THBT: Russia's invasion of Ukraine beginning in 2022 was unjustified
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 12,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
BoP is shared. PRO argues that the invasion is unjustified, CON argues that it is justified.
The "invasion" refers to both the action of subjugating Ukraine and to the way in which it was carried out.
- In 2014, Putin denied the use of troops in Crimea before backtracking and claiming that Crimea was a part of Russia.
- In February of 2022, Putin said that Russia was not planning to invade Ukraine.
- Putin later claimed that a special military operation was necessary to subjugate Donetsk and Luhansk, which pro-Russian terrorists were attempting to seize.
- Afterward, of course, Putin falsely claimed that all of Ukraine belonged to Russia.
- Has Ukraine provoked Russia in unwarranted ways?
- Do these provocations justify an invasion?
- Do these provocations justify the specific kind of invasion that Russia has been carrying out?
- I established earlier that Russia invaded Crimea in 2014 and has invaded other countries as well. While Russia claims that these invasions were due to humanitarian purposes, CON seems to agree with the consensus that these justifications were made up.
- Unwarranted US involvement in other countries does not justify Russia’s actions in Georgia or Crimea. We’re not discussing whether countries claim that their actions were justified, but if they actually were justified.
- Since the US is not the focus of this debate, I will simply extend my point that Russia’s invasion of Crimea was unjustified due to Ukraine’s sovereignty and coercion by armed men with guns.
- Maybe the United States invaded countries for unjustified reasons, but that is irrelevant to whether Russia’s actions were justified.
- None of Ukraine’s actions toward Russia have been unwarranted. Since the invasion of Crimea, Ukraine has had strong reasons to be fearful of Russia.
- President Yanukovych only has the authority to make claims about what he will do when in office. He does not have the authority to promise Russia that other presidents will not get elected.
- Yanukovych did not “agree” to anything anyway, Russia basically just pressured him not to sign the agreement, since they’re a big trade partner and have a huge army.
- Russia does not have the authority to say Ukraine cannot make deals with the EU any more than Mexico has the authority to say who Taiwan can make deals with.
- Neither of Russia’s “justifications” actually justified the annexation of Crimea. As I said earlier, Ukraine had legally become independent and Russia had agreed to recognize its borders—twice. I already pointed out that the referendum in Crimea was rigged. In fact, voter turnout was recorded as 123%, just shy of Kim Jong Un’s approval rating.
- A dictator running one of the most authoritarian countries in the world is likely not invading a neighboring country for “humanitarian reasons”.
- Russia violated the Minsk agreements much more severely than Ukraine by refusing to stop fighting and claiming it was not bound by the agreement. If Russia claims it never agreed to the Minsk accords, then how can the Russian government claim that Ukraine violated an agreement with them?
- The Minsk agreements were not binding to either government anyway which is why each side interprets them differently. But if we use them as a standard, then Russia is more guilty of provocation than Ukraine.
- The agreements were unfair to Ukraine, whose borders had been recognized for decades. It was basically a list of demands by Russian terrorists who had seized the region.
- That people in Donbas speak English is irrelevant to which country Donbas is located in.
- Putin’s opinions on the Minsk agreements hold little weight when Russia never intended to follow them.
- Putin claiming that Ukraine’s actions are bad, or claiming that he has a right to do something, does not make either of those things true.
- Dictators make unreasonable demands all the time. Not agreeing to the demands of an insane dictator is perfectly reasonable.
- CON’s only justification here seems to be that Russia says it is invading for humanitarian reasons, therefore they must be telling the truth. His comparison to other invasions by countries like the US is an obvious whataboutism fallacy. Russia alone is responsible for Russia’s actions.
- CON has not even argued that all of Ukraine belongs to Russia; therefore, Russia is taking land that does not belong to them.
- None of the things CON listed show that Ukraine poses any military threat to Russia. Russia is the world’s largest nuclear power with the world’s fifth largest army. Russia is a threat to Ukraine, not the other way around.
