the Democrats(as shown above)
 
 
 
 
3. TOLERANCE
 
I'm sorry,but my head started aching after having to look for whites,blacks and latinos in that 2 pictures. Why don't we talk based on facts and not pictures?
 
 
My opponent's whole argument is based on the statement that since white supremacists donate money to Trump,hence it's Trump who's racist. One has only to exercise his brain a little to find out how fundamentally flawed that logic is.
 
 
 
The strongest basis for the charge is that the Left has uncovered some white supremacists and anti-Semites who say they back Trump. One of them, Richard Spencer, held a notorious rally during which he and his few dozen supporters cried out, “Hail Trump.” Spencer seems here to be doing his best Hitler imitation. Yet if these racists and anti-Semites endorse Trump, Trump himself doesn’t endorse them. The best the Left can show is that Trump has retweeted some statements by white nationalists even though the statements themselves are benign. I retweet people all the time without knowing much about them. The conventions of social media do not require that we check out the backgrounds of the people that we retweet.
 
 
 
 
Over the course of American history many racists voted for Lincoln—who actively courted the anti-immigrant, Know-Nothing vote—and Wilson and FDR, who actively sought the votes of avowed racists. It doesn’t follow that Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR were racists. My point here is simply that the racist vote by itself doesn’t make its beneficiary a racist.
 
 
 
 
 
Let’s consider Trump’s executive order banning travel to America from several Muslim-majority countries. These countries happen to be breeding grounds for terrorists. They are also countries where the vetting of people, some of whom have been displaced from their homes and communities, is especially difficult. John Locke says that whatever other tasks a government undertakes— whether humanitarian or otherwise—its primary duty is to protect its own citizens from foreign and domestic thugs. That isn’t fascism; it’s classical liberalism.
 
 
 
Trump isn’t against “immigrants” for the simple reason that illegal aliens are not immigrants. Leftists in Congress and the media routinely conflate legal and illegal immigrants as in New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s comical rant, “We are all immigrants,” and in this New York Times front-page headline: “More Immigrants Face Deportation Under New Rules.”
 
 
 
But that is a lie. Trump has no intention to send us packing to our countries of origin. Trump’s distinction is between legal immigrants and lawbreakers who seek to circumvent the immigration process.
 
 
 
This is not a racial distinction. Trump has never said that America is a white man’s country or that brown or black people should not emigrate here. Most immigrants today come from Asia, Africa, and South America, and Trump seems fine with that. Contrast Trump’s position with that of Hitler. The Jews of Germany were legal immigrants or descended from legal immigrants. They were German citizens. Yet Hitler did not consider them to be true Germans. The Nuremberg Laws stripped Jews of their German citizenship. So for Hitler the line was not between legal and illegal immigrants. It was not even between immigrants and native-born Germans. Rather, it was a racial line between Nordics or Aryan Germanic people on the one hand, and Jews and other non- Aryan “inferiors” on the other.

1. The ACTUAL “Big Switch” Part 1:
   
   1. Even though FDR was clearly racist, blacks saw that New Deal programs at least offered employment to tens of thousands of blacks
      
   2. Black votes during the New Deal era moved steadily toward the Democratic Party, in a sense selling their votes for a mess of pottage.
      
      1. From 1865 to 1933 approximately 90 percent of blacks voted Republican
         
      2. By 1936, 75 percent of blacks became Democrats
         
      3. This tend has only continued since then, so that today around 90 percent of blacks vote Democratic and only 10 percent vote Republican
         
   3. The black vote switched from Republican to Democrat mostly during a period of four years during the 1930s.
      
   4. Democrats could scarcely believe their good fortune. They found that they could continue to exclude, exploit, and subjugate blacks, and still get the black vote. Democratic strategists at the time expressed their amazement and delight that blacks votes came so cheap. In subsequent decades, progressive Democrats recognized that they could secure a virtually permanent hold on the black vote by creating plantation-style dependency on the state.
      
2. The ACTUAL “Big Switch,” Part 2:
   
   1. The south became more Republican over a period of decades during the 1950s and 1960s as it gradually became less racist
      
      1. As the South became more prosperous economically during the 190s and 1960s, the racist appeal lost its currency and white southern Democrats realized that they had more in common with the Republican Party. The identified with the GOP idea of controlling your own destiny and improving your own life.
         
