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.
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