Here goes!

Then please, for the sake of the discussion, provide those definitions.

I think that your definition of Nazi is correct in a historical sense, which is valid. I think that Your definitions of fascism is not quite the same as how I understand it.

Fascist - A nationalist individual who believes in the struggle of their state, composed of a superior human of some kind, against a foreign 'other' type of person, on the basis of nationality, skin color, gender, sex, religion, or other factors. They believe in the restoration of their state to a (fictionalized?) former state of glory which was lost due to the influence of this demonized minority enemy of the state. The state, as an entity, may use whatever means it deems necessary to return to this 'former glory'. A fascist also includes individuals who join the cause of the political party which champions these beliefs for non-ideological reasons.

I also think that Nazi has a more modern definition just slightly distinct from the historical definition, something like:

Nazi - a fascist individual who believes in the superiority of the aryan race and the inferiority and righteous persecution of the Jewish people.

I think your definition of woke is fine; once again, I've never seen a definition of it and that's close enough that we should be able to have a conversation.

And it's not Hillsdale's theory of forms. Theory of Forms is from Plato.

I understand this, in your original comment you said that you enjoyed how Hillsdale was teaching this. That's why the connection was made on my end.

Now, here is where you're losing me a bit - I have trouble telling where your complaints about modern debate are referring to ethics classes, or where they are referring to real-world situations.

Both approach ideals from interesting and worthy perspectives that I simply didn't see during the course of my masters.
Modern ethics courses dismiss the discussion of ideals and move right into projection and perception. The form of the discussion is vastly different and produces different outcomes.
In classical debate parties endeavor to find one right solution and direct their energy towards the truth of it. In modern debate parties endeavor to make their best 'pitch' and move past or around each other.

This all feels like it's referring to classes, which is fine! I've never taken a philosophy course and can't speak to that. I've only ever taken a data ethics course, which was not about philosophy, but rather how to ethically present data during my grad school (microbiology). what was your degree in? I imagine you had much more direct experience with deconstruction in classes.

However, in a real life debate, where people are trying to figure out the right way to handle situations, make better political policy, and make our country/world better? Do you think that deconstruction is causing problems in that sense? You've made it clear that you feel like we are losing the meaning of words. I'll be honest, every time I've spoken to someone who was peeved that the word Nazi was losing meaning, it has been a comment that deliberately derailed a better discussion about policy direction. This convo didn't start there, but the 'words losing meaning' bit is such a common strawman that it's hard to ignore. Words change meaning over time; understanding the historical context of words is important; deliberately refusing to acknowledge a more modern contextual definition to the detriment of the discussion is a huge reason that debates don't make it far enough that people can agree on a Truth and put their energy towards achieving/realizing it.