      2. In a remarkable book, The End of Southern Exceptionalism, Byron Shafer and Richard Johnston make the case that white southerners switched to the Republican Party not because of racism but because they identified the GOP with economic opportunity and upward mobility. As the agrarian South became more industrial and then post-industrial, white southerners switched parties not because of race but because of economic prospects. Interestingly, whites moved to the Republican Party for the same reason blacks moved to the Democratic Party: both groups saw the journey as congruent with their economic self-interest.
         
      3. Shafer and Johnston show how Democrats tried, and failed, to keep southern whites in the fold by appealing to racism. Southern whites, however, migrated to the GOP as the party that better represented their interests and aspirations. Shafer and Johnston supply reams of data to substantiate their claim that the poorest, most racist whites remained Democratic, while more prosperous whites who were not racist were more likely to become Republicans. To the horror of the Democratic Party, the South moved in the Republican direction as white southerners embraced the GOP as the non-racist party of economic opportunity and patriotism. 21
         
   1. LBJ Spoke of civil rights legislation as a tactical measure to keep blacks on the plantation
      
      1. Johnson was himself a member of the racist group of southern Democrats that FDR worked with and cut deals with.
         
      2. Johnson vociferously opposed civil rights early in his career.
         
      3. • I’ll tell you what’s at the bottom of it. If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.
           
           • As quoted in “What a Real President Was Like: To Lyndon Johnson, the Great Society Meant Hope and Dignity”, by Bill Moyers, The Washington Post (13 November 1988).
             
         • As long as you are black, and you’re gonna be black till the day you die, no one’s gonna call you by your goddamn name! So no matter what you are called, nigger, you just let it roll off your back like water, and you’ll make it! Just pretend you’re a goddamn piece of furniture!
           
           • Said to his chauffeur, Robert Parker, when Parker said he’d prefer to be referred to by his name rather than “boy,” “nigger” or “chief.” As quoted in Parker, Robert; Rashke, Richard L. (1989). Capitol Hill in Black and White. United States: Penguin Group. p. v. ISBN 0515101893. Retrieved on 6 January 2015.
             
         • I’m going to have to bring up the nigger bill again.
           
           • Said to a southern U.S. Senator upon the occasion of the Republicans re-introducing the Civil Right Act of 1957, according to LBJ’s Special Counsel Harry McPherson. As quoted in McPherson, Harry. Interview with Michael L. Gillette. “Transcript, Harry McPherson Oral History Interview VI, 5/16/85, by Michael L. Gillette, LBJLibrary.” 16 May 1985.
             
         • Let’s face it. Our ass is in a crack. We’re gonna have to let this nigger bill pass.
           
           • Said to Senator John Stennis (D-MS) during debate on the Civil Rights Act of 1957. As quoted in Caro, Robert A. (2002). The Years of Lyndon Johnson: Master of the Senate, Volume 3. New York: Knopf. p. 954. ISBN 0394528360. Retrieved on 6 January 2015.
             
         • Sam, why don’t you all let this nigger bill pass?
           
           • Said to Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn (D-TX) regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1957. As quoted in Dallek, Robert (1991). Lone Star Rising: Lyndon Johnson and His Times, 1908-1960. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. p. 519. ISBN 0195054350. Retrieved on 5 July 2014.
             
         • These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.
           
           • Said to Senator Richard Russell, Jr. (D-GA) regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1957. As quoted in Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream (1977), by Doris Kearns Goodwin, New York: New American Library, p. 155. (TIME:48:35-49:12 SOURCES: Lyndon B. Johnson, Wikiquote)
             
         • Son, when I appoint a nigger to the court, I want everyone to know he’s a nigger.
           
           • Said to an aide in 1965 regarding the appointment of Thurgood Marshall as associate justice of the Supreme Court. As quoted in Dallek, Robert (1991). Lone Star Rising: Lyndon Johnson and His Times, 1908-1960. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. p. 519. ISBN 0195054350. Retrieved on 5 July 2014.
             
         • I’ll have them niggers voting Democratic for two hundred years.
           
           • Said to two governors regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964, according to then-Air Force One steward Robert MacMillan. As quoted in Inside the White House (1996), by Ronald Kessler, New York: Simon and Schuster, p. 33. (TIME: 49:18-49:35 SOURCES: Lyndon B. Johnson, Wikiquote
             
      4. Other Tactical Aspects of Democratic support for Civil Rights Legislation
         
         1. If blacks became independent they would have no more reason to vote Democratic
            
         2. Black suffering gave Democratic progressivism a continuing claim to “social justice.”
            
         3. As long as blacks were beholden to Democrats anyone who dissented from the progressive program could then be accused of being anti-black.
            
