Leon Trotsky would've done more good than harm had he succeeded Lenin.
Debate Rounds (4)
I ask that my opponent, whoever that may be, be at least slightly educated in the topic I have brought up. I myself have made it a personal interest of my own to study this subject matter, therefore I desire a challenge in someone who is as knowledgeable/as knowledgeable as me.
I'd like to propose a series of definitions and guidelines.
More good: His overall net benefits to society and the world outweigh his negative impacts.
This debate assumes that Leon Trotsky gained democratic power over the Bolsheviks, had prevented the rise of Stalin by succeeding Lenin, and through non-bureaucratic means led the people of the USSR in the means he saw fit.
No trolling or forfeiting. Either of these things are immediate loss. I expect and hope this is a good debate as its something that interests me immensely.
Round 1 is acceptance and definitions/rules. Adding arguments is not allowed.
Round 2. Is the proposal of arguments.
Round 3 is the refutation of arguments.
Round 4 is final words and cannot be over 1500 characters from either side.
I also ask that this debate not descend into a stereotypical pros and cons of socialism debate, as it doesn't make for a good discussion of trotsky specifically and only follows socialism in general.
I would also like to add that for the final round. I believe my opponent should be allowed up to 2,500 characters. Since I will have the final refutation round, he should be allowed some space to address the refutations. The proper conduct for this would be to only address the refutations with sources already presented in earlier rounds and any arguments must be quoted from earlier rounds.
Of course, my opponent is allowed to ignore this and only do the 1,500 but I am saying that they can use that extra 1,000 if they so choose.
I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate, it is an interesting topic that can be debated several ways and I'm sure it will be an enlightening and thought provoking argument into a completely different 20th century. Here are a few changes to the rules of the debate that we mutually agree on.
1. We are now debating Trotsky's net benefit to the well being of the human race in general. Well being defined as - the state of being happy, healthy, or prosperous.
2. We have allocated an additional 1000 characters to the final round.
I'd finally like to say that we must only present arguments that fully reflect Trotsky's own personal views and use those to predict what his actions would be. We can't make unsupported assumptions on either side.
I. Assured and steadfast Allied victory in European centered WW2, if WW2 occured at all.
Trotsky, throughout Hitler's rise to power, interacted with the German Communist party and worked to create a fighting force to stop the swaying of the German people by the hands of the National Socialists. Defense of the German Communists was a difficult endeavor for Trotsky, and as we all know the National Socialists won through the systematic demonization of the Communists by means of propaganda, purges, and a wrongly blamed fire.
If Trotsky had obtained democratic power in the Soviet Union, he certainly would've more fervently worked to prevent the rise of Fascism in Germany, to prevent the rise of another Italy. His disgust of the Fascist ideology is most evident in his novel "Fascism and How to Fight It." He would've reached out to the Weimar Republic in order to prevent Hitler's rise to power and to protect the dignity of the Communist Party of Germany.
If these measures alone were not sufficient in stopping the National Socialists, Trotsky would've taken other measures. These include the slandering of Nazi Germany to prevent the public in Germany (at a time where freedom of press exists to an extent) from submitting themselves completely to the possibility of a fascist regime. Other measures may include an all out invasion of Germany before their economy was reinvigorated enough to wage warfare themselves.
The advantages of such an invasion? The prevention of the holocaust, the prevention of the largest European war in history that killed over a hundred million, prevention of the rise of violent anti-semitism in Germany, and the keeping of the European economy intact until their absorption by the USSR.
Finally, if all of this didn't stop the Nazis or simply didn't occur, Trotsky would never have made the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Hitler as Stalin did, and would be fully prepared for a Nazi invasion, if he didn't immediately align himself with the Allies to defeat the Germans.
II. A Strong Fascist Opposition throughout Europe
Through Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution and his hatred of Fascism, we can predict that Trotsky would've acted boldly to prevent the spread of Fascist sentiments in Europe and the world. We can assume he would go out of his way to quell the fascist side of any revolution and support the Communists. Support from a nation such as the USSR would lead Communist revolutionaries to victory over the Fascists without question.
In addition, Trotsky would've sped the fall of the regime under Benito Mussolini, an oppressive regime that was "the father of European fascism."
