Some background
I am in a single-elimination debate tournament of ~140 to determine the greatest leader of all time. My leader is Chiang Kai-Shek (aka Jiang Jieshi, among others). I am listed as a sixth seed in my section bracket. I won my first round debate against an 11th seed of Ronald Reagan in a run-off round. The first debate was a debate in which we took turns, rather than open debate, the remaining rounds are open debate.
Current Situation
My second round debate is against Rosa Luxemburg, who upset the third seeded Maximilien de Robespierre in the opening round of the tournament. The second round debate consists of a two-minute opening statement, followed by a six-minute open debate. Historically, the open debate rounds have been won by those who can both clearly state their legacy, and attack the legacy of the opponent. The less defense needed, the better. The debate's central question is:
What is your legacy, and why does it make you great?
What I already have:
Is next to nothing. My attacks are focused around the idea that Luxemburg:
Was a pacifist, yet promoted a revolution, which, while not by definition, typically consists of violent overthrow.
The go-to defense/attack: Capitalism (which, I, Chiang Kai-Shek, advocated), has clearly won out over Marxism.
Imprisoned during first revolution attempt for about 2.5 years, then chose not to support the second revolutionary wave that rose about 2 months after your release.
Died to little fanfare. Body was not identified for four months. Nobody really cared.
Who really are you? Nobody has even heard of you. (Obviously I am referring to the general American public).
My main defense is that my country (Taiwan), is still intact. And I am hailed there as a national hero. Obviously, this isn't much. I intend to do most of the talking during the open-debate and do a lot of attacking.
So, AskHistorians, what really is Rosa Luxemburg's legacy? How does her legacy compare with Chiang Kai-Shek's?
Follow-up question: Any other opinions on attacks/defenses I may want/need would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
TL;DR: Debating as Chiang Kai-Shek against Rosa Luxemburg. Debate focuses on legacy and how it makes the leader you are posing as great. What is Luxemburg's legacy? How weak is it? What can I attack it with? What attacks should I be ready to defend?
Rosa Luxemburg is an idol in the German left because she belonged to the minority in the SPD which was opposed to the first world war; she was criticizing the Bolsheviks for their tyrannical tendencies after their revolution and she was martyred at the hands of Friedrich Ebert to protect the Weimar Republic in Germany.
The Weimar Republic is commonly regarded as a failure and she is seen as a figure which could have saved Germany from fascism and which could have paved the way for an alternative, more democratic, model of Socialism.
To her critics she is a scary communist who planned to bring the horrors of Bolshevism onto the German soil and was luckily prevented from doing so. This point can well be raised by a hypothetical Chiang Kai Shek. Call Mao Tse Tung the more successful Rosa Lux.
"Nobody has even heard of you. (Obviously I am referring to the general American public)."
This is bogus. Luxemburg is a key figure in German history. Also, just because she was executed early on does not mean her influence stopped. She's been pretty influential after her death.
As a South Korean, Chiang Kai-Shek is respected greatly in both Koreas for his effort to support the Korean independence movement during the Japanese occupation. This may be irrelevant, but I guess its something.
Although he is a questionable military commander. I suggest you come up for his defense when your opponent criticizes that. He lost numerous men in unnecessary battles and he failed to win the hearts and minds of the people. Be ready on the defensive, as those two are the biggest criticisms of Chiang.
Died to little fanfare. Body was not identified for four months. Nobody really cared.
You should probably read up on german history. Rosa Luxemburg's murder was one of the reasons why the SPD/KPD split escalated into such a violent period, that ultimately led to Hindenburg appointing Hitler Imperial Chancelor as a last ditch effort to stave off a complete communist take-over of Germany.
The go-to defense/attack: Capitalism (which, I, Chiang Kai-Shek, advocated), has clearly won out over Marxism.
Apart from the former being an economical theory and the other being a philosophical one, it really isn't so clear. Especially were Germany and China are concerned, since they are the prime examples of countries that have made marxist ideals work with quasi-capitalist economies. Again, german - and in this case also chinese - history destroys your argument, if your opponent is even remotely competent.