         4. Republicans who opposed progressivism could be charged with being racist.
            
         5. Black conservatives and the party of black emancipation and of civil rights could now be tarred with the charge if bigotry and being against civil rights.
            

1. Progressives who cannot refute this history—facts are stubborn things—nevertheless create the fantasy of a Nixon “Southern strategy” that supposedly explains how Republicans cynically appealed to racism in order to convert southern Democrats into Republicans. In reality Nixon had no such strategy—as we have seen, it was Lyndon Johnson who had a southern strategy to keep blacks from defecting to the Republican Party. Johnson, not Nixon, was the true racist, a fact that progressive historiography has gone to great lengths to disguise.
   
2. Nixon’s political strategy in the 1968 campaign is laid out in Kevin Phillips’s classic work The Emerging Republican Majority. Phillips writes that the Nixon campaign knew it could never win the presidency through any kind of racist appeal. Such an appeal, even if it won some converts in some parts of the Lower South, would completely ruin Nixon’s prospects in the rest of the country. Nixon’s best bet was to appeal to the rising middle classes of the Upper South on the basis of prosperity and economic opportunity. 22 This is exactly what Nixon did.
   
3. There are no statements by Nixon that even remotely suggest he appealed to racism in the 1968 or 1972 campaigns. Nixon never displayed the hateful, condescending view of blacks that Johnson did. The racist vote in 1968 didn’t go to Nixon; it went to George Wallace. A longtime Democratic segregationist, Wallace campaigned that year on an independent ticket. Nixon won the election but Wallace carried the Deep South states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia.
   
4. Nixon supported expanded civil rights for blacks throughout his career while Johnson was—for the cynical reasons given above—a late convert to the cause. Nixon went far beyond Johnson in this area; in fact, Nixon implemented America’s first affirmative action program which involved the government forcing racist unions in Philadelphia to hire blacks.
   
5. To sum up, starting in the 1930s and continuing to the present, progressive Democrats developed a new solution to the problem of what they saw as useless people. In the antebellum era, useless people from the Democratic point of view were mainly employed as slaves. In the postbellum period, southern Democrats repressed, segregated, and subjugated useless people, seeking to prevent them from challenging white supremacy or voting Republican. Meanwhile, northern progressives like Margaret Sanger sought to prevent useless people from being born. Today’s progressives, building on the legacy of Wilson, FDR, and Johnson, have figured out what to do with useless people: turn them into Democratic voters.
   
6. "Additionally, black voters nationwide realigned their party affiliation because of the growing perception that the interests of the black community were intertwined with local Democratic organizations….While New Deal programs failed to extend as much economic relief to Black Americans as to whites, the tangible assistance they provided conferred a sense that the system was at least addressing a few issues that were important to African Americans."  (SOURCES:  Party Realignment and the New Deal, History, Art & Archives: United States House of Representatives)
   
7. In 1936, black party affiliation was 44% Democratic, 37% Republican. But blacks voted 71% Democratic and 28% Republican(SOURCES: Black Party Affiliation, BlackDemographics.com)
   

1. Brown v Board of Education
   
   1. Ending school segregation
      
2. Civil Rights Act of 1964
   
   1. Guaranteed blacks, women and other minorities the right not to be discriminated against in jobs and government contracts
      
   2. passed the House with
      
      1. 63 percent of Democrats and
         
      2. 80 percent of Republicans voting “yes.”
         
   3. Passed the Senate with
      
      1. 69 percent of Democrats and
         
      2. 94 percent of Republicans voted “yes.”
         
3. Fair Housing Bill of 1968
   
   1. Extended the antidiscrimination provisions of the CRA of 1964 to housing.
      
4. The Voting Rights Act of 1965
   
   1. guaranteed to blacks and other minorities full enfranchisement
      
   2. passed the House 333-85,
      
      1. No votes
         
         1. 61 Democrats
            
         2. 24 Republicans
            
   3. It passed the Senate with
      
      1. 73 percent of Democrats and
         
      2. 94 percent of Republicans.
         
