Invasion of Russia
Debate Rounds (3)
As Pro has not outlined whether round one is for acceptance or not, I'll begin with my opening argument.
Note that the BoP [Burden of Proof] is on Pro here as *they* have to provide valid explanations for exactly *why* the U.S should invade Russia. Even more significantly Pro is additionally required to outline a viable basis for his argument that Russia will use its nuclear and destroy the entire world; which is exactly what Pro has stated.
C1) A U.S and Russia War
If the U.S was to in fact invade Russia, the obvious outcome would be war between the two countries. On the contrary to preventing Russia from becoming a military aggressor, such an invasion would provide a valid reason for Russia to retaliate against the U.S and take military action against them. The involvement of U.S and Russia allies would also be likely.
As with any conflict, a high death toll could additionally be a large problem--this would include Russian civilians [and U.S] civilians themselves and U.S soldiers that enter Russian territory.
C2) Russia is No Longer Communist
Pro also alleges that Russia is *still* a communist state and uses this for one reason for invasion. However, the fact that Russia is no longer a communist country that particular argument is easily negated. Russia outlawed the Soviet USSR in 1991 and is now officially a capitalist state, with its leader Vladimir Putin being a proponent of capitalism.
C3) Russia and Nuclear
The third contention here is that it is extremely unlikely that Russia will use nuclear--specifically on the entire world. Pro can simply not base their argument[s] on the fact that Russia has access to nuclear, as a total of nine countries in the world officially have nuclear weapons; including the U.S, the U.K, Israel and North Korea. Moreover, Pro is not only arguing that Russia will use this nuclear but will actually use it to destroy the entire world. The question remains as to exactly what Russia would have to gain when [ccording to Pro] it would not even exist upon using the nuclear.
Pro claims that he exclusively stated that Russia is in fact "heading back" into a communist state, and yet provides no evidence for this. As outlined in my own argument, Russia now formally rejects communism and the Vladimir Putin is a proponent of capitalism.
More importantly, Pro has still not supported his claim [which is by the way, rather outrageous] that Russia will use its nuclear to destroy the entire world--which was again his initial argument. Pro claims that "humanity might die if 'we' don't invade", but gives no indication or source as to why or how humanity would die and would possible motives Russia would have.
So far, Pro has failed to fulfill their burden of proof which is 1.) That Russia will not only use *some* nuclear, but enough to wipe out the world, and 2.) That Russia is reverting back to a communist state.
Simply stating that "Putin is kind of crazy", doesn't prove or validate any or prove any claims made by Pro. Rather than being an established *fact*, it is his opinion and does not make a viable argument. Additionally, just because a country has access to nuclear it does not mean they will use it. On the basis of Pros "case", one could also argue that the U.K and U.S [as well as Israel, North Korea, etc.] are about to nuke the world as well.
Lastly, the lives of three billion people [using Pros estimation] almost certainly do matter if there is no valid reason for invading Russia in the first place.
Once again Pro has not outlined any real evidence--or "motives" for that matter. There is literally nothing in his arguments that provides proof for or at least gives valid indication that Russia will take over the world [or rather, nuke it] if the U.S doesn't invade it.
Simply stating that "everything is more controled by the government then earlier" doesn't prove anything about Russia allegedly reverting back to communism.
Pro has completely failed to fulfill his BoP and has used no links whatsoever to support his claims; which are that the U.S should invade Russia, and that Russia will nuke the world, and that Russia is becoming communist once again. As well as that there's also numerous spelling errors.
Therefore, vote Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro only provided random accusations without any evidence, and thus failed to fulfill the BOP. Con gave their own arguments, which were not successfully refuted by Pro, such as the "communist" argument, to which Pro responded, "First of all, I stated that Russia is heading back into a communist state. As a Polish citizen I should know that." This is not sufficient evidence, so the argument that Russia is turning into a communist state again is invalid. Pro claims that Russia will use nuclear weapons on the entire world if the US *doesn't* invade, without any evidence, Con asks Pro to provide evidence and they did not, so this claim is invalid. Pro also ignores the "death toll" argument, by going back to their claim that Russia might "nuke humanity to death." Since most of Con's arguments stood throughout the debate, and Pro didn't successfully refute anything, arguments goes to Con. Sources were only used by Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.