- CON makes no justification for this. None of Ukraine’s actions warrant war crimes or genocide.
- Russia could admit that Donbas belongs to Ukraine like they admitted twice already when they recognized Ukraine’s independence. Or they could actually follow the Minsk agreements that they are demanding Ukraine abide by.
- Killing innocent Ukrainian citizens, drafting their own people, and engaging in a full-scale invasion do not solve any of the problems between Russia and Ukraine, except for satisfying Putin’s greed.
"The Ukrainian government's response has been heavy-handed and has resulted in significant loss of life and damage to civilian infrastructure. The government has failed to address the underlying political and economic grievances of the pro-Russian separatists, and has instead resorted to a military solution that has only exacerbated the conflict."
Ukraine belonged to Russia.
Moscow sees no possibility of a diplomatic solution to end the war in Ukraine
- Ukraine is a sovereign nation, as acknowledged by Russia multiple times.
- Russia is committing war crimes, kidnapping children, and committing genocide against Ukranian children, proving that they are not in Ukraine for humanitarian reasons. CON calls this an appeal to emotion, but it’s simply an observable fact. Russia violated Article II and Article III (c) of the Genocide Convention.
- Putin is a dictator of an authoritarian nation. Hence, the notion that he is invading a democratic nation for humanitarian reasons when he fails to give basic rights to his own people is absurd. CON again calls this an appeal to emotion, but it’s simply a logical conclusion.
- Russia is violating international law in about a dozen ways that I’ve already listed.
- Russia has repeatedly lied about their purposes for instigating the conflict
- Russia is spending enormous amounts of money and drafting their own people, resulting in over 60,000 Russian deaths.
- Russia is causing a huge refugee crisis while raising the threat of nuclear conflict to the highest point since the Cold War.
- All of these things make Russia’s invasion of Ukraine unjustified, based on both common sense and just war theory.
- Sources from the West are preferable, since Western countries have freedom of speech and don’t murder reporters as often as Putin.
- I’ve cited a number of sources that aren’t part of any US government agency, including independent legal analyses.
- CON does not challenge any of my information as inaccurate, beyond saying that some of it came from groups located in Western nations. All information comes from somewhere, and sources like Brittanica are very reliable, so this is simply the genetic fallacy.
- It’s well-established that Putin has claimed Ukraine is not an independent nation. The particular source CON is referring to was not quoting Putin, it was explaining why Putin’s claim was false.
- This is a full-scale invasion. Russia has consistently lied about whether they would invade and about what parts of Ukraine belong to them. Let’s not pretend Russia won’t take the whole country if the war turns in their direction.
- NATO is a defensive alliance. It’s meant to be a deterrent to dictators invading sovereign nations. Putin is essentially justifying his invasion by saying that a country trying to defend itself is offensive to him.
- CON seems to consider anything that Putin doesn’t like a provocation that justifies invading a foreign country. If a bunch of Russian diplomats had said, “stop eating ham sandwiches,” and Ukrainians had continued to do so, then CON would be arguing that this justified the invasion.
- I’m unable to find the source that says this, but I’ll assume it actually does.
- This sounds a lot like what Russia is doing right now—killing civilians in a military invasion that only exacerbates the conflict in Europe.
- The difference is that Ukraine is defending their people from terrorists, within Ukraine’s sovereign borders. Russia is invading land that does not belong to them.
- CON is confusing talk with action. Russia violates the Minsk accords and then gaslights Ukraine by acting like a much smaller nation is posing a threat by defending themselves.
- Russia making a hypocritical demand does not mean that Ukraine has an option to adhere to that demand. Just because Russians call something a provocation does not mean that Ukraine’s actions are unwarranted or that they justify an invasion.
- Maybe this is because Russia has invaded a sovereign nation, kidnapped their children, and begun blowing up buildings with civilians inside them.
- None of Russia’s actions has made diplomatic talks more realistic. Maybe if Russia stops killing innocent people for two seconds, a diplomatic solution will be more feasible.
