Instigator / Pro

1516

rating

debates

75.0%

won

Topic

#3448

Joseph stallin was a hero.

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Winner

After 2 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!

Tags

History

Parameters

Publication date: 05.31.2022 05:14AM
Last updated date: 06.10.2022 02:48PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 5
Time for argument: Two days
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: One week
Point system: Winner selection
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

Winner

1484

rating

debates

25.0%

won

Description

No information

Round 1

Thesinteligent

05.31.2022 05:46AM

Pro

1. Every person who is admired for his achievements and noble qualities is a hero.

2.Joseph Stalin is admired for his achievements and noble qualities.

3.Joseph Stallin is a hero.

For the first premise we have that the definition of a hero is "a person who is admired for his achievements and noble qualities.

for the second premise we have that joseph was someone extremely brave, since he participated in the russian revolution, where dying was very likely:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin_during_the_Russian_Revolution,_Civil_War,_and_the_Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_War

Joseph also had strong self-control, since he was able to plan his rise to power with great precision:

https://www.history.com/topics/russia/joseph-stalin

stallin was literally a genius, he had a photographic memory:

https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Secret_File_of_Joseph_Stalin.html?id=zQL8POkFGIQC#v=onepage&q=stallin%20had%20a%20photographic%20memory&f=false

stallin had many achievements, among them was industrializing the Urrs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrialization_in_the_Soviet_Union

and achieve the defeat of the Nazis.

Finally, there are people who admire him for this, as the following article shows:

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/biographies/1953/03/16.htm

the conclusion is true.

Winner

05.31.2022 05:17PM

Con

First, I reject the definition of my opponent, a hero is regardless of the admiration or repulsion of others, a hero is someone who does something good, let's remember that stallin caused 20 million deaths:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/bceb868d-3890-4303-bd27-61da8eae9b62/downloads/1crp4r24q_874778.pdf&ved= 2ahUKEwiGgOKYnYr4AhXzDkQIHdpMCUcQFnoECA4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw3Hw82yWon96NF01h13KzS1

second, soviet records were under the power of stallin, who was a dictator, his photographic memory is as incredible as kim yong un's telepathy, 3, joseph stallin did not industrialize russia, before he came to power, the russians They built the Trans-Siberian railway, which was an extraordinary technical achievement, they also had a very powerful army, those who industrialized Russia were the Romanovs, whom Lenin killed, directing the defeat of the Nazis, Stallin was a terrible strategist.

Round 2

Thesinteligent

05.31.2022 08:04PM

Pro

first I want to point out that with not a single source to defend its definition, I also want it to be understood that the concept of hero originates in mythology to refer to semi-divine characters, the essence of the concept of hero is someone outstanding, not someone morally fair, on the other hand, the figure that my opponent proposes is wrong, the famous twenty million deaths were due to hitler, not stallin, on the other hand, the source of my opponent is invalid, the figures of the black book of communism were declared false by their own authors:

https://www.lemonde.fr/archives/article/1997/10/31/les-divisions-d-une-equipe-d-historiens-du-communisme_3811179_1819218.html

the alternative that stallin had to fight hitler was to hand over the country, and after that, hitler would kill 100% of the russians, hitler himself said that was his plan.

second, stallin's photographic memory is something that was kept as a simple historical record, there was no interest in falsifying it, unlike kim's abilities that are used as propaganda and have interests behind.

third, the trans-siberian railway was built with primitive tools, and the basis of its development was the use of a gigantic number of workers together with the direction of good engineers and many years of constant work, to mention the trans-siberian railway as a sample of a russia highly industrialized is like mentioning the Egyptian pyramids to prove Egyptian industrialization.

Defeating the Nazis was an achievement, simply because the economic power of Germany was almost double that of the Soviet Union, amounting to 520,000 million dollars, while the Soviet Union was 300,000 million dollars.

finally, stallin was a good strategist, even opponents of stallin like averrel harriman admitted it:

"I found him better informed than Roosevelt, more realistic than Churchill, in some ways the most effective of war leaders."

Winner

06.01.2022 10:17PM

Con

hitler was a socialist, he promulgated the same doctrine as stallin, so both are to blame for soviet and german deaths, by the way, no matter what you say: the tsar industrialized russia, not stallin, and stallin was stupid enough to trust Hitler, just because he was a socialist, was a lousy strategist.

Round 3

Thesinteligent

06.02.2022 04:43PM

Pro

Hitler did not promulgate the same ideology, Hitler was a National Socialist, which means that his socialism was intended to benefit the German people, especially harming other societies.

the czar only industrialized cities in russia (like siberia), the reality is that the industrialization of russia did not occur until the five-year plan.

being a good strategist is not the same as being exempt from mistakes, stallin was an excellent strategist.

`Stalin mastered the technique of organizing front operations and operations by groups of fronts and led them skilfully, thoroughly understanding complicated strategic questions. He showed his skill as Commander-in-Chief beginning with Stalingrad.

`In leading the armed struggle as a whole, Stalin was assisted by his natural intelligence and deep intuition. He had the ability to grasp the main link in the strategic situation in order to organize opposition to the enemy and carry out a major offensive operation. Without a doubt, he was a worthy supreme commander.

Ibid. , p. 284-285.

Winner

06.03.2022 02:39PM

Con

stallin killed 20 million people, it is absurd to say that he is a hero.

Round 4

Thesinteligent

06.03.2022 02:44PM

Pro

it actually only killed a million people, the holodomor was the result of environmental causes, as evidenced by the thousands of famines in russia before stallin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_and_famines_in_Russia_and_the_Soviet_Union

stallin's only kills were kulaks, the people in these kulaks were mostly war criminals, stallin should have killed more.

Winner

06.03.2022 02:46PM

Con

Well, I want to mention that the burden of proof is on my opponent, if he can't prove his point, they have to vote for me.

Round 5

Thesinteligent

06.03.2022 02:47PM

Pro

in reality, the burden of proof on the pro is a legal criterion, not a logical one.

Winner

06.03.2022 02:48PM

Con

#10

Idiot.

Conservallectual

06.09.2022 01:25PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

Con has better arguments.

Intelligence_06

06.05.2022 10:12AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

Analyzing arguments, Pro's R1, to say the least, managed to cover itself. Pro defined "hero" and then exhibited many actions Stalin did that makes him a hero according to his own definition. Con's R1, on the other hand, did not. He defined hero as "Someone who does something good" while not acknowledging anything good Stalin had done, in fact not even refuting everything "good" as brought up by Pro. Again, just because someone had done one bad act does not permanently strip him of the title of hero, or that it isn't dependent on that.

In R2, Pro falsified Con's R1 source by showing that they are false, whilst adding on even more points regarding that Stalin was heroic according to his definition(and according to the opponent's too, since he did show that Stalin did good things), for example, by defeating the Nazi in WW2. Con, on the other hand, stated the unproven statement that Stalin and Hitler were pushing the same agenda and so Stalin must be as bad as Hitler. This is reductio ad hitlerium, and did not negate Stalin of that he did something good in fact.

In R3, Pro just backed up his R2 while Con restated---not backed up---his R1 argument. Then, in R4, Pro had disproven even more of Con's arguments, giving a source on that Stalin killed fewer than so was claimed. It was then that Con said that the burden of proof is not on him thus he didn't need to do anything. However, as things are going, Pro wins on both the arguments and the sources as he did a better job proving that Stalin can be considered a hero. R5 has no new constructive arguments so the things stay as it is and overall I would say Pro won this debate.