As I've already demonstrated, Trotsky would've stopped the rise of Hitler or at least prevented WW2 from having a major impact on parts of Europe other than Germany.
III. Would have Prevented the Corruption of the Marxist Movement by Bureacracy and Totalitarianism
I quote Leon Trotsky "Socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen." I will also quote Karl Marx. "Democracy is the road to Socialism." Clearly, Leon Trotsky represented the reality of the Communist movement - that one of democracy and the power of people, NOT one of totalitarianism, or fascism with a command economy masked as communism.
Leon Trotsky would've defended the rights of the voter in the Soviet Union, as his own personal philosophy of democratic socialism suggests. He would not have supported the bureacracy under Stalin, and clearly would've been much more of a humanitarian to the people of Russia by allowing them to vote.
This would've prevented the rise of a misconception of Communism by the West as "a totalitarian dictatorship" as these terms do not in any universe match the description of Marxism. Trotsky valued human life and the average worker, unlike Stalin, who represented the threat of bureacracy in Russia at the time, who was simply a dictator waiting to happen, who never truly believed in Communism rhetoric as exemplified by his actions.
IV. Created the Perfect Command Economy Model, Attaining A Higher State of Living for the Slavs and Any Other Country that Incorporates Itself Within USSR.
Permanent Revolution, in the mind of Trotsky, is the only means of creating a working Command economy. To begin with a Communist society requires near universal acceptance of the regulations by the state. Socialism in one country is what prevented Russia from reaching a state of prosperity, as the USSR needed to absorb other nations' economies.
Collectivization solely in Russia, or Socialism in one country failed because of the harsh terrain of Russia being not fit for agriculture in areas other than rivers, and the anti-collectivism of the farmers. Taking these things out of the equation, Russia's economy would have floundered anyway because statistics show that in short term, Communist industry is inferior to Capitalist industry. Russia being cut off from the rest of the world allowed to run solely on its own fruits would not work.
While Trotsky was against trading with the west, he was for the absorption of other Nations into the USSR through permanent revolution, which would've strengthened Russia and the Communist world's economy far more than trading with the west in the long run.
This would negate the bread lines under Stalin and later leaders among other things, and would've created a true "Socialist Utopia." Eventually with the success of permanent revolution, the entire world would be living under this socialist utopia, an ideal model of a command economy.
To Summarize My Arguments: Leon Trotsky would've affected the world positively by creating a strong command economy and preventing long term poverty under Communism, would've prevented the rise of totalitarian communism, would've held a strong opposition to the fascist movement in Europe, and could've possibly prevented the rise of Hitler and definitely could've made WW2 a lot easier to win for the allies.
I believe that the positives resulting from his leadership would definitely impact the general well being of the human race more positively than negatively.
Furthermore, although irrelevant to the resolution, Animal Farm would be a LOT different.
I reserve the right to add more arguments in the 3rd round as I have to go to see Django Unchained at this time.
I await my opponent's response.
1) Starting WW2
One of the biggest concerns with Trotsky leading the USSR by 1922 (assuming he took over the same time that Stalin did, in his place) is his willingness for war, coupled with the world"s distaste for communism would have sparked a different WW2, with most of Europe allied with Germany against the USSR.
Let us first dive into his willingness for war. We can first see in his autobiography "My Life" that he excepted forced conscription into military service, should volunteers not be sufficient , "In a short time, we had to go from voluntary enlistment to conscription, from detachments of irregulars to a proper military organization. We had continuously to fight the methods of the irregulars " a fight that demanded the utmost persistence and unwillingness to compromise, sometimes even the sternest measures." We can also look into his past activities as the leader of the Red Army, in such wars as against Poland. He would go on to later state, "It is no wonder that my military work created so many enemies for me. I did not look to the side, I elbowed away those who interfered with military success""
Turning to how the rest of the world viewed communists at the time, there was little large scale support outside of Europe. The USA, going through their "red scare" in 1919 " 1921 was passing laws left and right to halt communist thought from progressing into the country. Of course, communists engaging in political bombings during a time of hyped up nationalism at the closing of the Great World War may not have been the best timing to build public support. Anyway, at a time when the USA"s economy was bombing, they were pumped from one major war victory which had established a number of European allies, and their distaste for communism would all fuel a US involvement in an anti-communist way in Europe, especially if Russia continued to aggress against European nations (I will go into this later). The distaste for Communism can be seen in other countries as well, from England  to Germany .
