The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Grigory Rasputin was a good man.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/27/2014 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,055 times Debate No: 59626
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




The wandering religious man : Grigory Rasputin was not bad like others had thought of him, he was just greatly misunderstood.

Dictionary : Good - Nice, Anti - Evil, Helping to stop suffering, Intentionally productive to the human race

Religious: Trying to get close to God or Gods

Round 1 : Acceptance and first points
Round 2: Rebuttals
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Rebuttals, last points, Conclusion, last statements


I thank pro for allowing me this opportunity to debate this topic. BoP is evidently shared, although Pro holds a slightly more important BoP. The resolution today is “RESOLVED: Gregory Rasputin was a Good Man”

The opponent therefore has to prove that Rasputin’s effects to Russia and towards humanity was moral, and he himself was a moral man; for me to fulfill my burden, I would have to prove that Rasputin was a immoral and evil man, and that his beliefs led to the slowing down of progress in Russia.

1R1AC: The Evil Institutions of the Russian Tsardom

“There are no supreme saviours; Neither God, nor Caesar, nor tribune” Verse from the L’Internationale

The evil institutions of the Russian Tsardom which enslaved the Russian masses was not something to be sustained; the reactionary filth of Nicholas II, who ought to install a reactionary oppressive government to enslave the common working man was not something to be preserved. Yet defenders of tyranny condemn the revolution as an illegitimate usurping of traditional authority. However, these people do not see that the Russian masses are tired of Czars, of God, and of the Old Order.

Czarist Russia needed a massive social overhaul, where the old and counterproductive was to be washed, whilst the new and productive was to replace them. The old and productive, although that barely existed, was preserved, for a while at least.

Where did Rasputin stand? In the old, counterproductive semi-elite class of the Russian people.

Rasputin was the blood of the Romanov Family; without him, Russia would have submitted to freedom much earlier, and at a much lower cost. Rasputin controlled the Tsar and his wife as though they were puppets; he had considerable influences over their actions. His attempts to create an absolute monarchy must be condemned.

But apart from that, Rasputin represented all of the old, the weak and the botched of Imperial Russia. He represented religion; the Orthodoxy which so longed exercised a realm of ignorance over the Russian masses was the first target of the cleansing of Russian society. Rasputin represented the most radical of these Orthodox Christians; his mind was still stuck in the 16th century. He joining a banned sect of Christian fanatics was a sign of this sickness, and even the Orthodox Christian Church rejected him. He was said to have exercised mythical powers; these mythical powers, however, possibly came from the devil. Nevertheless, if he moved on, the Red Revolution that freed the Russian masses would have not been possible.

He represented the traditional Russian hierarchy; arrogant with his usage of power, Rasputin almost turned Russia into a theocracy. As explained in the second case, Rasputin was horribly egoistic; he acted out of his own will. Rasputin loved the nigh-life and his behavior was outside of all the social norms of the royalty. These qualities shall be discussed in detail in the next argument.

But the filthiest and disgusting institution he represented was the Russian Tsardom; the destitute, weak, botched and self destructive institution that threatened to destroy Russia’s existence if it continued. The Tsardom was an autocratic institution; its ignorance to the new philosophical doctrines, even regarding the monarchy, led to its downfall. When all other monarchies adopted the Hobbesian view, the Filmer-Patriarchia view of the divine rights was still adopted by the Tsardom. Henceforth, the Tsar was absolute; Rasputin, who held considerable powers over the Tsar, prevented the appointing of modern ministers, whose economic views might have lifted Russia from its backwardness. An example of this was Rasputin’s support for the reappointment of Alexander Protopotov, who was mentally ill at the time, as minister of interior affairs. When this was done, Russia was in the hands of a mentally ill patient. [3]

1R2AC: Rasputin: Sinning is necessary

If good is defined as anti-evil, then Rasputin was anything but anti-evil. Firstly, we have to come to a common consensus; indecent sexual acts against nuns with no known and justifiable purpose are evil. Rasputin engaged in several forced sexual intercourse, with both people with royalty and without.

As actions speak more than words, Rasputin joined the Khltysk sect; this sect was banned throughout Russia. The practitioners of this sect met in small groups; the fundamental beliefs that they held was that “salvation was met by sinning” Ecstatic they were, the Khltysk sect performed many ceremonies that included fast dancing; these dances were supposedly said to have produced the same sweat as Jesus did, and henceforth was done so.

