Instigator / Con

On balance, Turkey’s continued membership is beneficial to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.


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

Winner & statistics

After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Tejretics's avatar
8 debates / 22 votes
No vote
Barney's avatar
52 debates / 1,298 votes
whiteflame's avatar
27 debates / 199 votes
WeaverofFate's avatar
4 debates / 10 votes
Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Contender / Pro

To make this a three round debate, I will waive my first round and allow Pro to go first. Pro should waive their last round. That way, we both have 3 speeches.

Round 1
Sorry I forgot to do this earlier. Waive per the rules.

Turkey (T) [it is nationalistically known as Türkiye but for this debate is spelled the anglo/English way]
a republic in W Asia and SE Europe, between the Black Sea, the Mediterranean, and the Aegean: the centre of the Ottoman Empire; became a republic in 1923.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
The NATO Alliance consists of 30 member states from North America and Europe. Article Five of the treaty states that if an armed attack occurs against one of the member states, it should be considered an attack against all members, and other members shall assist the attacked member, with armed forces if necessary.

producing good results or helpful effects



Pro states that beneficial is fundamentally digital, that even the 'balance' in the topic's resolution is to be ignored until Con provides a means to quantity and balance otherwise. This means that if Pro can initially prove a good result (GR) or helpful effect (HE) for Turkey (T) towards NATO then Con has to first provide the means of quantifying it to then claim it has been outweighed by either the negatives attached or somehow quantify detached negatives as a countermeasure.

This means Pro is upholding the 'on balance' while declining the means to quantity the balance since the beneficial aspects automatically will weigh imbalanced in favour of 'beneficial' with Con needing to completely form an opposing measurement let alone other side to the scale.

Winning over a potential Permanent Enemy of Europe (Eur)

Without Turkey being a member state of NATO, Eur has a guaranteed enemy primarily via Greece (Gr) relations but due to much more. Why does this matter? Well, would NATO rather Turkey felt closer to Russia, the Middle East or Eur?

What Pro wishes to highlight here is that T has so much negative potential towards Europe and thus NATO if it wasn't recruited to NATO back in 1952 through to today in 2023. Note that 1949 is when NATO formed, T is the level just below original member state. Imagine it never joined NATO for a moment. Imagine it stuck to Middle East alliances and/or alliances with Russia alone. This not only would affect Turkey but incentivise other Eastern European nations to back Russia's domain instead of NATO's/Europe's. (such as Ukraine which has suffered dire consequences for even suggesting to join NATO, according to Putin's original narrative).  

As much as Pro predicts Con will bring negativity since T has said issues with Gr, the very fact NATO has perpetually been there as a negotiating liaison beyond the passive approach the UN takes, is immensely important. T, as much as it resents Gr, cannot act against Gr in an overtly aggressive political or especially militaristic manner because not only are both members of NATO but both joined in the same month of 1952.

The long and short of it is that while NATO of course has massively benefitted Turkey and while yes, T's issues with certain Eur nations (especially Gr) exist, to suggest T hasn't contributed or played ball is a mistake first and foremost because of how much it's held back elsewhere consistently loyal and true to NATO from the very start of its now 71-year alliance. The very tensions Con may allude to are all actually evidence of benefits of Turkey being part of NATO as of course since T joined alongside Gr, other nations were incentivised to join along with them.

T was the level below original directly by 1 tier only.

Greece and Türkiye (1952), Germany (1955), Spain (1982), Czechia, Hungary and Poland (1999), Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia (2004), Albania and Croatia (2009), Montenegro (2017) and North Macedonia (2020).

This was the order that the nations after the original 12 in 1949, joined NATO. If T hadn't joined, it was certainly very unlikely Gr would given the very rivalry spoken about (Gr would maybe do so but T joining meant both could join NATO to ensure both protection against the other etc). To the surprise of many reading, the nations that joined afterwards may indeed surprise you in some ways but the key aspect being that the Eastern Euro nations joined in a cluster in 2004 and then the sort of mid-to-east once like Poland and Hungary joined in 1999, tells you something is true about what I suggested; T led the way. Had T and Gr not truly dedicated to some form of peace and joined NATO together and proven how good NATO can maintain said peace, the only incentive to join NATO would be defense against an outer threat but if then Russia shows up and T and Gr instead used Russia as their buffer, I think you see just how significantly negative to NATO a snowball effect was counteracted. T and Gr being there was a clear-cut proof and example to the rest of Europe that wasn't 'in with the West' to rethink their options of only succumbing to Russia and genuinely seek an alternative.

I am not denying that T joined NATO originally out of fear of Russia but it joined with Gr together for a very specific reason, an implied promise of peace due to a rivalry beyond just seeking safety from USSR.


