Fascism vs. Liberal Democracy: A Debate of Uberific Proportions

I will begin this post by declaring that I, in my official position as Judge Nate Charnas ("The People's Judge"), having presided over the case of Fascism vs. Liberal Democracy in connexion as to whether the government of the former style is viable and can meet the needs of the governed, do declare that Fascism has lost. May there be feastings of some type for the anti-fascists.

There, now that I've gotten that off my chest I can clearly and calmly offer an analysis and explanation of today's debate and of my shortly subsequent decision. The anti-fascists were pretty successful at arguing against the economic benefits of fascism, citing Italy's deficit under Mussolini, though I feel that the fascists could have provided some good counter-arguments by bringing up the re-militarization of Germany under Hitler. The anti-fascists also pointed out the negative aspects and affects of nationalism (rather strongly, I might add), but they could have gone farther in trying to refute the fascist's claims that nationalism and success go hand in hand, or at least chosen stronger examples than Switzerland and Qatar. The fascists could have argued longer and more clearly about the the need for a strong, central leader in times of crisis like the French Revolution or after World War I, or tried to show that the Weimar Republic was not such an exception to other liberal democracies. The most important point, which I don't think was discussed enough, concerned how the curtailment of civil rights met the needs of the governed. The fascists argued about the importance of the common or greater good over the needs of the individual, but this reflected a set of beliefs more than evidence or an argument. I realize it was hard to justify Hitler's actions against Jewish Germans, but some historical example of the benefits for the governed of curtailing rights (it didn't even have to be from Germany) would have definitely helped.