A man like Rasputin, a peasant with no desire to dance for recreational purposes, would not have received the good dancing skills without much practice. However, often these dances would turn into wild sexual orgies; after rumors that Rasputin engaged in these acts, he was also to have said to have gone into the Tsarina’s nursery, where four children were staying. [2]

Apart from this, he is also said to have been lovers with the Czarina; several letters showed that Rasputin’s mystical powers made the Czarina attracted, sexually, to him. However, Rasputin was also said to have raped many other people; one night, a noblewomen by the name of Olga Lokhtina invited Rasputin to stay for dinner. He ended up staying all night and turning Olga from a socialite to an enraged follower of Rasputin. On one occasion, Rasputin was beating her while she held onto his penis. He also claims to have cut the hair from the many virgins he raped; locks of hair were found in his garden after his house was taken down in 1977. [1]

Rasputin drunk, and was a voracious drinker; when he died, an autopsy showed that he drank alcohol. Alcohol sustained him, but yet it is immoral, via the Christian faith, to be an alcoholic. He loved the night-life; he was a priest, yet he partied during the night as if he were a drug lord or a mafia member. People who knew him hated him; he was an egoistic person whose skills might have originated from the devil. For if someone is immoral, someone is evil; Rasputin committed acts of immorality, and therefore, he is evil. [1]






Debate Round No. 1


Owl099 forfeited this round.


y u do dis
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you

(note: I did not manage to get this debate sent in time. I am sorry for that, it was a real nuisance)

Point 1. First before we say that he was slowing down, we need to remember that he had been doing what he thought good, and if he does what he thinks is good : he is good. First of all: Rasputin's followers were given high power in control but they were not good at this and that led to Russia's failure .One could argue that this was because of Rasputin's influence on them but Rasputin did what he thought was good (proof WWI). Therefore Rasputin was not evil because of that. So how else could he be evil by slowing down Russia ? Well within his influence over the Tzar's wife, by healing their son, he wished to create a greater and holier Russia. First off, he did not want the great suffering in WWI, and he helped the Tzar's son by healing him, he was defined as a "faith healer". Let us now look at what a faith healer is:
Healing someone spiritually
This is an act of kindness which makes whoever does it good.

It could be said that he only healed the Tzar's son to get close to the Tzar, if also it was only because he thought that it was not practical for Russia to go to war and that is the only reason why he he tried to stop it means that he was doing what he thought best for Russia so then how could he be evil. He was also put in a high position and his decisions were not helping Russia. But all his intentions were good. Rasputin's political mistakes only made him seen as a bad man because of these affairs he had with these women in bathhouses and because he looked like a weirdo by seeing visions of the Virgin Mary when he was young. I will now list some of the greatest mistakes made in history and how the people who made them could not possibly be bad.

1. The Crash of the Titanic (a great ship crashed into the Iceberg and many people died)
2. Hunter tries to lite a signal (a lost hunter had lost a signal and lit a fire that spread and killed 14 people)
2. The Nuclear meltdown (due to an equipment malfunction, water meant for cooling unrianium fuel burst from its containment chamber, although nobody died)

Rasputin would never do something deliberate to slow down Russia, he did strongly what he thought God wanted him to do. You will have to prove that Rasputin's intentions were bad and yes many people died but look back to some of those events that happened.

Point 2. You wrote Rasputin: "Sinning is necessary"
This automatically proves that Grigori Rasputin was a good man because he did believe it was necessary. He believed it was the message of God and I quote from the Bible :

Luke 7:736 - 50

Jesus and the Sinful Woman

Jesus was dining with the Pharisee: Simon. Suddenly a woman rushed into the room and wept on Jesus's feet so much that they were completely wet, and then she perfumed it and kissed it. Jesus blessed and forgave her sins. Simon wondered how could he bless her and offer her to eat if she was so sinful. Then Jesus told him that if there were two men, one had borrowed five hundred denarii but the other only owed him 50. They were both greedy and neither of them paid it back. The man who had his money borrowed forgave them both. "Now tell me: Who would be more grateful" Jesus asked. "The man with 500 denarii" said Simon, you have judged correctly said Jesus.

The greater amount of Sin that has been done, the more grateful you are to God for forgiving you and therefore you are closer to him. I do not believe that was the only or a good way but that was what Rasputin did. It was to get him closer to Jesus. So in order to say that he was evil, you would have to say that Christianity was evil. He may or may not have got closer to God that way but that is of course what he believed. And in Christ he saw his love and kindness as he showed to the people by trying to help them. Either by making Russia a better place or stopping the mortal suffering. In WWI, after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, War broke out. This was WWI and it was greatly known for its massive suffering. Grigori Rasputin begged the Tzar to not go to war and said that it would end the Romanovs's reign. In this great and miserable suffering, many soldiers suffered from Shell shock and at the Eastern front, more than 1,5 million soldiers of Nicholas II had died at the Eastern front. Nicholas the second had played a major part in WWI and this suffering was massive. Rasputin also sent telegrams from hospital, begging for the Tzar to stop war and how it would have a bad effect on Russia. If only Nicholas had listened to Rasputin, none of this would have happened. Or at least much less would have happened for a while. Grigori Rasputin must have had a reason for all this.