Let's just clarify what Turkey quite literally contributes to NATO

Believe it or not from day 1, Turkey's involvement was paranormal, it will shock those who don't know about it. The Cold War could have been much, much tougher to win had T itself not sided with NATO against USSR. 

To this date, it:
has its second largest army and is the host of the Allied Land Command headquarters. The Incirlik and Konya Airbases have both been involved in several NATO military operations since their establishment. 

Note that Army is just one branch of military, that said, it is a branch that matters very much for on-land warfare and security. If NATO were to go to war, ever, this meant theoretically and even practically since it has actual bases to attack out of that T would be risking the second-most direct bodies on land out of all 30 member states. The fear of that alone is part of the security NATO provides and has done since the start. Let's be crystal clear here, from the very beginning of T's membership it was actively siding with NATO against USSR. This was extremely important, it was not a passive membership or option.

It is also important to understand why this recent fiasco of T 'negotiating' with Russia at all occured and where the strain is. T in no shape or form has been a minimalistic member of NATO in contribution.

Geographically NATO and the EU alike would be finding trade much more difficult, with both the Middle East, Russia and even the meditterarnean nations, if Turkey wasn't loyal to NATO. It is actually crucial to realise that Turkey's loyalty to NATO is only to NATO however because of how early it joined and because it takes that seriously, it has offered so many trade-route benefits and security to the EU (which shares many member states with NATO) throughout the decades. I am not sure what to prove here as the very geography of it should make it obvious that if it wasn't in NATO.

  • Türkiye is the EU’s 6th biggest trade partner, representing 3.3% of the EU’s total trade in goods with the world (imports and exports combined) in 2022.
  • The EU is by far Türkiye’s largest merchandise import and export partner. In 2022, 26% of Türkiye’s goods imports came from the EU and 41% of the country’s goods exports went to the EU.

I am not going to delve heavily into that but I do assert as an objective fact that if Turkey was outside of NATO, it would have more friction with the EU, not just NATO. The frictionless trading routes being made available and active direct and 'middleman' trade role Turkey is playing between Euro nations and surrounding areas is something that would not be happening as smoothly if Turkey felt it needed to side more with Russia or the Middle East for its security needs.

I just want to clarify how contribute it has been militaristically thus far:
With seventy years under its belt, Turkey is among NATO’s older members. It boasts a strong legacy, having been a bulwark against communism during the Cold War and a frontline player in many regional crises that erupted later, including in the South Caucasus, Balkans, Iraq, and, most recently, Syria. In contrast to most other Alliance members, this incessant state of conflict around its borders has denied Turkey any peace dividend. 

Turkey’s formidable military capacity and growing expeditionary capabilities, together with its expanding defense industry (particularly in drone technologies) are all critical enablers for NATO. Even as priorities change and global attention shifts to the east, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has proven that building sustainable security in the Euro-Atlantic area is unfinished business. Much to the delight of Turkish officials, this has corroborated Ankara’s continuing geopolitical relevance—something it is betting on, maybe excessively so, in making its demands of Finland and Sweden. 

You almost couldn't even imagine recent world history had T not been part of NATO. It's been a silent, devoted ally. 
Round 2

NATO’s 2022 Strategic Concept commits NATO to international peace far beyond the borders of the 30 member nations. NATO and the UN often link their operations, providing humanitarian aid in Pakistan and Ghana, 2countries that are not in NATO. Above all, NATO supports the protection of international life. Doing so is not just good for international security (since displaced persons, terrorist attacks, and refugee crises pose existential security threats to NATO’s member nations) but fulfilling this principle of protecting international life also gels with NATO’s longstanding support of liberal-democratic values. Any other framework that limits the assessment of the resolution to geopolitics, collective security of 30 nations, etc., misses the humanitarian role played by NATO and risks prioritizing the nation-state over the wellbeing of people outside the nation-state. As such, I contend that if Con can show that more life is threatened or qualitatively worse with Turkey’s continued membership in NATO, judges should feel comfortable voting Con.

