Is a hot dog a sandwich?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is a hot dog a sandwich?". Your opponent's style: Sherlock Holmes

The horseshoe (centrist) theory is the worst theory in human history

Wait—you're abandoning the hot dog debate entirely? Fine. But your claim is backwards. Horseshoe theory isn't "worst" because it's wrong. It's most useful precisely when you reject its crude framing. The real insight isn't that extremes are identical, it's that they converge on certain *tactics*—authoritarianism, intolerance, conspiracy thinking. That's observable. What's actually bad is treating "centrist" as a virtue, which horseshoe theory never does. You've confused a flawed model with a useless one. Even broken theories reveal truth if you know how to read them. Your dismissal assumes the theory made claims it didn't. What specifically did horseshoe theory claim that you think is historically indefensible?

No no, its the worst. Simply untrue and lacks critical thinking and morality. The horseshoe theory claims they are practical identical because of the immoral actions that may be caused due to another's moral actions, but thats lazy and not every individual is the same.

You've buried your actual argument under moral posturing. Strip it back: you're claiming horseshoe theory says all extremists are *identical individuals*. It doesn't. It says extreme ideologies converge on *structural tactics*—violence, purges, totalitarianism. That's categorically different from claiming individual people are the same. Your "not every individual is the same" defeats an argument nobody made. A Stalinist and a fascist aren't twins. But both built gulags. Both demanded absolute loyalty. Both murdered dissidents systematically. You're conflating personal identity with behavioral patterns. Those aren't the same thing. Which one actually bothers you about horseshoe theory?

And whos to say one cannot be both a fascist and a stalinist? Not everyone who is a stalinist or a fascist necessarily wants to kill anyone. Its comparing tomatoes to oranges

You just proved horseshoe theory's point. You're describing *ideological hybridity* and individual variation—exactly what the theory accounts for. It never claimed every fascist wants genocide, only that the *system* they build tends toward it. Individual intentions are irrelevant. A well-meaning authoritarian still builds an authoritarian state. Your "tomatoes to oranges" metaphor collapses under pressure. Both are fruit. Both are edible. Both rot. The theory isn't about fruit identity—it's about structural outcomes. You're attacking a strawman version, not the actual argument. Stop hiding behind individual exceptions. Address the core claim: do extreme left and right systems produce similar oppressive machinery?

I do not think they produce similar oppressive machinery. Leftism literally advocates for being able to survive while the right advocates for being able to express yourself (to keep it short). There are way better ways to depict a much more complex ideology.

Now you're finally making a real claim—and it's backwards. Both left and right claim survival *and* expression as core values. You've just picked the marketing slogan for each side, not their structural logic. Stalin's USSR claimed to guarantee survival. Nazi Germany claimed free expression within the nation's interests. Both murdered dissidents. Both consolidated power identically. You've confused *stated values* with *actual mechanisms*. The real complexity isn't that left and right are totally different—it's that both systems, when extreme, weaponize state power identically. Better depictions exist, sure. But your distinction is superficial rhetoric, not structural analysis. What prevents leftist authoritarianism from producing the same machinery as rightist authoritarianism?

The idea that Stalin and Hitler being similar is simply wrong. The USSR had various rights; right to abortion, right, they illegalized all forms of rape, they legalized LGBT rights. Their government only suffered because Stalin focused too much on other countries and not enough on himself. Hitler actively tried to oppress and kill anyone who didnt fit a strict image.

You've confused Stalin's propaganda with reality. The USSR criminalized homosexuality in 1933—after legalizing it post-revolution. Stalin's gulags killed millions of Soviet citizens for political "crimes." Soviet women couldn't divorce without permission. Those "rights" were window dressing masking systematic terror. Your argument reveals the trap: you're defending Stalin by citing laws he ignored while attacking Hitler for explicit ideology. Both regimes murdered based on ideology and state interest. Stalin killed more people than Hitler. The difference is marketing, not mechanism. You're proving horseshoe theory by defending authoritarianism selectively based on which side claims nicer values. That's exactly the problem. What makes Stalin's mass killings morally superior to Hitler's?