Reason 1. He thought it would be very bad for Russia as he claimed
Reason 2. He wanted to stop the suffering

Either way he was still a good man because he was helping Russia and helping Russia helps the people.

Point 4. You said that people who knew Rasputin did not like him. That is true, he disgusted them with his belief that sinning is necessary when he went out having affairs during the night with women. However, the Tsarina wife of Tzar Nicholas saw Rasputin as a saint. And she knew him very well. She believed that her son would die of his illness if he dared separate her and Rasputin for nobody would be able to heal him and she would be seriously mad at him. So the Tzar decided not to, although he did not come under the influence of Rasputin. When the Tzar left for war, he left his wife in charge and because Rasputin looked like he was curing the boy and so she adored Rasputin and did whatever he asked. This way Rasputin was now in power. But it is a known fact that the Tsarina adored Rasputin and had a huge faith in him. And she knew him very well. Others were just disgusted by his ways.

And although Rasputin sent a blackmail and had strong affairs with these women, he believed not only he would be closer to God but they would as well. All Rasputin did was of a good intention and you will have to prove in the next round how it was not.

I believe that I have made my arguments clear.

Have a good day.


Wikipedia : Grigori Rasputin
The 25 Worst Mistakes in history
Power of the Unknown

and some others that I can't remember

Have a nice day.


RESOLVED: Rasputin is a Good Man

I thank the opponent for his response to the debate resolution.

3R1NRC: Rasputin and the Tzar

The opponent makes a fatal mistake here; morality is subjective. What one may think good is is not what another may. In debunking the opponent's case, we must see here that he commits a fatal mistake; Hitler called himself the saviour of the German people, Stalin similarly thought of himself as the father of the Soviet motherland.etc. However, these people are possibly the most immoral people in the world; henceforth the opponent cannot say that Rasputin thought of himself good, henceforth he was good.

However, one can agree that rape, fraud, and substance usage as a priest (not a normal person, but a religious figure) is immoral. No one doubts that.

The example of Alexander Propotov was an immense one to our debate; amidst a mental breakdown, Rasputin wanted him appointed nevertheless. Firstly, when anycitizen has a mental breakdown, they would often be apartheid from community. One would bar him from holding influential positions; yet the evil of Propotov, who fought for the intent of preserving the weak, botched and oppressive Tsar, cannot be comprehended by any man, for such evils may cause tears of joy in the devil. Propotov, who was suffering from a mental breakdown, did not understand politics. One does not suppress the revolution of the masses; but yet he did so in the Februarist Revolution. Rasputin indirectly led to the deaths of thousands and perhaps millions of people. THIS is not moral; the Russian Civil War was arguably Rasputin's fault, if he had not appointed Protopotov (who saw his duty as protecting the Tsardom).

Other than this, the mere thought that he represents the most weak minded and ignorant institution in the world is disgusting. The Russian Tsardom had no legitimacy over the people anymore, yet they still exercised an iron hand rule. Rasputin was the de facto ruler during World War One; when the Tsar took control of the Russian Army, he launched a series of failed offensives, like the one at Lake Naruch, which killed 122,000 men, and the Baranovichi Offensive, which killed 80,000 men. Perhaps if Rasputin was for the war, or he gave more attention to what the Russian High Command and Staff Corps was saying, like during the Brusilov Offensive, then Russia might have won World War One.

Apart from this, Rasputin’s reckless behavior and opposition to the war makes him a possible German spy. His dismissal of effective government members, even when there efficiency was proven to them, was key. If he had not done this, then Brusilov would have been able to launch several more successful offensives, which would have ended the war on the Eastern Front effectively. Brusilov was deterred from doing so by Kerensky, who ordered Brusilov launch another attack when the Imperial Forces weren’t adequate. Kerensky was a supporter of Rasputin, and often thought to be under his influence.

The Russian Tsardom was already immoral from the start; Rasputin only made it worst. He represented an immoral institution, and his representation of this immoral institution made the institution and himself worst in name.

To represent an immoral institution is one thing; but to bring immorality to the already immoral is another. Keep in mind that at this point, Rasputin funded higher-class entertainment, and donated alms to the Orthodox Church, which enslaved the people in mythical and unlikely doctrines. He did nothing to help the Russian people; only the Russian aristocracy and the Church. This in itself is immoral.