- Ukraine defended its sovereign borders from terrorists who tried to take over part of the country. Much like Abraham Lincoln.
- Ukraine is more likely to take advice from their allies who offer to protect them than from a homicidal dictator who wants to kill their citizens. This seems rather logical.
- Finland joined NATO after decades of neutrality right after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Sweden wants to join as well. Russia is giving other countries a reason to fear military conflict.
- CON would like to ignore the consequences of an invasion on peace in Europe, and seemingly all the consequences of the invasion in general.
- If an invasion makes everyone worse off, it is not justified. Russia is essentially killing a bunch of people for nothing except satisfying Putin’s ego.
- This source says that turnout in the largest city in Crimea was logged at 123%.
- The point is that Russia is clearly lying about the percentage of voter turnout, indicating that some people are voting twice or that Russian operatives are voting.
- Nothing says “83%” in CON’s source that I can find. Regardless, differing values would indicate election tampering.
- Regardless, the election is not legitimate. That’s the point that CON is missing.
- The agreements were not legally binding.
- Russia is not violating the agreements, taking full advantage of the fact that they are not legally binding.
- Both of these facts clearly give Russia no right to complain.
- Sovereignty in on itself, does not eliminate or negate justification for military action. If that was the case, no wars would ever be fought. Pro's is incorrect.
- Pro is stating that what has happened after the invasion, proves that the invasion itself was not justified. These can be looked at as two very distinct issues. However, Pro furthers with a few emotionally charged claims, with very little substance.
- Genocide. I did not bring this word up. Pro did. If we look at the accusations of Genocide, Putin made a claim that Ukraine were ethnically clensing the Donbas. There are a handful of countries that have accused Russia of genocide. They do NOT include, the US, Germany, France, the UK, Brazil, India, or China. No UN accusations of genocide have been levied, nor has Pro shown such. The articles provided by Pro are all western controlled narratives, yet the US or other major european countries wont declare a genocide? It is an unsupported claim, and an emotional ploy by Pro. I don't believe Putin's claims of genocide, nor do I believe the wests.
- Children. In 2019, UNICEF issued a report that children were seeing a huge increase in school attacks in the Donbas by Ukraine supported troops and militia. Both sides evacuated children from the fighting lines, Ukraine, Russias response to the accusations by Ukraine, which include over 150 children killed in the Donbas prior to Russias SMO.
- I have no doubt that both Ukraine and Russia have troops that are not playing by the rules. In fact it was Ukraines continuous actions in Donbas, despite warnings, and despite appeals to the International community, provided the provocation for Russia to take unilateral action.Nasty things happen in war. Pro is arguing that because nasty things happen, that takes away from the justification, which it does not. The issue causing the disagreement, needs to be resolved.
- Putin's political style is not the issue. To that end, Pro states
invading a democratic nation for humanitarian reasons when he fails to give basic rights to his own people is absurd.
- Pro continues to describe the consequences of the war, including conscription, death counts, and increased military tension, and say that this takes away from the justification of the invasion. It does not. It shows the horrors that could have been mitigated if the UN had accepted Russias plea for help and intervened.
Sources from the West are preferable, since Western countries have freedom of speech and don’t murder reporters as often as Putin.
- NBC correspondent, Keir Simmons, for reporting from Crimea and giving voice to residents who support the Russian Federation's annexation of their territory. Simmons was placed on the notorious Myrotvorets kill list, which has seen several of its targets assassinated by Ukrainian death squads.I’ve cited a number of sources that aren’t part of any US government agency, including independent legal analyses. Journalists, advocates and anyone who has a fact based approach, are at risk of being targeted. Hardly free speech.
- Countries like Spain, and Slovakia have taken criminal actions against people for speaking about Russia in a positive way. Hardly free speech
- We saw what happened with the media during COVID, with the governments and social media influence via the Twitter Files. Hardly free speech.
- Pro relies on a one sided narrative, which is a bias danger, and does not take the totality into consideration.