Just like with Germany only being allowed to attack so many countries before the rest of the world would get involved, the same would apply to the USSR under Trotsky.
2) Permanent Revolution failures
This heavily ties back into section one as well (towards Trotsky"s driving force for aggression). As outlined in his book "Permanent Revolution" , the revolution must be global as he said, "The completion of the socialist revolution within national limits is unthinkable." This is one area on which he fought greatly with Stalin on, in that Stalin supported the concept of "Socialism in one country," while he was the exact opposite.
The concept of trying to support communist uprisings everywhere as fast as possible is ultimately doomed to fail in a 1920"s world. The Soviets wanted to be able to assist the Communist Revolutions in Germany in 1919, however, in order to assist in any meaningful way (at least meaningful to their ideology) they invaded Poland and started a war which cost a little over 100,000 lives just so they could share a border with Germany and better supply the revolution there .
The action of supplying numerous revolutions and invasions would lead to trigging WW2 (as outlined in the previous section) but should for some whacky reason not get any military counter against the soviets, it would lead to the collapse of the USSR. The USSR in our timeline originally planned to have Stalin"s socialism in one state, until WW2 broke out and they found the option of grabbing a bunch of nations on their march to Germany. But they were never too heavily involved in other nations" revolutions. While we can name North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, etc, those are over the course of decades and still fairly small in number. Trotsky, with his view on the permanent revolution, would have the USSR engaged in assisting as many revolutions as possible, at a time when the USSR economy was growing, but still fairly weak, as it never did recover until the early 30"s . If it tried to stretch itself in any manner like Trotsky"s ideals would call for, the strain on the workers of the USSR would cause an economic collapse that would cripple the country into the status of a 3rd world nation which would likely see a counter revolution back to a capitalist state (as many communist nations have been doing since the collapse of the USSR) as people got tired of being poor and having their labor go to funding revolutions around the globe.
So in recap, what we find is that a USSR under Trotsky in 1922 would be supporting, sponsoring and funding countless violent uprising across the globe, instigating wars against their neighbors, and likely triggering WW2, fighting over communism, rather than fascism. It is not possible to know exactly how many would die in such a violent global climate, or how many would suffer and die from having their labor stolen and shifted to funding that violence, but it can easily be concluded that such is not a net benefit to the world.
Thank you for your response. I'd first like to point out a blunder I made - I did not include any of the sources I used for my arguments. To prevent misunderstanding, or a lack of evidence on my part to support my arguments, I will now list my definitions. I hope my opponent has not been burdened by this in any way.
1. Assured and steadfast Allied victory in European centered WW2, if WW2 occured at all.
2. A Strong Fascist Opposition throughout Europe
3. Would Have Prevented the Corruption of the Marxist Movement by Bureacracy and Totalitarianism
4. Created the Perfect Command Economy Model, Attaining a Higher State of Living for the Slavs and Any Other Country that Incorporates Itself within the USSR
I will add more sources in this round, which I will certainly cite this time.
I will get into rebutting my opponent's arguments against my own.
1. Starting WW2
A) My opponent believes that one of the greatest flaws in a Trotsky rule would be his willingness for war over perhaps even the bloodthirstyness of Stalin. He states that the world's distaste for Communism and Trotsky's own war hungriness would have sparked a different WW2. He then sources Trotsky's own autobiography, My Life, using Trotsky's own words to support his argument. While Trotsky was for forced conscription if armed forces were in short supply, my opponent has fully misunderstood his reasons for wanting forced conscription.
Trotsky was desperate at the time. The bolsheviks had barely managed to overthrow the Tsar, and the Reds were fighting what seemed to be a losing battle against the Whites. Lenin had been shot, and almost died. The hopes of a Socialist country rising from the rubble of a country that was quickly losing sympathisers and its industry was beginning to fade.