5. Had Republicans voted in the same proportion as Democrats the laws would not have passed.
   

1. Organized protests against desegregation rulings by the Supreme Court
   
2. Democrat governors refused to enforce those rulings
   
3. Senate Democrats filibusterd against the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
   
4. Leading members of the Dixiecrats:
   
   1. James Eastland, Democrat, Mississippi
      
   2. John Stennis, Democrat, Mississippi
      
   3. Russel Long, Democrat, Louisiana
      
   4. Strom Thurmond, Democrat, South Carolina
      
      1. The only one to switch to Republican Party
         
   5. Herman Talmadge, Democrat, Georgia
      
   6. J. William Fulbright, Democrat, Arkansas
      
   7. Lestor Maddox, Democrat, Georgia,
      
   8. Al Gore Sr., Democrat, Tennessee
      
   9. Robert Byrd, Democrat, West Virginia
      

Fascism actually means putting the resources of the individual and of industry at the service of the state. This means that the state defines what individual aspirations are about, and the state controls the resources of private industry. Fascism also confers entitlements on citizens and uses these to justify state power and state control. Finally, fascism draws on an atmosphere of perpetual fear—sometimes accompanied by perpetual conflict—to keep citizens apprehensive and make them look to the state for protection and care.

I apologize to voters for the length of this post. Pro has mainly engaged in a Gish Gallop of innumerable points, and in order to be complete, it requires ink.

Plagiarism 

Pros opening round, and post relating to the southern strategy was copy paste Plagiarism from Dinesh D’Souza.[1]

Pro did not indicate this, and instead passed it off as his own argument. 

As I did not accept a debate against multiple novels and movies by Dinesh D’Souza, but against pro - it is wholly dishonest for pro to present these arguments as his own, and for this reason pros entire opening around should be discounted.

0.) Resolution and Definitions 

Pro is attempting to move the goalposts by changing the terms of the resolution.

0.1) Changing the resolution.

Pro adds his own additional emphasis that wasn’t in the original resolution, and ignores the opening line in his first round:

“In reality the Democratic Party is now what it has been from the beginning—the party of subjugation, oppression, exploitation, and theft.”

It’s clear that pro is and was arguing that the Democrat party IS NOW the party of racism, fascism and intolerance.

The resolution clearly implies that the Democratic Party is currently racist, intolerant and fascist.

One would not say that the Democratic Party is the party of States Rights - despite Democrats seceding, declaring and fighting a civil war on the subject. 

If pro wanted to argue that the Democratic Party is historically racist, or WAS the party of racism: this should have been the resolution.

However as the resolution is relatively unambiguous, and he himself argues as if the resolution is as I explained in his opening round: my interpretation must be accepted

0.2.) What constitutes being the party of ....

Pro isn’t clear about the criteria he judges that one party is “the party of xxx”.

So let’s specify how voters can determine who has proven their position or not.

A party “is the party of racism/fascism/intolerance”: if those with racist, fascist, and intolerant views align or gravitate primarily with that party OR that the party primarily enacts or implements objectively racist, fascist and intolerant views.

That one side was racist in the past but is not now is insufficient (see 0.1)

I will continue to show that Racists, fascists, and the intolerant are broadly aligned with a different party than democrats - that if you you are a racist, you will likely align with republicans.

If fascists, racists and the intolerant are all  primarily in one party - it seems self evident that this party is the party of racism, fascism and intolerance.

If pro cannot show that the Democratic Party has an overtly racist, fascist or intolerant platform; or that the racists, fascists and the intolerance are primarily Democratic - then pro has not affirmed the resolution and voters should vote for con

Moreover: the resolution means pro has to clearly show democrats are the party of all three. If I show only that the Democrats are not the party of racism, this negates the resolution.

0.3) Fascism definition.

Pro uses a singular definition of fascism to mean effectively government supremacy over the individual. That’s not really fascism - merely a component. There is no agreed definition of Fascism; but I will summarize key properties taken from multiple sources.[3][4][5]

A.) Highly Nationalistic promoting their country and the countries interests above that of the individuals.
B.) Highly militaristic, military symbolism and military rhetoric
C.) Scapegoating of a particular group - often based on race.
D.) Anti establishment - an idea that there is a plot by elites or enemies to harm the people.
E.) Focus on Tradition, and appeal to tradition and the past
F.) Centralized Government with a focus of society around Corporatism with a single authoritarian leader.
G.) Contempt for regular democracy.
H.) Violence, and suppression of political opponents using the tools of the state; treatment of any opponents as traitors to the people.