Turkish Activity in Northern Syria

Turkey is a major recipient of military assistance from NATO member states. However, instead of pursuing geopolitical objectives in line with NATO’s goal of establishing international peace, Turkey’s government uses this assistance to invade Northern Syria, displacing and killing thousands of civilians and starting an ethnic cleansing campaign. In 2018, Turkey’s military (and its proxy, the SNA, which it funds and directs), armed with German tanks, British helicopters, and supplied with military intel from years of fighting in Syria together with the NATO, invaded the Northern city of Afrin, potentially displacing 100,000 Kurdish civilians, and using rape, torture, and killing as strategies of inflicting terror on the Kurdish population. In 2019, then-president Trump removed American troops from Northern Syria, allowing Turkey to encroach yet again on Syria’s territory. Both incursions are commensurate with Turkey’s longstanding goal of eliminating “terror,” that is, preventing the recognition of a Kurdish state, killing the YPG, PYD, and SDF (who’ve had much success in battling ISIS) and, domestically, quashing the Kurdistan Workers Party (who are allegedly connected with the YPG and PYD though this connection is overstated by Erdogan). Since October 2019, over 200 civilian casualties were attributed to Turkey’s most recent invasion, which include 18 children. Summary executions, torture, and even an assassination of a political figure played out in Turkey’s ironically named “safe zone” in Northern Syria. What’s more, the expropriation of property and killings of civilians targeted Kurds with laser precision (pp.11-12). President Erdogan told Turkey’s state-sanctioned press that Kurdish people were not “designed” to live in the safe zone area. “The people most suitable for that area are the Arabs. These areas are not suitable for the lifestyle of the Kurds.” In Afrin and Northern Syria more broadly, Turkey has repopulated areas that were predominantly Kurdish with Arab Syrian refugees and barred displaced Kurds from returning to their homes. Turkey’s aggressive campaign of terror has reduced Afrin’s Kurdish population from 97% to 35%. A report from European University Institute in 2021 found that Turkey’s provision of basic services to occupied cities in Northern Syria (e.g., critical infrastructure, water, etc.) was conditional on a low percent of Kurds living in these cities (p.18).

As mentioned previously, weapons made by NATO members were used to invade Northern Syria. More alarming is Turkey’s successful use of its status as NATO’s linchpin as a bargaining chip. Most recently, it threatened to veto Sweden’s and Finland’s induction into NATO until both countries extradited alleged PKK followers and lifted their arms embargoes, the latter of which Sweden did. In fact, Sweden, Finland, and Turkey signed a trilateral memorandum that ceded to Turkish demands (e.g., extraditing alleged PKK members) while ensuring a clear path for Sweden and Finland to accede to NATO. A Former Turkish diplomat remarked that “The calculus… of Ankara is that the West needs Turkey on board with NATO enlargement, and therefore… there will be less criticism of Turkey's cross-border operation”. By making itself seem “indispensable” to the West, Turkey hopes to continue to woo NATO members to support its genocidal activities in Northern Syria. At the same time, Turkey has doubled trade with Russia and sought Russian missile systems during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Turkey isn’t in NATO for the sake of collective security. Turkey is in NATO to accomplish its geopolitical goals, and it does so through a complex balancing act, playing allies off against other allies to increase its land holdings in Northern Syria. For more recent evidence, consider Turkey’s intelligence sharing and coordination with ISIS that culminated in the Hasaka prison riot, propagating internal discord for 10 days. Turkey’s support for ISIS is nothing new, and some evidence suggests that Turkey went as far as bribing and “converting” ISIS members to the Free Syrian Army (a proxy militia funded and directed by Turkey)to continue Turkey’s fight against the YPG. Turkey’s national intelligence also has direct and cordial ties with Al-Qaeda. Outside of direct support, Turkey’s most recent incursion into Syria has inadvertently allowed nearly 900 ISIS prisoners.

Given NATO’s complicity in a) providing weaponry and military training that bolstered Turkey’s military strength vis-à-vis the Kurds (facilitating a genocide) and b) allowing Turkey to use its position as a NATO member to demand changes to other countries’ arms export policies while directly undermining key NATO operations (e.g., by supporting ISIS), it must be stated that NATO does not benefit from Turkey’s membership. An ISIS resurgence means a deteriorating security situation in the Middle East, more refugee crises, and (thanks to Turkey’s meddling), NATO losing a key player in this perennial “war on terror.” A genocide does the same thing, and it goes against the values of “security,” but also the humanitarian principle that NATO supports. Hence, a Con ballot is called for.

Onto Pro’s case.

Winning Over Potential Enemy to Europe

Pro posits that Turkey’s inclusion in NATO aligns Turkey with Europe rather than the Middle East or Russia. He furthers that Turkey incentivized other countries to join NATO, and that Turkey joined NATO in a bid for protection against Greece as evidenced by both countries joining in the same month in 1952. Since Turkey could prove a formidable foe, it is better for Turkey to be a friend, avers Pro. The problem with this argument is that it is primarily historical. Even if I buy that Turkey’s inclusion in NATO served the historic purpose of protecting Turkey vis-à-vis Greece, the resolution asks whether Turkey’s “continued membership” is beneficial. So, how well does NATO protect Greece and Turkey from their mutual animosity? Not well.

As recently as 2020,confrontation over the Eastern Mediterranean led Greece to increase its naval and air equipment in an act of brinkmanship. Both countries have escalated conflict, such as when Greek and Turkish frigates were involved in a “collision” in contested waters. Further, NATO member nations can take sides with Greece or Turkey, thereby inflaming tensions. In fact, France has. In 1974, when Turkey and Greece came to blows over the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, it was the US, not NATO as an organization, that imposed a ceasefire. Pro needs airtight evidence that NATO can contain the potential for war well into the future. Second, turn Pro’s argument on increasing NATO membership. While Turkey’s continued membership will have little if any influence on Eastern European countries’ membership in NATO, Turkey’s continued membership does mean it can veto Finland’s and Sweden’s membership. If more countries in NATO is meant to deter Russian aggression, then Turkey is impeding a stronger NATO.