Trotsky didn't want to force people to join the armed forces in the revolution because of ANY sense of war mongering or need for blood. In fact, it was the opposite. Trotsky knew that the few months where they desperately needed military power were going to be the most decisive and difficult.My opponent then once again quotes Trotsky, using his own words to suggest that he only cared about military success. Once again, Trotsky cared so much about military success because he knew that military success would be the key factoring in establishing their country.
B) While my opponent has some validity in his argument about the red scare in the US, and the role of governments in terms of passing anti-Communist laws, they are irrelevant to the point of Permanent Revolution and fail to refute my point.
The government is not the people. The people are the workers. And as Marx states, Capitalism can only fall in an era of economic downfall where the poor become so poor that they realize the new ruling class of the rich that faces them. To put things shortly, in an era of economic downfall, the people of countries begin to have socialist and communist sympathies. After all, they did elect FDR.
I stand firm in saying that Trotsky would not in fact invade countries in a time of weakness for the USSR, and would work to incite Communist revolutions through non-combat means. Trotsky would've done this by creating communist sympathies in the workers of other countries, as they all looked up to the USSR as a model state that they could become. He was a master tactician - he would not risk the wellbeing of his entire country by starting too many Communist revolutions too quickly let alone start invading.
2. Permanent Revolution Failures
I'd like to point out that my opponent is misjudging the geopolitical timeline of the early 20th century. While obviously the entire world would not go communist in that decade of the 20's alone, communist sympathies would arise during the Great Depression, which, by the way, starts exactly as Russia's economy has finished recovering according to you.
You are correct in saying that Trotsky is the ideological polar opposite of Stalin. This however, does not make him too much of an idealist and certainly not a fool. As I've already stated, he was a master tactician who knew how to win engagements and warfare, and had a broad understanding of the political spectrum and geopolitical climate.
My opponent's arguments resulting from his sources are slightly misleading. The Polish-Russo war was not an attempt at colonizing other countries for Communism as in fact the war was in defense. The polish invaded Russia as they saw the weak Bolshevik government floundering amidst their revolution.
"Poland's Chief of State, Józef Piłsudski, felt the time was right to expand Polish borders as far east as feasible." -Wikipedia
The convenience of Poland as a bridge to Germany exists, however it was not the sole intention of Russia and certainly not a good decision in the eyes of the Bolsheviks to invade Poland in a time where they were only two years into their revolution.
I'm simply going to say this to refute the rest of my opponent's argument on the failure of Permanent Revolution:
While my opponent CAN say Trotsky would work to spread Communist revolution in the early 20's, he CANNOT say that Trotsky would immediately go out of his way to blatantly risk the welfare of his own nation by starting a second world war. As I've stated, he was not an idiot to be blunt, he was a master of military and political tactics and had a clear understanding of the geopolitical climate of the world.
I can offer a counter-interpretation of what Trotsky would do in a situation like this, based on his views, the fragility of the Russian state, and the value of his military skills.
Leon Trotsky would've worked in the early 20's to incite Communist Revolution through the Third Internationale through political means, while he fixed the country of Russia. While he is a firm supporter of permanent revolution, all evidence points to the fact that he'd use other means of political warfare other than cannons and bullets to sway the people of other nations. Trotsky was NOT an imperialist in any sense, he was an anti-authoritarian who would not have invaded a country strictly for the purpose of making it Communist if it was clear the people did not wish to have one. He was a legitimate Marxist who believed that Capitalism would only fall when the workers were ready.
Your point on this supposed "economic collapse" is null because again you're assuming that Trotsky would go ALL out in creating as many Communist revolutions as possible. I'll say it AGAIN. You're undervaluing Trotsky's intelligence and painting him as an insane radical that will do anything against all form of logic to cause Communist revolutions. Trotsky would not help a revolution if the people did not want it, and it defies common sense for him to invade a country and set it up Communist as he did not preach imperialism and was anti authoritarian.
Pro has demonstrated that Trotsky would stop the rise of Hitler, spread Communism throughout the world politically before violentally, opposed Fascism, would have prevented corruption through bureacracy, and created the perfect Command economy model.
I await my opponent's next arguments.
Sources for Rebutts:
1. Starting WW2
2. Failure of Permanent Revolution
== PRO"S CASE ==
This is section is actually not really needed. As asked in the comments, if we were comparing him to Stalin or just viewing him on his own, it was said that we were viewing him on his own. Therefore any argument where Stalin allowed something and Trotsky wouldn"t isn"t really a part of this debate. Anything regarding what Stalin had allowed (or anyone else for that matter) that he wouldn"t.