There are overlaps between this, and other authoritarian governments. Pros definition would also include Marxism (which isn’t fascism) - so should be excluded. The above is not exhaustive - but are the key properties of the generally agreed fascist regimes.

1.) Democrats are the party of Fascism

In the last round: I pointed out that the unambiguous fascists - the Neo Nazis that perform Hitler Salutes to Trump and fly Swastikas all generally appear to support Trump. They ran as members of the  Republican Party and they donated to Trumps campaign.

This clearly demonstrates that the unambiguous Fascists are on balance Republican. This clearly negates the resolution.

1.1) Trump didn’t endorse them.

Pro made this argument in multiple places. Racists and Fascists are predominantly republican and primarily support republicans - as I showed.

Whether or not Trump, or Republicans accept this support does not refute the fact that the racists support them.

This support is the key factor here - Trump could be racist - but if most racists supported Democrats this would seem to affirm the resolution. The converse is true also.

It is this fact that fascists support Trump and republicans clearly refutes the notion that the Democratic Party is the party of Fascists.

1.2) Anti-Fa is Fascist

While Anti-Fa are vile thugs that should be condemned, they are not fascist by any objective definition.

Referring to the definition of Fascism in 0.3), and even pros definition of fascism he outlined at the end of the last round - Anti-Fa clearly doesn’t match any of the criteria on the list.

While a case could be made of political violence to suppress opposition; their actions tend to be limited mostly (but not exclusively) to right wing provocateurs. They don’t attack labor unions or police unions that support trump, or break up organized opposition as a political tool.

They cannot be considered brownshirts for this reason too, as well as that they aren’t under the control or command of the Democratic Party.

Worse, pro executed an absurd double standard; claiming Republicans aren’t the party of fascism because they reject the support of fascists. He does not seem to apply this same standard when democrats denounce Anti-Fa[2]


So anti-fa doesn’t make Democrats the party of fascism by pros own argument and definitions; nor the actual definition of fascism and reality.

1.3) The Democrats enact Fascist Policies.

Pro doesn’t specify what policy is fascist and instead merely refers to a link.

I accepted a debate against pro - not a writer of an Op Ed who likely had substantial time to write and craft his arguments in that Op Ed.

Pro needs to explain what aspects of Democratic policy fit into the points A-H above. Simply asserting that Fascist means big government as implied by the Op Ed would make places like Sweden and Denmark fit the definition of Fascist, which is clearly absurd.

This point should be rejected for this reason.

1.4.) Contextual comparison.

In A-H I have listed the key properties of fascist regimes.

When comparing these two to the political parties: it’s clear that the common thread is that the Republican Party broadly - and Donald Trump in particular echoes many of these fascist ideals and politics.

This is not to say that Donald Trump and Republicans are fascist - but if pro is using similarities to fascist principles as evidence that one party is racist - this should be compared to both to see which most adheres to fascist ideals.

Specifically, policies and actions taken by Republicans and Donald Trump that generally match Fascism:

America First, allusions to American Greatness, and making America Great and Trumps intrinsic Nationalism clearly parallel (A) in the definition above.

Trumps flag hugging, over symbolism of the flag, the usage of military symbolism, bald eagles, etc: pushing for a much stronger military, requests for a military parade all parallel (B) 

Trumps Scapegoating of illegal immigrants, and eliciting fear in criminal aliens, gangs, etc is political rhetoric that parallels the (C) of fascism.

D.) Trump paints the establishment as wholly corrupt, and precious administrations as deliberately harming the US, or acting consistently to harm the American people with trade, alliances, etc. This clearly parallels (D).

Make America Great Again and Trumps frequent reliance on past ideals and nostalgia for the good old days of American Greatness clearly parallel (E)

Trump adopts a cult of personality - has claimed that he can shoot someone and wouldn’t lose support. He has portrayed himself as a strong man who, alone, is the only one who can fix the problems of the country, and is an expert at almost everything. This clearly mirrors (F)

While republicans do not by any means support government control - they do assuredly support corporatism : given the political power of corporations, and that former lobbyist and regulators are in charge of regulating the industry they were part of, this aligns with this corporatist notion by default: while fascism has tended to force conformity of corporations to politics - republicans do this mostly the other way around.[6]

Republican attempts at gerrymandering, ballot tossing, politically unbalanced voter purges, and fictitious appeals to fraud to undermine the confidence in the outcome of elections are primarily Republican and align with (G) [7]


Trump has actively encouraged violence at rally’s, has attempted to use tools of the state to harm political enemies, brandishes a hostile press as “the enemy of the people”, has called political opponents and law enforcement officials “Traitors”. This aligns with (H)

Clearly - out of the two parties, Republicans obviously and objectively align more closely to the key principles of fascism here.

