The Instigator
Porthos
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
AkulMunjal
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Does war with Russia seem plausible?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Porthos
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/10/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,278 times Debate No: 37580
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Porthos

Pro

Round one - Confirmation that you are participating as the con-man in this debate. No actual debating this round.

Round two - Post your first opinion on the topic.

Round three - Arguing with you opponent and continuing on your opinion.

Round four - Conclusion with an additional testimony if wanted.

Rules: 1) Limited harassment, no cursing though.
2) Please only forfeit a maximum of one round.
3) Abide by the round format.
4) If you want to befriend your opponent do it after the round unless you are already friend with that person.
5) Attempt to respect your opponents opinion.
6) Don't stray off to far from the topic at hand, but you may a bit.

I'm looking for a fun debate and hope that my opponent enjoys this experience.
AkulMunjal

Con

I will be debating against you, may the best debater win.
Debate Round No. 1
Porthos

Pro

My opinion on the topic of: Does war with Russia seem plausible, is yes. War with Russia seems quite plausible in my opinion because as evidence presents, our relationship with them seems to be deteriorating. The evidence is that Russia is becoming irked from having to kick out an alleged U.S. spy, the U.S. attempting to intervene with Syria, and Russia having to remove Edward Snowden from their country. Russia is irking the United States as well though. Russia is beginning to crack down on our human right organizations and NGOs. Also Russia is planning on engaging with Iran on the nuke program. As you can tell the two countries are like two giant thorns and they"re both lodged in the other country"s butt. The fact that Russia wants to gain more power and a higher respect doesn"t benefit the issue. "Russia"s determination to be treated like a great power contributes to tension with the United States either. The Russian desire to maintain an unambiguous nuclear deterrent capability is at odds with Washington and NATO"s missile defense plans. Additionally, Russia"s participation in UN Security Council decisions often conflicts with America"s efforts to win Security Council resolutions that advance its foreign policy objectives.[2] "Many of these differences are likely to endure as long as Russia"s current political arrangements remain in place and possibly beyond. Therefore, even a purposeful U.S. policy is in itself insufficient to ensure sustainable cooperation in the absence of Russian efforts to make a cooperative relationship succeed (http://en.wikipedia.org...)."" As it seems we may agree on more of these problems when 2018 arrives and Russia must vote on a new president. That or else United States president Barak Obama and president Putin of Russia must negotiate. Oh wait, Obama did try to negotiate. "Obama sent Putin a written letter promoting bilateral dialogue and cooperation (http://video.foxnews.com...)." Looks like most likely another cold war is to come upon the United States and Russia (especially due to the U.S. sending in a spy to check up on Russia). If you are unaware of what the cold war is here is a link to give anyone interested more information on that war: http://en.wikipedia.org.... Resources used to support my argument are the Wikipedia page on Russia and United States relations (http://en.wikipedia.org...) and the Fox News video titled Rocky relationship between US, Russia being put to the test (http://video.foxnews.com...) Thank you everyone and I wish my opponent an enjoyable start to the debate. To recap, my opinion is that war with Russia seems plausible.
AkulMunjal

Con

In order for us to begin this debate we first must define what war is according to the merriam webster's dictionary war:
a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.

According to this definition proxy battles do not count as wars, nor do economic/ political battles

I do not think that a state of armed conflict with Russia will be plausible:

Defense:
1st: Group all of his political disagreement arguments, The US and Russia may disagree over Iran and Syria, but that does not mean that the US or Russia will declare war on each other, his argument has no link. I am disagreeing with him on this topic, but that does not mean that I will be physically fighting him.
2nd: Russian Respect: His argument is based off a zero-sum hegemony paradigm, Russia can expand it's sphere of influence in Asia, and that would not influence the US on a global scale.
3rd: Security Council: This is the most plausible scenario, but Russia has been vetoing US decisions since the cold war, and there was no escalation, thus his argument is invalid.
4th: My opponent specifically says that we will engage in a cold war with Russia, and go back to the definition of war, a cold war does not count as a "war"
Basically my defense rests on two basic premises:
1. His arguments have no links, disagreement does not escalate to war that quickly.
2. Empericism: My opponent has not responded to the question, why hasn't war started yet?

Offense:
1. Russia is too far away war will not happen
2. US russia Relations are improving: http://www.pbs.org...
3. Both sides have nuclear weapons, war would not be feasible it would escalate too quickly
4. Golden Arches: Despite the political differences between the two sides, both sides have McDonalds and there has only been one war ever between two countries that both McDonalds

Thank you vote con
Debate Round No. 2
Porthos

Pro

To counter what my opponent has argued, the definition of war according to the Merriam Webster dictionary (which my opponent misinformed you of) is:
a (1): a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations.