What Turkey Brings to the Table

Pro argues that Turkey’s army, airbases, and geographic location are advantageous to NATO, and that continued membership means that NATO member countries are wealthier from trade and better protected with Turkey’s superior military. First, Turkey’s military was severely weakened due to Erdogan’s purges of military officials. In total, 21,000 military officials were expelled from Turkey’s military, including hundreds of pilots who comprised Turkey’s hitherto prestigious air force, and nearly half of Turkey’s generals. They do possess an abundance of advanced weaponry, but this is mostly due to support from NATO member countries.

Second, Turkey uses its linchpin status as a method of expediting the genocide in Northern Syria. By playing ally off against ally, they can reap advanced military technology, coerce Western countries into getting rid of their arms embargoes, and still get support from Russia and China. In fact, the Incirlik airbase was expressly used for this purpose (i.e., coercing the West) numerous times, including in Turkey’s 1974 invasion of Cyprus, and before 2003, Turkey wanted the capacity to “veto” any American flight taking off from the airbase. More recently, President Erdogan shut off power to the base after the 2016 coup attempt, which some saw as Turkey’s attempt to demonstrate its power over Washington’s foreign policy.

Third, Turkey’s trade with the EU may not be conditional on NATO membership. Turkey’s accession to the EU, at least, was blocked in 2019, but Turkey is still a major trade partner. What would NATO, whose mission is primarily related to human security, have to do with trade relations?

I have more to say, but I am limited by space. Vote Con!  

Turkey is NATO, Con's framework is disrespectful and futile.

When Con forms his framework he frames it with 2 similar flaws:

  1. When seeing NATO kicking T out, he separates T from NATO, ignores the fact they're a 71-year heavily militaristically and economically contributive, symbiotic member throughout. In other words, he separates Turkey from NATO in analysing benefits and cost-analysis. T is literally part of the collective that is NATO, that entire part loses out if Turkey is kicked out and this does matter but I'll get to why later.
  2. When seeing 'threats' or 'qualitative issues' suddenly Con again separates any idea that T is a part of NATO, meaning if T has qualitative issues or threats that become more severe if NATO kicks it out, every part of that and what it results in is conveniently ignored and scapegoated by Con. NATO has a loyalty and responsibility to Turkey just as Turkey has to NATO.
What Con is fundamentally doing is similar to what abusive parents, bosses or really any authoritative figurehead or popular people in a group do. They isolate the victim, make them feel everything they do is not good enough and gaslight them to believe they're insane for feeling hard done by. Why this is important is that Con ignores any reason Turkey may have chosen to do certain things with Syria, Russia or anybody at all and yet if US and UK kill between 280,771-315,190 Iraqis[2 sources] in what can only be described as an egotistical a genocide and internationally wild war that put the whole of NATO at risk of retaliation if Russia and China actively sided with Iraq based on a paranoid hunch that may well have masked Bush's grudge based on his father, Turkey keeps its head down, plays its part and helps out despite perhaps very well thinking otherwise considering how geographically close it is to Iraq and the risks involved.

From day 1, Turkey helped the US in its self-centred venture to blackmail the USSR to succumb to Capitalism and win a Cold War. It respected its allies' needs and wants, every single one, even Greece that it had deep rivalry with. Turkey is NATO in every sense of the word, it paid its damn dues and put blood, sweat and tears into earning its place at the table. The framework Con offers is no different to an abusive parent disowning their child because they think they and others in the family are oh so perfect, leaving that child not only out of their relations while alive but out of the will too despite the child having tried their best.

It is disrespectful, outrageously disloyal but more importantly, it is strategically suicidal.

Remember I just said this:
T is literally part of the collective that is NATO, that entire part loses out if T is kicked out and this does matter but I'll get to why later.
T is a 71-year-loyal nearly original member of NATO. It spearheaded what it meant to join NATO, it led the way for others to weigh the odds easier. Imagine if you stuck your middle finger up to any nation that happened to not be in the social in-crowd of a crew it had put longer than at least half the members. You just told every single other member that they are trash that can be discarded and what's important is to note that NATO has readily served the greedy, egotistical agenda of US, UK and other original members and T played its part all the way through. This is going to be a really terrible precedent, I outright reject the framework Con offers and reject almost Con's entire case based on this.