1.5.) David Duke and affiliation

Pro points out that Trump didn’t support Duke. This is irrelevant (see 1.1)

Pro points out that Duke used to be a Democrat. This is also irrelevant as the resolution is whether democrats are currently the party of racism. (see 0.1)

That he is Republican now; clearly indicates that republicans are now currently the party to which fascists and racists flock.

This negates the resolution.

Pro is asking voters to focus on past affiliation and completely ignore current affiliation without any justification. Why would a racist quit the democrats and join the republicans if the democrats aligned with his views?

1.6) But Hilary....

White supremacists gave Trump Money - this clearly indicates they support him, and that republicans are the party of fascists/white supremacists (see 0.2)

That Trump rejects those donations doesn’t negate the support. (See 1.1)

That Hilary allegedly took unrelated illegal donations doesn’t refute this either. This debate is not whataboutism concerning Hillary -  but whether democrats are the party of racists/fascists. 

As such, none of the points pro makes refutes the point being made.

1.7.) Democrat KKK members

Again, the debate is not that the Democratic Party used to be racist - but that it is now. (see 0.1)

None of the examples pro cites are recent, and the majority appear to be 1920s and 1930s, thus do not refute the point

1.8.) Robert Bryd

David Duke is still a white supremacist, has not apologized, and while not in the KKK is still very much affiliated with their beliefs. He is a Republican.[8]

Robert Byrd formally renounced his previous views on race, and changed both views and actions to be the antithesis of white supremacy in the 1970s.[9]

The two are not comparable for this reason; given it is reasonable to presume that his renunciation of his racial views is why he remained a democrat rather than - as Strom Thurmond - became a Republican.

Hence this does not refute the point.

1.9.) Kennedy admired Hitler - was a fascist.

Even if true - this is irrelevant. The past is not today.

Secondly, pro shows nothing but abstract sympathy - not any direct fascist influence of Fascism on Kennedy; nor any fascist policies.

2.) Racism.

Pro mostly drops all the key points I made about racism and white nationalism. I extend these across the board.

2.1.) Biden said racist things.

The Democratic Party may contain some racist people, and for its members (even high level members) to have said racist things in the past. This does not mean that the party is the party of racism by any means as former words of an individual are not necessarily related to the parties current platform, or the people that support it.

Pro must show that the platform the party holds is racist - or that racists predominantly support democrats - neither of which referencing Biden does.

Also: Pro is leading himself down a dangerous path, if pros criteria for being the party of racism is simply how many prominent politicians have said racist things - I am fairly sure that more current republicans have said more racist things than have had democrats.[10]

This point doesn’t negate that racists broadly affiliate with republicans; and if we apply the evidence of Nazis and White nationalists unabashedly running for office as Republicans, and individuals like Steve Kong mentioned in the previous round: I have already presented damning evidence that the racist things said by Republicans recently is much worse than that of current democrats.

2.2.) Republican districts correlate with racist attitudes.

The argument is not that voting republican makes you racist - but that if you are racist, the data clearly shows you’re a Republican.

In the two examples provided - there is a clear correlation with racist attitudes and the locations that vote republican.

One image shows racist attitudes - the second image highlights whether the district went democrat or republican. Attitudes tend to be more racist in the south, and rural areas : typical Republican strong holds.

Pro offers no other argument against this damning correlation with Racist attitudes and voting republican.

3.3.) Racists states vote for Republicans - democrats are thugs.

Heavily and historically racist states are staunchly Republican. Pro doesn’t contest this.

Pro again confuses the argument: Racists are Republican; not Republicans are racist.

Pros only defense is to claim that by this logic thugs are Democrats.

This fails for two reasons: first there is a causal link between attitudes and values you hold, and who you vote for : there is no such evident link between violence and who you vote for. This means while I can posit causation between racism and voting republican - there is no such link pro can posit between thuggery and voting Democratic.

Secondly - even if pro is correct and thugs vote democrat - that has nothing to do with the resolution.

2.4.) Only one straight white male in the presidential campaign.

Pro doesn’t offer an argument: but implies that the lack of white people running for president is somehow racist. As he doesn’t explain why, this can be ignored.