- Pro states that because I do not contest the accuracy of some of the reports, therefore they must be true. Neither of us know the truth. That is the point. We have to look at the source, and the objective of why the source is publishing it, do they have first hand account. We have to read the documents, and not just the headlines.
- Pro used a NewYork Times article title, from a guest reporter, to claim something Putin never said. It is an opinion article, and has no basis in fact other than pro West propoganda. How else can the US justify sending billions and billions to Ukraine?
- Pro uses one document from the US to claim it is a "full-invasion" and no other source. I already demonstrated that the Russian Parliament has not authorized a full invasion.
- Pro seems to believe that the expansion of NATO, despite assurances, is not provocation, and that NATO is just a defensive alliance. Tell that to the people of Serbia, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Iraq. Hardly a defense only organization.
- Pro erroneously states that my position is, because Putin doesn't like it, he can go to war, and that is OK. Clearly I did not say that. I have shown a multi-decade pattern of escalation, culminating in 8 years of brutal conflict in an area with over 3 million ethnic Russians, and the ignoring of calls for international help.
- Pro says that Ukraine is defending themselves from terrorists, without citation. I have no problem admitting that there are some terrorists in Donbas, and Terrorists in Ukraine, and they are using ethnicity against each other. The point I have been making is that this would go away if the UN supervised the implimination of the Minsk Accords, and all parties honoured it. Russia asked for that before invaded.
- Pro never refuted:
- the existence of the ethnic Russian population in the Donbas
- the referenda in 2014 in the region
- the ongoing aggression, with a NAZI aligned militia in Ukraine, funded by the West for 8 years pre-invasion
- Russias history post 1991 on supporting countries for independence
- the history on how the West interfered with the Ukrainian elections
- NATO expansion, despite repeated assurance.
- the Russian efforts to have an agreement, Mink and Minsk II
- the Russian call for International help, every year in fact
- the Russian request that the UN supervise and implement the Minsk Acccords
- the continuous warnings to the West about their roll and the conduct in Ukraine
- the specific request to Biden for help implementing the accords.
- the admission from Merkel and Hollande that the accords were just a ruse, to get Ukraine up and running because NATO could not handle a conflict.
- Pro defended some of that behaviour. Effectively for Pro, if you are sovereign and there is a civil war, only one side can win. Tell that to the people of Northern Ireland, East Timor, South Sudan, Kosovo, Albania, Cyprus, Eritrea, Syria, Yemen, LIbya, Rwanda, ........ It doesn't work that way. Different governments, are going to support different sides for many different reasons, and they all have a justification.
- Pro states that the consequences to Europe are being ignored. Well someone should have told Macron, Hollande, Merkel, Johnston, and Von Der Leyen, and they could have intervened. They did not.
- Russia violated the Minsk agreements much more severely than Ukraine by refusing to stop fighting and claiming it was not bound by the agreement. If Russia claims it never agreed to the Minsk accords, then how can the Russian government claim that Ukraine violated an agreement with them?
Russia violates the Minsk accords and then gaslights Ukraine by acting like a much smaller nation is posing a threat by defending themselves.
Russia is not violating the agreements, taking full advantage of the fact that they are not legally binding.
For this debate the description which includes "and to the way in which it was carried out" is key to pro's victory. That opens the door to Russia drafting their people and the death toll suffered by them needing to be justified. Without this, he indeed would have been moving the goalpost to off topic areas. As is, it hurts con having tried to dismiss so much, since it leaves them implicitly against his case that he'd even need to try striking them from the record.
Con excels at pushing for the subjective nature of justified, which since BoP is on pro would favor con if we can't say if it's justified or not.
I should say that I get what con was going for with using the USA as a point of comparison, even if it got long winded.
Con also does quite well showing that the invasion didn't happen out of nowhere, there were clearly warning signs. Pro did well against this with building a case for Russia routinely flip flopping (such as how they'd never invade Crimea, and then did just that...).