The controlled beast vs the untamed monster

Let's take Con's entire case at face-value and ignore what I just said for a moment. Con's overall case seems to be that if you have a member of your crew, family and/or business that feels neglected and is reconsidering its interests, that the best approach is to ditch them. Nothing could be more unforgivably strategically flawed. This is exactly how to incentivise Turkey to side with Russia, the middle East and China against the entire NATO and they wouldn't just do it quietly, they'd feel bloodlust levels of vengeance, considering they were such a loyal, contributive member.

In fact, every single war that NATO nations ever were in so far, benefitted the agenda of US, UK and western Europe far more than Turkey. Every single war so far has been detrimental to Turkey in some ways but Turkey saw the bigger picture, it understood that the guarantee of long-term protection from Russia foremost and other nations too was worth it. The US is allied to Israel, a nation that has committed potentially the most war crimes on Earth in the past 20 years, it is literally militaristically assisting its ability to withstand the vengeance of the Middle East upon it for what they see as unforgivable sins. Israel is not a member of NATOI am not here denying the war crimes of US and UK during AfghanistanIraq and more (including the original Vietnam War that was the final part of the Cold War US dragged T into). I am saying that T didn't guilt trip US and UK about it, it didn't betray NATO in any way. It helped them, it stood by its allies and kept its own agenda and thoughts to itself as it understood what it means to be a team-player.

Why this important isn't just to empathise with T and morally feel loyal. It's to understand that T indeed plays ball, it helps, it stands down and knows it's not the only agenda at play in NATO. While in NATO, it's the second largest army in it, helping with droid warfare in modern times and more boots-on-ground warfare before.

So, it's extremely easy for Con to find situations where T's own agenda is not in line with NATO's but this is only true if we forget that T has always been in a different position, overlooked and trodden upon thus far. T is tired of it, it sees a way to get more out of Sweden and Finland before they join NATO. It sees that finally it maybe can gets its own slice of pie. So, this doesn't mean the others in NATO need to instantly cave into the demands of T but it does mean they should patiently listen, discuss and negotiate with one of their oldest members.

If T is kicked out, simply for having an agenda of its own or being a bit of a wild card in some situations, all Con has had NATO do is screw itself over. They just send a worldwide signal that not only will they not negotiate but they will in fact perhaps negotiate against the interests of older, loyal members (such as T) if they make demands from brand new prospects (namely Sweden and Finland). This is strategically ridiculous and has only incentivised T to now be a new leader yet again and spearhead a movement in nations on the fence to side against NATO instead of with it.

Why so vaguely structured?
I do not feel the need to address Con's points 1 by 1 at all. Voters you need to see what Con is doing is misleading you. I am not going to give you a point by point debacle that Con wants this to become. I am hitting home core concepts. It is vital you understand how Con is misleading you, he is forgetting the fact that even if T is difficult, it is still beneficial to keep in NATO.

T is literally part of NATO, NATO has always bent backwards for US and UK and so T has felt neglected. It has been subliminally pressured elsewhere to cave into EU demands even though it's not a part of EU, to take in many immigrants and more. T has its own agenda, own views and own relations with Syria and Israel that have been completely trodden upon, chewed and spat out by certain other NATO members, specifically US. It is natural it feels neglected, it literally has been neglected and ignored. That doesn't mean anyone is not welcome in NATO, US certainly is welcome in NATO, US is a difficult brat just as much as T seems to be becoming and that is okay. We are not all the easy-going people everyone likes in a crew or family. It's not our duty to be, NATO is not dedicated to a one-world government, it's dedicated to collective security for individual nations each with its own agenda.

T benefits NATO, it benefits its security and all of it and is one of its oldest most loyal members. Con is encouraging very toxic behaviours that tells the rest of the world outside NATO think very hard before joining it since even after 71 years of loyal service, they can be tossed aside like dirt.
Round 3
Thanks Pro!

I’ll start with my case.


a. Hypocrisy

Pro’s main objection to my framework is that it is hypocritical. Essentially, by holding Turkey to a high standard that other countries in NATO do not meet, I am singling out Turkey for undue scrutiny. On the contrary, I am willing to argue that the US, as a destabilizing force in the Middle East, imposes a burden on NATO that outweighs its contributions to the organization, but that is non-topical. It may simply be the case that membership in NATO comes with high hurdles, and that few countries are capable to upholding its goal of internationalized human security and liberal-democratic values. If that’s the case, then many countries shouldn’t be in NATO, and if the debate resolution were to change to “On Balance, the benefits of the US’ membership in NATO outweighs the cost,” I would still be Con.
Further, Pro doesn’t provide much of a framework, so default to Con sans any alternative.

b. Loyalty

Pro touts Turkey’s long track record in NATO and demands that NATO stay loyal to Turkey just as Turkey stayed loyal to NATO. “Loyalty” is not a reason to continue subscribing to a particular belief. A long stretch of time supporting anything, whether it’s the doctrine of NATO, the US constitution, or a sports team, is nugatory if recent events contradict that long-term “support.” Nixon could not argue at his trial that he spent a long time defending the constitution, so his covering up of wiretapping was not grounds for impeachment.