However, I will point out that even pros facts are faulty: straight and male aren’t races. Mike Bennet, Joe Biden, Bill De Blasio, Steve Bullock  Mike Buttigieg, John Delaney, Kirsten Gillibrand,  Mike Gravel, John Hickenlooper, Jay Inslee, Amy Klobuchar, Seth Moulton, Beto O Rourke, Tim Ryan, Bernie Sanders, Erik Swalwell, Elizabeth Warren, Marriane Williamson; are all white and running for the nomination. There are 6 minority candidates out of 24 (around 25%)[11]

2.5) The face of bigotry has changed. The KKK are no longer valid.

As shown - those with racist attitudes tend to vote republican. Nazis and the alt right white nationalist support republicans. Open white supremacists and Nazis run in elections as republicans.
 
This debate is not necessarily about the prevalence of racism, or bigotry in the US:  but which party is the party that Racists affiliate with, or has a racist platform.

Saying the KKK are now small, does not refute any of the evidence provided that shows racists align with republicans.

4.) Tolerance 

4.1.) Trump doesn’t endorse racism.

Pro again comments that pro doesn’t endorse racism. This is irrelevant (see 1.1)

4.2) Trump is/is not Racist.

Pro appear to be claiming Trump isn’t a racist. This is irrelevant to the resolution. 

The Democratic Parties attitude to race, and lack of support of and by racists is unrelated to Trumps racial views.

I have demonstrated that racists predominantly affiliate with republicans - indicating that racists are primarily Republican: this demonstrably negates the resolution irrespective of whether Trump himself is a actually a racist or not.

4.3.) Muslim Ban

The validity of the Muslim Ban does not indicate that Democrats are the party of racism or intolerant. Therefore this does not support pros premise.

Worse; his claim that it stopped terrorists from terrorist breeding grounds is untrue. 

The original ban proposed during the campaign was all Muslims regardless of origin or home country.[12]

DHS itself cast doubt on the validity of the argument by saying that citizenship wasn’t a good indicator of terrorism.[13]

This clearly indicates that the original ban was inherently intolerant - making it easier for the intolerant and racists to aide with republicans. This negates the resolution.

4.4.) Trump isn’t against immigrants - only illegal immigrants.

This is untrue. Trump also rails against legal immigration and wanting to reduce levels of legal immigration - this includes a major reduction in recugees. [14]

Trump also railed against legal immigrants from “shithole countries”.

Trump also is and has taken measure to prevent legal asylum claims from being processed at ports of entry.[15]

Currently, a majority of border crossing and detention are from those with asylum claims - while they committed a crime by crossing the border; they are staying because they are legally afforded the right to request asylum. Trump also reduced and limited the number of reasons for which legal asylum claims could be made.[16]

Thus claiming it’s just illegal immigrants is untrue: this helps my case that Republican Policy appear racist, and is policy racists could and would happily support.

However - it does nothin to support pros contention that Democrats are the party of intolerance; whereas it provides clear grounding for why racists and those intolerant of non-here immigrants would be attracted to the Republican party.

5.) Jim Crow and Civil Rights.

Pro here misconstrues my argument. Pro argues that racists democrats are dead, the Democratic Party is blameless.

This is nonsensical.

The Democratic Party does indeed have a racist past - but are not Racist any longer, due to both realignment and former racist democrats no longer being alive as covered in the last round.

My whole argument is that, given the evidence, if these democrats were alive and practicing politics today - they would be republican. This is spelt out in my proofs listed above, and validated by the evidence I have provided 

5.1.) The Southern strategy.

Pros long and verbose rejection of the southern strategy is again plagiarized  Verbatim from a Dinesh DeSouza book ; this should be rejected.

Pro is clearly not wanting to argue in good faith; by crafting his own arguments, and instead has simply copied other people repeatedly.

The southern Strategy is a matter of documented fact.

The south is currently a stronghold of racism and racist attitudes in the US(see previous round - point 2).

In 1964 - the deep south went to A Republican for the first time since reconstruction. In 1968, Nixon swept the south excluding the Deep South - which voted for an outright racist. In 1972, and mostly since; the south has been staunchly republican.

The idea that they switched to republican because they “became less racist” is not matched by facts; the south swung sharply to the republicans, then voted for a racist, then stayed Republican; and still has racist attitudes.