According to this definition war is: "a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict." Usually as defined by the Merriam Webster dictionary is: done, found, or used most of the time or in most case: normal or regular. ": Done, found, or used most of the time or in most cases: normal or regular. Most of the time does not mean all of the time

There are also more definitions to the word war. The definition of war in which I am speaking of (which is also from the Merriam Webster dictionary) is: a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism. Hostility (also from the Merriam Webster dictionary) is: an unfriendly or hostile state, attitude, or action. Conflict (also from the Merriam Webster dictionary) is: strong disagreement between people, groups, etc., that results in often angry argument. Antagonism (also from the Merriam Webster dictionary) is: actively expressed opposition or hostility . Even this definition from the Merriam Webster dictionary is not stating that war must be armed conflict. Which is what my opponents definition is saying: a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.

If you do not believe me on any of my definitions which are all from the Merriam Webster dictionary here is a link to the Merriam Webster online dictionary which is a current up-to-date dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com.... AkulMunjal, war proxy, economic, and political battles count as war.

With the now correct definition of war in place I shall move on to counter and point out the flaws of my opponents defensive argument.

To counter his first argument, for the debate title I never put: Will Russia or the US will declare war on each other? Instead for the title I put: Does war with Russia seem plausible? The definition of plausible according to the Merriam Webster dictionary is: 1: superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious. What I asked in the title is: is war with Russia a possibility? Besides the evidence I supplied the answer is yes because anything can happen. We can"t tell what the future awaits. Secondly, to counter, I did supply a link for my argument. The link was: http://video.foxnews.com.... Besides, at least I put more links (thus more evidence) than you did. Thirdly, to counter, AkulMunjal put: "I am disagreeing with him on this topic, but that does not mean that I will be physically fighting him." The definition of fighting according to the Merriam Webster dictionary is: to argue in an angry way. Arguing is a form of fighting my friend.

To counter this second argument, everything the countries of the world do influences all other countries. With Russia expanding it"s sphere of influence (which we already don"t fully agree with) they change other countries and when other countries change and we don"t agree with their change it creates a possibility of war between the U.S. and other countries. So yes, with Russia expanding it"s sphere of influence in Asia does affect the U.S. on a global scale.

To counter my opponent"s third argument, this argument is still valid because with tensions rising yet again with there is a greater possibility for escalation and war. Also, the disagreement on Security Council is obviously escalating just not enough to be a large enough. But when all those little bits of tension arise they pile up until one day it is a major problem. That is the kind of thing that leads to divorces. The evidence for that is by watching the movie Little Manhattan.

To counter, my opponent"s fourth argument is a complete and udder lie. I did not specifically say that we will engage in a cold war with Russia, I wrote: Looks like most likely another cold war is to come upon the United States and Russia (especially due to the U.S. sending in a spy to check up on Russia). I said that a cold war, if any war, is the most likely to occur between Russia and the U.S. I said most likely not that it we will for certain, 100%, engage in a cold war with Russia. Secondly, to counter, my opponent tells me to go back and look at the definition of war. First off, his definition of war was inaccurate (as I supplied evidence), and also a cold war does indeed count as a "war". Again the definition of war according to the Merriam Webster dictionary is: "a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict." Usually as defined by the Merriam Webster dictionary is: done, found, or used most of the time or in most case: normal or regular. Most of the time does not mean all of the time. Another definition is: There are also more definitions to the word war. The definition of war in which I am speaking of (which is also from the Merriam Webster dictionary) is: a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism. Hostility (also from the Merriam Webster dictionary) is: an unfriendly or hostile state, attitude, or action. Even this definition from the Merriam Webster dictionary is not stating that war must be armed conflict. Which is what my opponents definition is saying: a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state. By these accurate definitions a cold war in fact counts as a war. Why would they call it a cold war then? Thirdly, to counter, my opponent put: His arguments have no links, disagreement does not escalate to war that quickly. My arguments have links. You"ve got to be blind or something because I attached them and specifically put: Resources used to support my argument are the Wikipedia page on Russia and United States relations (http://en.wikipedia.org......) and the Fox News video titled Rocky relationship between US, Russia being put to the test (http://video.foxnews.com......) Thank you everyone and I wish my opponent an enjoyable start to the debate. To recap, my opinion is that war with Russia seems plausible. Also war can escalate that quickly. Just look at how quickly we attacked after the bombing on Pearl Harbor. The whole Pacific War was over a set of years but the U.S. was quick to fire back. Here"s another link to the addition of links I"ve posted during this debate: http://en.wikipedia.org.... Fourthly, to counter, my opponent puts: 2. Empericism: My opponent has not responded to the question, why hasn't war started yet? That isn"t what we are debating about. The topic at hand is: Does war with Russia seem plausible? Yes it does.