Further, the metric by which Pro assesses Turkey’s “loyalty” is specious. Turkey’s perceived lack of criticism of the US’ “war on terror” is likely due to Turkey’s continued geopolitical interests in Iraq and Syria. Turkey's incursions into both countries’ sovereign territory subjected the Kurdish populations to protracted violence. Turkey’s commitment to fighting terror is a façade for its nationalist agenda. After all, Turkey has actively supported ISIS for years by supplying military equipment, securing safe passage for ISIS members, and even training ISIS recruits. Its recent invasion of Syria freed 900 ISIS prisoners. Other countries that support the war on terror include Israel, which explains the relatively cordial (though checkered) diplomatic relations between Turkey and Israel.

c. In-Crowd

Pro asserts that countries not in the “in” crowd in NATO will feel that they can be thrown out of NATO too. Turn this argument. If countries’ feel that their membership in NATO is unconditional, then following NATO’s primary mission is no longer a responsibility, it is supererogatory. For NATO to function as a security apparatus, there must be conditions on continual membership, lest countries run roughshod over them and pursue their own nationalistic agenda under the auspices of NATO.

Second, Pro offers no evidence that smaller countries, particularly those that “followed” Greece and Turkey into NATO would leave if Turkey were to be ejected from the alliance. Pro said himself that NATO provides security for these smaller nations.

More Strategy

a. Vague Impact

Pro’s argument here is not all that different than their first piece of refutation. Pro does add that Turkey will turn toward the Middle East and Russia if NATO were to kick them out, and that Turkey would seek vengeance in some nebulous manner, but this impact is threadbare at best. What kind of retribution should we expect? Without any degree of specificity, it is unclear that Pro’s worst-case scenario would manifest. As it stands, Turkey doubled trade with Russia, purchased Russian arms, joined the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, fueled Russia’s war with Ukraine through its export of electronic goods, machinery, and spare parts, and secured $5 billion dollars in aid from Saudi Arabia. It is unclear how Turkey could be warmer toward authoritarian countries outside of the West. If relations deteriorate further, pushing Turkey toward Russia and China, what will happen? Until Pro has a more specific answer, this impact is illusory.

b. Turkey Getting its Slice of the Pie

Pro contends that Turkey is only getting its fair share by coercing Finland and Sweden to lift its ban on selling Turkey military-grade weapons. On the other hand, I show how military support from NATO nations has been used to further Turkey’s genocide in Northern Syria. The erasure of Kurdish life is not simply “getting one’s fair share.” Turkey is using its NATO membership as a bargaining chip to reap concessions from reluctant Western military powers. These concessions fuel bloodshed. This is a net harm of Turkey’s NATO membership in terms of security, liberal-democratic values, and international respect for human rights.

c. Turkey’s Military

Cross-apply that purges have reduced Turkey’s military capabilities immensely. Over 20,000 military officials lost their job after Erdogan’s purges. Also, consider that Turkey’s putative “drone revolution” was not the result of Turkey’s military ingenuity, but of Western technology being retrofitted in drones.

Pro needs to explain why Turkey’s military prowess is so important to NATO. Even if one buys that Turkey’s military isn’t impotent, what purpose does it play in protecting NATO? It didn’t stop Russia from invading Ukraine, nor from annexing Crimea. On the other hand, Turkish soldiers were used to invade Northern Syria and Iraq.

Vague Structure

I’m not entirely sure what Pro means when he argues that I am misleading readers. Regardless, there is not much new here. He does assert that NATO should be open to all. A security alliance should prioritize security, and ne’er do wells that undermine security ought to be removed lest the other members be called to defend a so-called ally that drags others into international imbroglios of epic proportions. The US, UK, and alas, Turkey, all do this. Hence, they should be removed from the security alliance.


I think some weighing is in order as we approach the end of the debate. But first, I have to clear something up. This debate is not about whether Turkey should be removed from NATO, rather, the resolution asks whether Turkey’s continued membership is beneficial or harmful to the security coalition. To that end, I argued that NATO’s mission is undermined by Turkey’s active perpetuation of an ethnic cleansing campaign. Crucially, NATO membership grants Turkey impunity. Ankara perceives that the West “needs” them, and so Turkey’s government is emboldened to pursue its nationalist agenda without fear of repercussions. Further, Turkey used its veto to strongarm new NATO members to rescind their arms embargoes against Turkey, facilitating Turkey’s genocide. I gave other examples of Turkey’s strongarming, including an incident involving the Incirlik airbase. I also gave examples of Turkey eschewing NATO's mission and instead pursuing its own nationalist agenda, such as when Turkey supported ISIS.