Worse, let’s simply quote Lee Atwater, a key republican strategist and his documented response to what the southern strategy actually was:

This clearly and demonstrably indicates the southern strategy was a definitive and ultimately successful strategy for republicans to win over white racists alienated by the Democrats civil rights movement.

6.) Drops / uncontested 

Pro raised a significant number of points in round 1; then dropped the majority of them.

Pro drops that democrats were responsible for wiping out fascist governments.

Pro drops that Andrew Jackson was a racist president - and is supported by Trump.

Pro drops that stopping poor immigrants entering the country is racist - and is currently supported by the Republican Party.

Pro drops that preferring white immigrants is racist - and yet something Trump is doing today.

Pro drops that the democrats are diverse, whilst republicans are not: thus there is no evidence that they are currently the party of intolerance.

Pro does not contest that areas with more racist attitudes tend to vote republican.

Pro does not contest that most actual Nazis and white supremacists appear to support Trump.

Pro does not contest that white supremacists and Nazis ran as Republican candidates

Pro does not contest that white supremacist financially supported republicans.

I extend all of these across the board.

Conclusions:

In this round I showed that Trump and  Republicans have a political approach that shares more parallels with Fascism than does Democrats.

I continued to show that fascists and racists affiliate with republicans more than democrats.

Pro offered no examples of how the Democratic platform is racist, intolerant, or fascist, and remains fixated solely on matters of the past, which as shown are now reversed.

[1]https://books.google.ca/books?id=gIq0CwAAQBAJ&pg=PT14&lpg=PT14&dq=In+reality+the+Democratic+Party+is+now+what+it+has+been+from+the+beginning—the+party+of+subjugation,+oppression,+exploitation,+and+theft.&source=bl&ots=G5HT1n4MxD&sig=ACfU3U0Uxl_Zp38Jedi7D3q1tiXVAQ-8CQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjm_6q819XiAhUmc98KHX80DE8Q6AEwAHoECAMQAQ
[2]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/08/30/pelosi-condemns-violent-actions-of-antifa-protesters/?utm_term=.6d18fa696acc
[3] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
[4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism
[5]https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism
[6] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/28/opinion/trump-administration-corruption-conflicts.html
[7] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/commentisfree/2018/dec/11/republican-anti-democracy-gerrymandering-voting-rights-state-laws
[8] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/02/at-least-robert-byrd-apologized-whats-your-excuse-david-duke/?utm_term=.1a396924a63a
[9] https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/lawmaker-news/106809-robert-byrd-a-true-statesman-rep-john-lewis
[10]https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/dahleen-glanton/ct-met-dahleen-glanton-republican-party-racism-20190114-story.html
[11] https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2020
[12] https://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/index.html
[13] http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/02/leaked-dhs-report-undermines-trumps-argument-for-travel-ban.html
[14] https://www.afsc.org/blogs/news-and-commentary/trumps-attacks-legal-immigration-system-explained
[15] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/5/17428640/border-families-asylum-illegal
[16] https://www.npr.org/2019/05/01/718927695/how-proposed-asylum-rule-changes-would-affect-asylum-seekers
[17] https://www.thenation.com/article/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/

I extend my arguments again.

As pro has not responded, I am going to simply provide a summary of this debate.

Voting summary:

Arguments: 

The following are the main arguments provided:

1.) Who is the current party of racism. I argued that this debate should be interpreted as who is the party of racism currently, and have presented an argument as to why. Pro dropped all these points.

2.) Fascism. I showed that Fascists, Nazis align with Republicans, and that they align more closely in terms of current policy. Pro has offered no specific examples of how the democrats currently align with fascists. Pro drops all these points 

3.) Racism. I showed that racist attitudes are prevalent in the southern and rural areas that tend to vote for republicans; and that currently those that are white supremacist and racist tend to align with republicans. Pro drops all these points.

4.) Tolerance. I showed that the Democrats are the most diverse and inclusive group - strongly implying that they are the more tolerant party. Pro drops this.

5.) Pros case. Pros opening round, and the majority of the second can be discarded due to plagiarism. Pros case revolves around arguing Democrats used to be racist. As shown - this is now irrelevant due to the party realignment.

The conclusion here must be to con - as the resolution was disproven on all three counts and pro has not provided his own burden of proof.

Conduct. Pro forfeited the majority of the rounds, and plagiarized most of his debate.

Sources: I have provided compelling sources that back up by position. Sources 7 and 8 provide the key proofs that areas with high prevalence of racist attitudes vote republicans.