3R2NRC: The Illegitimacy of Rasputin's Faith Healing

Faith healing is completely false; fictional. It is an outdated form of witchery, yet many people follow it. Debunking Rasputin's faith healing is easy; Alexei Romanov was diagnosed with Haemophilia B, a disease common in European Royal Families. A rational-empirical explanation for this is that Haemophilia B bleeding stops, if the injury is not too serious, after one-two days. Although doctors predicted Alexei's death, they did not recognize Haemophillia as a disease yet. It was recognized in 1925. According to accounts, Rasputin "faith-healed" Alexei within a night; he was bleeding for a day before already. Henceforth, we come to a conclusion that Rasputin did nothing to stop the child from bleeding to death, but he did it to clearly get closer to the Czar.

This is also due to action known as the Placebo effect, which makes one expect to get a result and actually gets it. It seems that when the body expects, there is a physiological change. So in conclusion, Haemophilia B bleeding stops in one day, and henceforth, Rasputin was lucky.

3R3NRC: Intent

The opponent always states that "his intentions were good" but has yet to shown why so. Actions speak more than words; if his political decisions harmed Russia and looked as if it were helping himself only, then how could one say that he wasn't a egoistic selfish uneducated priest?

Actions speak more than words; Rasputin made many mistakes that slowed down Russia and made it look like a backward hell-hole. Even his opposition to several Dumas showed that he was against progress in Russia.

3R4NRC: Sinning is necessary doesn't mean sinning is moral

When an action is justified, it doesn't mean its moral. For example, when Adolf Hitler committed mass genocide, also known to the world as the “Holocaust” he justified it with the “complete destruction of the International Jewry” Even if one believed in Hitler’s doctrine, and assuming that one came from a conventional moral background, then mass genocide is not moral.

The opponent is currently arguing that Christianity is a religion where sinning is necessary. If this is so, and I believe it is not so, then I believe that Christianity is not a moral force. Nevertheless, the opponent implies that the rape of countless of virgins, women with nobility and peasant-wives is moral. The verses the opponent recites assumes that people who truly feel sorry for what they have done will be forgiven.

When is sinning moral? Never. “The one who lets one’s look enslave them, that one is immoral” is a common saying in Buddhism, a direct quotation from the Dhammapada. In this debate we are talking about morality. Morality is the good, whilst immorality is the bad.

Firstly, the rape of women; is this moral? It is a sin, to start with. The opponent seems to be arguing that because Rasputin thought it was necessary, means its moral. But what is necessary isn’t always what is moral, for this reason, one must understand that the rape of women cannot ever be justified from a moral perspective without breaking the moral stances of one. Rape can never be moral, even if it is sometimes justified. Is it correct to enter a women’s body without their permission? That would be like entering a vault for the pleasure of getting the gold; it is not moral by any standards. To take a women’s dignity, and even life, for the lustful pleasure of oneself is selfish, and rape underpins the fundamental attributes of the continuation of society.

Secondly, drinking whilst in priesthood. Drinking is already on the immoral side of the fence. However, drinking as a priest? Is this moral? Priests accordingly, can drink, but not in voluminous excessive quantities like Rasputin. In fact, Rasputin’s voluminous drinking got him killed; kharmic consequences got him to his death. He was invited to the faithful party that got him killed only because he knew that an attractive women and beer would be present, not to discuss the issues that he was supposed to.

Morality is at center in this debate; this debate is not about how Rasputin’s actions could be justified, but about how it could be considered moral. Rasputin’s intention were unknown until now; his effects towards that Russian nation was detrimental, and he sinned at his leisure; sinning is never moral. Keep in mind that this debate implies that "on balance, Rasputin was a good person" Henceforth, one good act does not make up for the balance part.

I rest my case, as I am in short of time (school's starting soon)


All used from the last round

Debate Round No. 3


Owl099 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Kc1999 3 years ago
I thought a communist would know better
Posted by Owl099 3 years ago
Oh come on. One of you Anti- Rasputinists must be out there.
Posted by Owl099 3 years ago
Well it was actually Lenin who killed her. Along with the rest of the Romanovs. Lenin was fighting against the Tzar. You probably watched that ridiculous movie. I have not seen the whole thing and have not got it but it is rubbish.
Posted by Cassius 3 years ago
Uh, pretty sure he tried to kill Anastasia multiple times with the help of his pet bat :/
Posted by Owl099 3 years ago
Well he is stupidly considered one of the most evil men in history.
Posted by Victoria85176 3 years ago
Of course he was a good guy! Is this even debatable??
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
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 forfeited 2 rounds and failed to ever give any kind of proper case in support of the motion. Con dismantled what Pro *did* manage to produce, so gets arguments in addition to the conduct points for the forfeits. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.