Pro argued that ejecting Turkey from NATO would push Turkey closer to the Middle East and Russia. As I explain above, the impact is illusory since this is already happening in the status quo even with Turkey being a NATO member nation.

Pro suggested that other countries would think about leaving the alliance if Turkey were to be thrown out of NATO. It is unclear that countries currently being protected by NATO would feel the need to leave. Furthermore, without a mechanism to remove ne’er do wells, the security alliance would be nothing but a loosely tied bundle of countries without a common purpose. If, say, China, Russia, or even ISIS were to join NATO, there would be no more point in NATO existing.

Even Pro’s argument that Turkey provides NATO’s second largest army is suspect given Erdogan’s purges over the last few years. Moreover, Pro makes no attempt to demonstrate Turkey’s military doing much to help NATO outside of a brief mention of NATO military operations in his first constructive.

Pro's impacts simply cannot outweigh Turkey's ongoing genocide. I urge a Con ballot.

Summary speech

In Pro's understanding of this debate, Con has been disproportionately representing some sort of 'hypocrisy disqualification weighting' as outweighing the hardcore benefits of keeping T in NATO. In Round 2, Pro then chose to show you that the US in particular (as well as UK) committing hypocritical acts throughout its aggressive war-based campaigns from the start of NATO to date. Since Turkey joined during the first war aforementioned, being the Cold War, it means that T has contributed to the safety US and UK experienced thus far during every single war they were in. The reason for this is that upon retaliation, T always would be there to defend them with NATO's second largest army and a lot of raw equipment power that I have provided links for in previous Rounds and even drone research that's cutting edge for modern times.

Con keeps speaking about 'genocide' but as we can observe, if we ignore things like the US being responsible for Al Qaeda and the Taliban and other side-mission stuff in their wars, we still are left with direct body counts such as that of the Iraq War which would shock anybody and lesser genocides in Afghanistan and basically any country that the US has directly meddled in in the Middle East. 

The biggest issue at play is that T is better controlled as a NATO ally than as a rejected vengeful enemy. NATO cannot just passively and peacefully eject its own long-time member without expecting a lot of vengeance. So, even if we buy into Con's narrative that T is somehow the most 'evil' NATO member, it is better to have this villain as an antihero than as an actual villain when it comes to the safety and even economic wellbeing of the EU and NATO members in general. Let's not pretend that T's willingness to trade heartily with the EU on discounted tariffs is also due to its NATO ties.

T is very much a nation that understands 'tit for tat' or 'quid pro quo'. It is not going to act out and do anything like its 1915-1916 genocide ever again. This was well before it joined NATO, back then people didn't live that long so that's actually over a generation and arguably 2 generations ahead of it joining NATO, meaning the people who led and did that genocide were quite literally dead or otherwise very elderly and redundant in Turkish leadership by the time T joined NATO.

Con pointing that out is also ridiculous because if Con's actual case is one of historical hypocrisy, then what of the British Empire or the way the Natives of US were treated? Should Germany also be ejected for the Nazi regime? The reason I don't want to keep delving deep into the hypocrisy of other nations and stuck to the biggest one in both size and hypocrisy even while in NATO which is US, is because I am trying to show how irrelevant this is. NATO is a military arrangement, as long as there is actual democracy and such while in NATO, present in the nations involved than honestly what exactly is a 1915 genocide to do with T's NATO membership or anyone's?

There was all kinds of abuses by a variety of NATO members in western Europe during their imperial invasion and maintenance of Africa, the slave trade being one that the US was also involved in. Are we going to eject Portugal and Belgium, which are founding members, on top of the UK and US for their slave trade involvement? Just to be clear, there's more than those 4 involved.

If we were to follow Con's thesis, we'd eject so much of NATO that the only ones in NATO would be Eastern Europeans or a random nation or 2 that didn't do slavery and such in Western Europe. Then what exactly would Eastern Europe gain from it? They'd be better off siding with Russia if anything as most of them lack their own nuclear warheads and therefore nothing is truly scaring Russia to be at bay from blackmailing them as it has just done to Ukraine for being outside of NATO.

I honestly don't understand Con's case. It's basically saying to eject the second-largest army with heavy loyalty to NATO for 71 years for no reason other than something it did while it wasn't in NATO and some troubles because its agenda is at times selfish and not entirely in line with NATO. There's no logic in ejecting nations for this, it just sends a signal that if one cares about its own interests then even after 7 decades of loyalty and severe benefit to NATO for having had it within, it can be ejected because it's not popular enough with the other nations and their narrative of it.
Round 4
Thanks Pro!

As we conclude this debate, I feel it necessary to weigh Con’s and Pro’s arguments to assess the resolution. After having done so, I think that voters can agree that the topic is negated.

