The Instigator
gedet
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Gavrilo Princip is the most important man who lived during the 20th century

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 5 votes the winner is...
socialpinko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/16/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,003 times Debate No: 24304
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (5)

 

gedet

Pro

Gavrilo Princip was the most important man who lived during the twentieth century, his actions formed the modern world. (1914 - present)
socialpinko

Con

This looks like a great and interesting debate. As Con to the resolution I will argue against the idea that Gavrilo Princip was the most important man to have lived in the last century. For readers not familiar with the name, Gavrilo Princip was the young man who assassinated the Archduke of Austria, Franz Ferdinand in 1914.[1] As I would feel the debate incomplete to just refute my opponent's points, I will take on the burden not only to refute my opponent's arguments but to also provide arguments of my own in support of my own conception of the most important man to have lived in the twentieth century. The man who I will argue for is Vladimir Lenin[2], who led the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia to establish the Soviet government and expanded on Karl Marx's theory to take into account imperialism and to introduce vanguard politics.

===Sources===

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
gedet

Pro

Gavrilo Princip is the spark that caused WW1, his action on June 28, 1914, which resulted in the deaths of both Franz Ferdinand, and Sophie von Chotek, caused the July Ultimatum which resulted in Germany declaring war on Russia.[July Crisis]

World War One stands out as probably the most important occurence during the 20th century as it would be the roots for all other conflicts and most of the politics of the 20th century, including the Russian Revolution.

World War One caused the Russian Revolution as a result of the Russian Army's poor quality, which was low on all supplies. Having suffered major strategic losses at both Tannenberg and the Kerensky Offensive, led to the February Revolution which inturn led to the October Revolution.

What I am trying to say here is Princip's action which was the direct cause to World War 1, which started less than two months after the assassination. [World War 1]

World War 1 caused the Russian Revolution. It wouldn't have happened without the assassination on June 28.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...;
socialpinko

Con

I'd first like to thank my opponent for his quick and cogent response. Now on to my refutations and case.


===Deconstruction of Pro===


Contention. That Princip Caused WW1.


My opponent's case rests on the premise that the actions of Mr. Princip are what sparked WW1 and from there argues for the huge historical impact of the war as causally related to Princip's actions. I will not deny the immense impact of the first World War here as I feel like that would be a totally insurmountable task. Instead I will challenge my opponent's premise that it was Mr. Princip's actions alone which caused the war.


Refutation A. Princip as a red herring.


The assassination of Ferdinand did not by itself cause WW1. Numerous external forces and geopolitical facts of the day make a World War predictably inevitable given hindsight. The combination of mutual arms races on the part of the conflicting parties (France and Prussia for example), the growing sentiment of Slavic nationalism in opposition to Austro-Hungarian rule[1], bitter rivalries of countries in opposing mutual alliances (France and Prussia[2] again as an example), and various other forces allow historians to see with much certainty that Europe and the countries surrounding it were about ready to explode right around 1914. It could have been anything that set it off and so Mr. Princip's actions (though influential in relation to other causes) cannot be said to by itself contributed to anything which wasn't already inevitable.


To show the way that red-herrings are used, looking at Bismarck's imperialism will help. Bismarck in an attempt to create a large German Empire on other previous occasions had baited others into war in order to secure more territory. In 1866, Bismarck lead a war against Austria in an attempt to gain a larger sphere of influence among their small German states. This is now known as the Austro-Prussian war and embodies the point I am making about the red-herring reasons for which imperialists of the time went to war. War was usually already decided upon, a tiny reason was simply needed in order to mobilize. In the case of the Austro-Prussian war, the war on the surface was caused by disagreement about administration of the Schleswig-Holstein territory, however, as the result caused a diminishing of Austrian power over the various German states and Bismarck used the victory and the war as pretext to dissolve the German Confederation and to annex various Austrian territories in a unification attempt. It would be inconceivable to argue that mismanagement of negotiations between the two countries had any real causal effect on the war coming to be. The war was determined already by a variety of forces which had much more causal force than mismanagement of negotiations and the same thing applies to the red herring of Gavrilo Princip.


===Con Case: Vladimir Lenin===


Contention A. Contribution to Vanguardism.


The main contribution of Lenin's thought to Marx's besides his focus on imperialism was Lenin's conception of a vanguard party or professional revolutionaries to stamp out bourgeoisie culture and anti-revolutionaries. This unique point of thought which Lenin originated in conjunction with Marxism had huge implications on both Stalinism and Maoism. Stalin used this theory to repress political enemies or dissidents[3] and Mao drew on this work with his concept of Cultural Revolution[4]. Since the concept of Marxist vanguardism was original to Lenin, the subsequent utilization of the concept by world leaders like Stalin and Mao (who's power exerted over billions) can be attributed to Lenin as having causal power over these developments.


Contention B. Contribution to Imperialist analysis.