Next off I shall be countering my opponents offensive arguments and pointing out their flaws.

To counter my opponent"s first argument, that is false. Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan are all near Russia and are of the equivalent distance and we are at war in those countries. The U.S. will go wherever the means are necessary for war.

To counter my opponent"s second argument, first off, you didn"t explain your link. Next, although this is a very persuasive article it says: "We've kind of hit a wall," President Obama said at the Stockholm press conference. I know he says after this that he believes things will get better, but like I said before. The two countries may be doing well now but wait until the future; all these little thinks may build up into a big war or perhaps another cold war. War between the two countries is still plausible.

To counter my opponent"s third argument, that statement is irrelevant. The two sides would be afraid of the other coming to attack that one of the countries would strike soon enough and declare war, if it happens.

To counter my opponent"s fourth argument, first off, this isn"t a complete sentence, and secondly this is very irrelevant. There is no point in having it because it is incomplete and doesn"t state anything of importance. Plus it has no link.

Now to build up on my case:

Here is more evidence that war with Russia is plausible. This first piece if from an interview with William Engdahl, an award-winning geopolitical analyst and strategic risk consultant.

These links share more evidence that I wish to present but didn"t have enough characters to post:
(http://rt.com...)

He shares that a consensus is unlikely to be reached because Washington wants to encircle Russia. This is a small argument, that overtime will build up with other disagreements and potentially turn into a war.

:(http://www.theblaze.com...)

()

Now I understand Glenn Beck is a little extreme but he brings up good points that war with Russia is plausible. Look at the evidence, Russia is telling us to have no part of war with Syria (when Obama wanted to attack them) and they have sent arms shipments (ammunition) to the U.S around and instead directed it toward Iran. Here is some more evidence.

(http://www.wnd.com...)

This is my favorite piece of evidence so far because it just said that the U.S. pressing forward could result in a possible freeze in relations, or worse. It is not saying that war will happen but rather that it is possible or plausible, like I am saying. And here is even more evidence.

(http://www.thenation.com...#)
Here is yet another problem or disagreement that will pile up with other ones and could potential start a war between the U.S. and Russia. Thank you everyone for taking in my side of this debate. Please vote pro.
AkulMunjal

Con

AkulMunjal forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Porthos

Pro

Hello readers, as you all know I usually hassle my opponents for forfeiting for no reason but, as I said in round one, my opponent is obligated to forfeit a maximum of one round. Even though I"m quite positive (but don"t know for a fact) that AkulMunjal knew that I posted my argument for round three and didn"t respond, it is ok. Moving on I will now go on to concluding my stance on this debate.

To conclude, war with Russia is plausible for many reasons. The U.S. is irking Russia. Russia had to remove Edward Snowden and an alleged U.S. spy from their country, Washington wants to encircle Russia, and Obama accused Russia of reverting back to the cold war. Russia is also irking the United States. Russia is beginning to crack down on our human right organizations and NGOs they are planning on engaging with Iran on the nuke program, they turned around an arms shipment to the U.S. and sent it to Iran, they are telling us to have no part of war with Syria, and Russia believes that the U.S. effort to oust al-Assad really is aimed at the Syrian regime"s alliance with Iran. Most of these reasons are little but as you begin to add more and more to that list, the possibility of war between these two nations becomes a rational idea. Therefore, war with Russia is plausible.

Here are all the links I used throughout this entire debate:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://video.foxnews.com...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://rt.com...
http://www.theblaze.com...
http://www.wnd.com...
http://www.thenation.com...

I now would like to say that I do not have anything against Russians and I believe the people of the U.S. and Russia do not want war with one another. I believe it is the government that believes they know best in conducting war with other nations. I do not seek war against Russia I just believe that it may happen. We"re all human, what are you going to do?

Moving on I would like to say this has been my best debate so far and I thank AkulMunjal for debating with me. Although his arguments were sometimes inaccurate he is a good man and it would be a pleasure to debate with him in the future.

Thank you everyone for tuning in, I appreciate you taking into consideration my side of this debate. War with Russia is plausible. Thank you again everyone and please vote pro.
AkulMunjal

Con

AkulMunjal forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Porthos 4 years ago
Porthos
Please vote on our debate. Thank you.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Mikal 4 years ago
Mikal
PorthosAkulMunjalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by yay842 4 years ago
yay842
PorthosAkulMunjalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: FF