Turkey’s Military and Trade

Pro advanced that Turkey’s military, geography, and trade make Turkey a valuable NATO ally. I responded that Turkey’s military was weakened by military purges and its dependence on military technology from the West. As for trade, Pro has not proved that Turkey would cease trading with Europe if it were kicked out of NATO. I presented in my first case that despite being blocked from the EU, Turkey still trades with EU nations. Nevertheless, it might reasonably be argued that Turkey’s membership in NATO is expedient. Expedience, however, must be weighed against Turkey’s genocide in Northern Syria. Turkey’s geopolitical advantages that it offers NATO are used as bargaining chips to further Turkey’s genocide and nationalist agenda. See my examples of a) Turkey supporting ISIS, b) Turkey cutting off power to the Incirlik airbase, and c), Turkey threatening to veto Sweden’s and Finland’s accession to NATO until they repatriated suspected PKK affiliates and scrapped their arms embargoes. The latter is particularly important, since NATO weapons have been used in Turkey’s invasion of Northern Turkey. While this debate is not about whether Turkey should stay or leave NATO, Turkey’s genocide being bolstered by NATO weapons is a definite harm. It undermines security by leaving a power vacuum that is being capitalized on by ISIS (especially since Turkey’s actions directly and indirectly support ISIS goals), increases the number of internally displaced people in Turkey, assaults the liberal-democratic values that NATO nations espouse, and constitutes an affront to international human security. Further, by threatening to veto Finland’s and Sweden’s accession to NATO, Turkey also threatens to prevent NATO from gaining new allies that could potentially deter Russia.

Pro’s only response to this argument was that the US and UK do this as well. I agree, but the resolution deals with Turkey, not the US. If the topic asked whether the US’ or UK’s membership in NATO was a net benefit to the organization, I would also be Con, and I said as much in a previous round. Pro responds to this point in their last round, arguing that under the standard I provided (though he misinterprets my standard, which I get into more in "Genocide Clear Up"), most nations in NATO would be forced to leave. First, this debate is about whether Turkey’s membership in NATO is beneficial or not. There is no grounds for removal in the resolution. Second, even if there was, Pro still has no evaluative framework to counter mine, he garners no offense off this point (that is, no impact), and it could simply be that NATO’s mission imposes a high hurdle to membership. I’m fine with that. If I have to decide between a NATO that supports genocide or no NATO at all, I think the latter would be preferential. Mind you, this is all non-topical. Harsh framework aside, its logic still holds. A global security pact not committed to protecting international life is hogwash.

Turkey’s Vengeance

Pro’s point, that Turkey being ejected from NATO would cause them to seek vengeance is an ipse dixit. Funnily enough, the resolution never asks whether Turkey should be ejected from NATO, only if Turkey’s continued membership is a benefit to NATO, but taking Pro at their highest word, I still find reason to think that Turkey’s vengeance will not manifest. First, Pro has yet to specify how Turkey will respond. Given the immense cost of direct warfare, it is likely that Turkey won’t resort to direct warfare. Should we expect sanctions? Maybe, but that’s me putting together puzzle pieces that my opponent hasn’t so much as taken out of the puzzle box. I can’t assess the nets cost of vengeance, only that Turkey will be angry and potentially side with Russia, China, and the Middle East. The latter is already happening though, so it’s unclear what would change under the resolution. Hence, this impact is illusory. In fact, Pro’s own words betray him when he posits that Turkey is a country that “knows tit for tat and quid pro quo.” If Turkey’s removal from NATO constitutes an injury, Turkey’s “tat” will be proportional to the “tit.”

On the other hand, my evidence directly supports a link between Turkey’s involvement in NATO and the perpetuation of genocide. Hence, NATO membership is a net harm.

Genocide Clear Up

I think I need to clear something up. Pro is bringing up the 1915 and 1916 genocide a lot. The genocide I am talking about is currently happening, right now, in Northern Syria against the Kurdish population of captured territories. Harms perpetrated hundreds of years ago might be a cause for reparations, but that is neither here nor there. My framework never asked that countries in the security organization have a spotless track record pertaining to human rights. I only ask that countries in the organization not sow destruction. When Pro says this:

“I honestly don't understand Con's case. It's basically saying to eject the second-largest army with heavy loyalty to NATO for 71 years for no reason other than something it did while it wasn't in NATO…”

I want it to be clear to voters that I am talking about a genocide from the occupation of Kurdish territories. Turkey’s invasions into Syria occurred most recently in late 2019 when former President Trump removed troops from Northern Syria.


I feel that most of what needed to be said was said. Pro really hasn’t touched my points. He hasn’t brought up NATO’s ability to keep the peace between Greece and Turkey since the first round, either. As such, most of Pro’s case is either devoid of a substantive impact or turned. Meanwhile, my point about the genocide has not been appropriately responded to. Thus, I urge a Con ballot.

Pro waives the Round.