The Crimea one favored pro, due to having easy access to sources which show that Russia was the baddie in that. I will add that I enjoyed the joke comparison to Kim Jong Un. Con trying to dismiss this and more since the sources are biased against Russia, doesn't close the gap to showing better evidence that Russia was well behaved there. As for Ukraine being against free press, that's not a comparable level of crime, even while it's useful to show that they're no angels.
The pathos appeal issue is an interesting one. Hard to weigh lose of human life in an emotional void. We should be able to at least separate Russia's history of genocide in Ukraine from the current conflict. Of course disagreeing with calling an invasion a full scale invasion seemed quite odd.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/157u04sNvUb3Qqir5XhwYK9QE0wIwhL6wqAL0FWpF2wE/edit?usp=sharing
It was a good debate, guys, even if it felt like it was missing some big picture crystallization at the end. Let me know if you have any questions about the decision.
Pro and Con present compelling arguments, but I lean towards Pro's case for two reasons: 1) Ukraine is a sovereign entity, and 2) the invasion violates UN law, as evidenced by Pro's sources. Con's primary rebuttal is that Russia did not attack without warning. However, I personally disagree since Russia initially denied plans to attack Ukraine while gradually increasing its military presence along Ukraine's borders. Furthermore, Putin later enacted a law making it illegal to call the conflict a war under the guise of preventing false information. Even if Russia did issue a warning, the war was illegally planned and executed, violating the established norms of international law. Pro offers a better legal argument by utilizing the UN's legal interpretations of the war, which is supported by the fact that Russia is not only economically sanctioned heavily for the war but Putin himself has recently been declared a war criminal by the international criminal court. Con only claims that the agreements that they admit Russia violated have no legal bindings which are not proven to be accurate despite their claims.
Pro brings up plenty of arguments:
1) Condemned by international community, 2) Ukraine became independent in 1991, 3) Russia agreed to respect Ukraine's independence if Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, 4) Ukraine is more democratic and free than Russia, 5) Putin's political opponents continue to die under mysterious circumstances, 6) Russian violation of human rights, 7) Fighting a bloody war so that Ukranian citizens have less freedom is unjustified, 8) Russia violated the international law, 9) Russia committed war crimes, 10) Russia lied about self defense, 11) Ukraine posing no military threat to Russia, 12) Russia avoided diplomatic solutions and peace, 13) banned criticism of war, 14) unjustified conscription, 15) cost to Russian citizens, 16) destabilization of international peace, 17) nuclear threats, 18) refugee crisis cost, 19) People disagree about what proper justification is,
20) Do these provocations justify the specific kind of invasion that Russia has been carrying out? No.
21) We are not discussing other countries, 22) president Yanukovych only has authority to make claims about what he will do, 23) Russia does not have the authority to say Ukraine cannot make deals, 24) Referendum in Crimea was rigged, 25) Russia violated the Minsk agreements much more, 26) the agreements were unfair to Ukraine, 27) none of the things Con listed show that Ukraine poses any military threat to Russia, 28) Russia could admit that Donbas belongs to Ukraine like they admitted twice already, 29) killing innocent civilians, full-scale invasion do not solve any of the problems between Russia and Ukraine, 30) consequences of an invasion, 31) Russia has consistently lied about whether they would invade and about what parts of Ukraine belong to them, 32) NATO is a defensive alliance, 33) Russia is giving other countries a reason to fear military conflict.
Pro's arguments are diminished.
