The Instigator
rafalaf
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Emilrose
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Invasion of Russia

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...
Emilrose
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/1/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 773 times Debate No: 76056
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (1)

 

rafalaf

Pro

There are many reasons why the US should invade Russia. Just to clarify Russia is to some extent going back into communism. Now I'm not saying communuism is bad, it might be good. If only in the right hands, though Putin doesn't seem to have the right hands. The easiest way would be to elimnate him, and not diplomocy. Also if you think about, just look, Putin has 39,967 tons of Uranium which was transformed into Nuclear weapons, and to add on he is currently forming a space program. With that information shouldn't it be logical that Putin wants to be safe in space while destroying the world. He's doing just in case the explosion will go too far, which it definetly will since the estimated amount of Atomic bombs needed too destroy the world would be 350 bombs. So the amount of weapons he has is enough to destroy the world and himself completely wiping out humanity. If Humanity dies either way, by Putin or a Nuclear War, won't make a difference, though we have bigger chances of survival if we invade Russia. Though that would mean a Nuclear War, So to solve that problem we will, as some people would say, kill two birds in one shot. Let Isis go on Russia. Russia uses their weapons to annihilate Isis and then we declare war on Russia finishing it off.
Emilrose

Con

Debate accepted.

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.

Opening Argument:

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.

Sources:

[1.] http://english.pravda.ru...

[2.] http://www.businessinsider.com...
Debate Round No. 1
rafalaf

Pro

First of all, I stated that Russia is heading back into a communist state. As a Polish citizen I should know that. Second of all, that is why I said To move the US armies to a smaller powerful Country, and change the uniforms to theirs. As for the death toll, Humanity might die if we don't invade, so what does it mater the lives of three billion people or all of humanity? Also did you see those numbers of warheads Russia is in control of? I have to admit Putin is kind of crazy, and with those weapons he can get the world, or at least he thinks he can.
Emilrose

Con

Rebuttals:


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.



Debate Round No. 2
rafalaf

Pro

You want motives? Here are there motives... Lets think, they can conquer the world! Duh! Also the proof for going back into communism, everything is more controled by the government then earlier. If you want their motives for that also, here, they can not only get the world but anything else also by having communsim, and to add on they starve anyone they don't like to death without making anyone notice!
Emilrose

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by stargate 1 year ago
stargate
Well that is good for you, I do not see that many where I live.
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
Emilrose
dats ok, there was but it's gone now..you get soo many in this country
Posted by stargate 1 year ago
stargate
I meant to say is there a mosquito in your room?

Sorry about that
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
Emilrose
nahhh I'm not the mosquito..but there was one in my room xD
Posted by stargate 1 year ago
stargate
Ok, you a mosquito in your room?
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
Emilrose
Yep, the mosquito in my room says that sounds great.

I'll sort the resolution out for our next one ;)
Posted by stargate 1 year ago
stargate
Well yeah I will do the War on terror first. Um....after all the major ones are out of the way then maybe this one.
Who knows
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
Emilrose
Hm ok, but we should do the war on terror one first.

You may say his argument "sucked" but it's a really difficult thing to prove. Overall there is no real basis for an invasion of Russia but im happy to debate you if you think there is ;P
Posted by stargate 1 year ago
stargate
Ok pro your argument sucked. Emilrose if you want I can debate you on this later.
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
Emilrose
Wtf? LOL
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
rafalafEmilroseTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
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.