Another contribution of Lenin to Marxism was the expansion of Marx's prediction of capitalism becoming a global system wherein developed countries exploit underdeveloped ones for resources. Lenin argued that by exploiting these underdeveloped countries of resources, the industrialist countries would be able to use that to raise the standard of living for the proletariat in their countries and thus perpetuate false consciousness[5]. Not only does this have huge implications on why Marxist revolutions took place in mostly underdeveloped countries with developed ones having the most opposition, but the analysis has been drawn upon by other Marxist revolutionaries who might have otherwise been turned off to Marxism based on the seeming empirical falsification of Marx's theory of history. Lenin's though also affected not only the indigenous movements, but brought to light the problems of economic imperialism to the forefront of modern political discourse by non-Communists. The dangers of economic exploitation are not fused into the popular consciousness and can be traced right back to Lenin.


===Sources===


[1] http://en.allexperts.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Lenin, Vladimir. (1917).
-Available online here: http://www.marxists.org...
Debate Round No. 2
gedet

Pro

Gavrilo Princip represented what would have started the war had he not assassinated the Archduke. It has been long speculated that had Princip not assasinated the Archduke it would have been Slavs in Austria wanting to become part of Serbia. Princip was infact a Slav, and his assassination which he commited was to stop Austrian influence over Serbia. It was always suspected the war would start from "something from the powderkeg of the Balkans" and it did. Of course, long term indirect causes of WW1 are Militarism, Nationalism, the Alliance System, Imperialism, etc, Princip should be more recognized as the main direct catalyst of WW1. Because if it wasn't for him, we would be just using a different persons name of someone who did something similar to him.
socialpinko

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for his quick (though admittedly short) response. Before I get to rebutting the points brought by my opponent in defense of his case in R3, I would like to bring to readers attention that my opponent has failed to even mention or try to refute my own rival case for Vladimir Lenin being the most important man of the last century. I will simply extend that argument I suppose. But now on to my opponent's response.


Refutation. Princip as a red herring.


In response to my point about Princip merely being a red herring as a cause for a war which was inevitable, my opponent has this to say: "It has been long speculated that had Princip not assassinated the Archduke it would have been Slavs in Austria wanting to become part of Serbia. Princip was infact a Slav, and his assassination which he committed was to stop Austrian influence over Serbia." As I mentioned in the last round, Serbian nationalism did play a crucial role in the sparking of WW1, this is not a controversial point. However, my opponent misses my point on the matter. I argued that Serbian nationalism was a growing trend at the time and Princip was merely one person expressing the growing tendencies. If it weren't him expressing them, it would have been someone else and so he can't truly be cited as important.


As my opponent himself admits: "if it wasn't for him, we would be just using a different persons name of someone who did something similar to him." That is exactly my point. There was nothing unique about the actions of Princip or his actions. If he had failed to assassinate Ferdinand, any number of reasons would have been conjured up as reason to go to war. My opponent even admits that militarism, nationalism, and faulty alliances were long term causes. How then does he defend the point that Princip was somehow not a mere red herring? He doesn't and since he does not he has failed to uphold his burden of proof in the debate.


===Conclusion===


My opponent has failed to attempt to deconstruct or refute my own rival case for the most important man who lived in the twentieth century, Lenin (through his contribution to Marxism i.e. Vanguardism and analysis of imperialism which had profound impacts on later Marxist governments). Not only this, but my opponent has essentially admitted that if it weren't Princip who assassinated Ferdinand, it would have just been someone else or something else would have happened to set off the war.


As I have shown, a world war was inevitable when we analyze the geopolitical forces of the time. Therefore Princip did not act in a manner important to history. If he had never existed, a World War would have still erupted. The same cannot be said of Lenin. Without his original extension of Marxist theory, the world would look very different then it does today. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by gedet 5 years ago
gedet
im nervous
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
gedetsocialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro barely put any effort into the debate, lacked organization, didn't even have a proper case, and missed a lot of key points made by the con. Easy win.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
gedetsocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious....Pro could not show that Gavrilo's actions were not part of the social trends of the time period prior Great War or that his actions were a distinguishable catalyst. Con, however, gave unaddressed arguments on the importance of Lenin in influencing the aspersion of Communist thought and its aspect or characterization through the use of sources, which Pro did not provide in this debate.
Vote Placed by Kebenzis 5 years ago
Kebenzis
gedetsocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Consistant throughout the arguement.
Vote Placed by AnalyticArizonan 5 years ago
AnalyticArizonan
gedetsocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was not able to show that Princip was anymore than a spark on an already large powder keg. Con's refutation and alternative to the most important man of the 20th century were convincing.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
gedetsocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Not hard to judge. Pro barely wrote anything in his R3, and his arguments weren't well developed at all. Con's were more fleshed out, and had more relevant sources. And...Pro kind of drops con's entire case.