1) Subjectivity attached to justified, 2) Continuosly doing what someone doesnt like. That is provocation. 3) Ukraine would not be a cooperative neighbour because of NATO influence, 4) Ukraine were invited to join NATO, 5) NATO's expansion was a provocation to Russia, 6) Pro's claim Russia is a repressive regime, they cannot be provoked. Appeal to emotions. 7) Sovereignty in on itself, does not eliminate or negate justification for military actions, 8) setting a standard that a country must have its own borders in complete order, to some external standard, before they can claim a justification for military force is nonsensical, 9) Clearly from Russian perspective, there was a justification, 10) Pro seems to believe that the expansion of NATO, despite assurances, is not a provocation, and that NATO is just a defensive alliance. Tell that to the people of Serbia, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Iraq. Hardly a defense only organization, 11) Pro-Russian separatists in Donbas protested. The Ukrainian government used a military response, 12) Ukraine refused to honor the Minsk accords, 13) Russia's military action protects Russian speakers, 14) Both Russia and Ukraine have troops that are not playing by the rules.
"Ukraine became independent in 1991, Russia agreed to respect Ukraine's independence if Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons" is diminished. "Ukraine were invited to join NATO." "Ukraine would not be a cooperative neighbour because of NATO influence". "NATO's expansion was a provocation to Russia".
"NATO is a defensive alliance" is diminished. "Tell that to the people of Serbia, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Iraq". "NATO's expansion was a provocation to Russia".
"Fighting a bloody war so that Ukranian citizens have less freedom is unjustified" and "Russia committed war crimes" are diminished arguments.
"No UN accusations of genocide have been levied".
"Pro-Russian separatists in Donbas protested. The Ukrainian government used a military response."
"Simmons was placed on the notorious Myrotvorets kill list which has seen several of its targets assasinated by Ukrainian death squads".
"killing innocent civilians, full-scale invasion do not solve any of the problems between Russia and Ukraine" is diminished.
"Pro-Russian separatists in Donbas protested. The Ukrainian government used a military response.", "Subjectivity attached to justified", "setting a standard that a country must have its own borders in complete order, to some external standard, before they can claim a justification for military force is nonsensical", "Governments have historically used ethnic protection elements as justification for military intervention.", "Russia's military action protects Russian speakers", and "NATO's expansion was a provocation to Russia"
prove the topic "THBT: Russia's invasion of Ukraine beginning in 2022 was unjustified" in Con's favor. Arguments go to Con.
Plenty of sources used by both sides. Sources are tie.
Legibility was solid on both sides. Legibility is a tie.
Conduct was good. Conduct is tie.
I see, that makes sense.
Tf? Ukraine is literally fascist. 10 years in jail for singing the internationale. I hate russia too, obviously. Nostalgia for the USSR has turned into Ultranationalism, but saying that Ukraine is democratic is inherent nonsense.
To be specific, I’m talking about weighing impacts against one another. How many lives should I consider $9 trillion to be worth? I don’t think you can do that kind of lives-to-dollars analysis, but I think you can evaluate where that money is coming from and the kind of effect it’s having. How has the economy suffered and how have the people in Russia felt it? That’s the kind of thing I’m looking for. The dollar amounts feel empty on their own.
Thanks for voting. Definitely a detailed analysis, and I think you did a good job of acknowledging everything that was said.
===Spoiler alert: Question below. If it's better to ask after the voting period is over, let me know and I'll remove it, but it's more of a general question.===
The only question I have is with regard to how you weigh impacts, since you don't seem to weigh all quantitative evidence equally. You said "I don’t have a direct impact, but I have big numbers," so I'm curious about what you quantify as a direct impact if a dollar amount isn't considered one. Do you count dollar amounts as impacts in some cases but not in others? Or is it better to stick to other quantities like death tolls in a situation like this? Is saying "x number of people were conscripted" a quantified impact, or only the amount that died?
Not criticizing here, just trying to figure out what counts as an impact and what doesn't.
yes I dd vote again my orgibal was deleted because I misunderstood legibility and its meaning.
You can still vote, you just have to base your decision on the information in the debate.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Americandebater24 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro (Arguments and Legibility)
>Reason for Decision:
Pro and Con present compelling arguments, but I lean towards Pro's case for two reasons: 1) Ukraine is a sovereign entity, and 2) the invasion violates UN law, as evidenced by Pro's sources. Con's primary rebuttal is that Russia did not attack without warning. However, I personally disagree since Russia initially denied plans to attack Ukraine while gradually increasing its military presence along Ukraine's borders. Furthermore, Putin later enacted a law making it illegal to call the conflict a war under the guise of preventing false information. Even if Russia did issue a warning, the war was illegally planned and executed, violating the established norms of international law. Pro offers improved legibility by utilizing the UN's legal interpretations of the war, which is supported by the fact that Russia is not only economically sanctioned heavily for the war but Putin himself has recently been declared a war criminal by the international criminal court. Con only claims that the agreements that they admit Russia violated have no legal bindings which are not proven to be accurate despite their claims.
Both participants used excellent sources and exhibited exceptional conduct in this debate. As a result, I cannot favor either side concerning their behavior or the credibility of their sources. Overall, I side with the Pro in terms of argument and legibility. Although Con performed well in the debate, they fell short in these two aspects compared to Pro.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The legibility point is insufficiently explained. Legibility refers to the clarity required to be able to read the arguments, i.e. it evaluates whether the arguments are presented in a manner that they are understandable. The voter refers to legibility in a different manner, as though it is associated with better proof for a specific claim. That is not sufficient to award this point.
Argument points are borderline. The voter should refrain from inserting personal disagreements into their RFD as counterpoints to arguments made by either side, though as there may be some basis for arguing that the debaters made those points (I haven't fully read through this debate yet, only skimmed it), that may still be valid. If this vote is posted again awarding only arguments with the same reasoning, it may be subject to further review should it be reported again.
**************************************************
Debate is essentially tied right now. Plz vote if you have time.
Thanks for voting!
Best.Korea, Thank you for the vote. It was a long one, and I appreciate you putting in the time.
Barney, I hope you can get through the rest of it for a vote
Cheers
Damn fine first round from both sides!
no problem thanks for making a great debate.
Thanks for voting!
Should be able to get to it.
Not sure if you're busy with the tournament, but plz consider voting if you get a chance.
Oh, I’m 100% voting on this.
Interested to see Con’s approach on this debate.
Well if the vote comes down to that one thing, neither of us did a good enough job :)
No worries.
I probably should have tagged you in the comment about my typo, I guess we'll just see how the voters feel about it
Please vote if you have time
*made a clerical error in the last part of R3. "not violating" is supposed to say "not following"
This might be an easy win for Pro
In Round 1 Con wrote
"In 2013, Putin offered Ukraines pro Russia government a $15BN loan and lower gas prices, if Ukraine President Yanukovych did not sign the EU Cooperation Agreement. Yanukovych agreed with Putin, and then the shit hit the fan. Massive Pro-EU protests spring up in 2014, which was called the Euromaidan Revolution, The EU then brokers a deal for the resignation of Yanukovych. Pro EU Poroshenko wins the new election.
As the political tied shifted so drastically, the predominant Russian populations in Crimea and Donbas, got very concerned. They wanted more Russian ties. So they held referendums in both regions. Russia accepted the Crimea referendum ...."
I think Con just slid over something important here. In 1994, Russia, US, UK, & Ukraine signed the Budapest Memorandum. That document guaranteed the then-current borders of Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons inherited from the USSR. After the pro-Russian Yanukovych was replaced by the pro-EU Poroshenko, Russia invaded Crimea. Because of the Budapest Memo., Putin felt he had to justify the invasion. His representative said “the security assurances were given to the legitimate government of Ukraine but not to the forces that came to power following the coup d’etat.” His thinking was that the removal of their guy and the election of another in Ukraine was a revolution, thus negating the memorandum.
You can reuse arguments as long as you wrote them. It's not plagiarism.
Any objections to me repurposing the narrative from another debate I have had on the subject?
Savant just might be the most impressive debater I’ve come upon.
With the exception of Barney and Whiteflame.
As a pacifist this is going to be hard. Bring it on!!!
Done
3 days for arguments, can we increase the character count? I would appreciate it. Not needed.
Lmk if you want any more changes