However, I will refer to this section to show contradictions in my opponent"s agruments.
This is inherently against my opponent"s refutation of my arguments. Here, he says, "Trotsky would've acted boldly to prevent the spread of Fascist sentiments in Europe and the world. We can assume he would go out of his way to quell the fascist side of any revolution and support the Communists," then he later says, "he would not risk the wellbeing of his entire country by starting too many Communist revolutions too quickly let alone start invading." These two statements are at odds with each other and only one can be accurate.
If we want to think about which is actually accurate, there are many works  on the subject. "In his view, conflict with Poland, a potential "Red bridge" to the West, was inevitable. None of the Bolsheviks doubted the necessity of "forcing the Polish bridge"; the only question was when and how to do it." 
Tortsky may have made a number of quotes that seemed flowery and friendly towards democracy, but his actions speak very much against it. As argued already, Trotsky supported conscription (we are going to be tying this part into defending my arguments). While my opponent may argue that he only felt that it was some kind of needed evil, the fact that they used conscripted military fighting the White army, then the Black army (their former allies), then the Polish; all of which, he supported (this goes on to show that he is pretty comfortable with the military and aggression). Conscription itself is inherently anti-democratic, as it is taking choice and voice away from people.
The support for violent uprisings is also going against the roots of democracy. Obviously, if there was democratic support by the people, a violent uprising would not be needed. My opponent claims that Tortsky would support political measures and non-violent means, however, we can see from his very actions that this is not the case. He supported a violent uprising in Russia, and failed violent uprising in Germany , Bavaria , and Hungary . He says things that are Pro-democracy all the time, but his actions and support shows that he clearly only supports democracy when communism is what is democratically picked. When the people do not want communism, he supports executions and violence (seen in , , and ).
4) Command Economy
My opponent once again contradicts himself. In this section he says "the USSR needed to absorb other nations' economies" he was for the absorption of other Nations into the USSR" the key word being "needed." The USSR didn"t have a choice, meaning that they had to force it upon others. This "need" is the very reason that he was for aggression and violence and all the uprisings. This clearly goes against what my opponent has said regarding democracy.
I"m not going to argue for or against command economy in general, however, nothing that my opponent has shown that Tortsky would be effective at running a command economy, as such an economy is HEAVILY dependent upon the people commanding it (his link for the command economy model did not work).
This addresses all of my opponent"s points, as well as his refutations in his R3.
 Munich: Hofbrauhaus and History
I'd like to thank my opponent for his penultimate arguments, and I'd like to add this has been an extremely exciting and thought provoking debate.
This point is completely relevant to the debate, Stalin or not. While it is true that Stalin didn't stop Hitler from rising among other things, this has no relation to the question of whether or not Trotsky would.
Just because Stalin allowed Hitler to do something, doesn't mean it doesn't matter if Trotsky wouldn't. Again, if you completely remove Russia from the equation, its quite evident that WW2 would've been unwinnable for the allies. If you pretend Stalin doesn't even exist, Trotsky's benefit in WW2 would be his contributions to the prevention or easy win of the war, which is irrelevant to Stalin. This is an action taken by Trotsky himself, not a prevention of what Stalin did.
I don't see how you're going to use this argument as en example of contradictions.
It does not directly contradict my argument. "Trotsky would've acted boldly to prevent the spread of Fascist sentiments in Europe and the world. We can assume he would go out of his way to quell the fascist side of any revolution and support the Communists." This is true. He would most likely support the Communist revolutionaries, but whether or not he would actually invade a country that was turning fascist before Russia's economy boomed is unknowable, but I doubt any invasion or the support of Communist revolutionaries against Fascists would legitimately start WW2. "He would not start too many Communist revolutions too quickly let alone start invading". These two sentences are under no means "at odds" with each other because 1) Trotsky only believed a Communist revolution could be started from within, in a time of extreme anti-capitalism where many were poor when the time to stage a revolution against the bourgieosie was ripe. 2) This directly means he wouldn't "start" Communist revolutions, only that he would support them and try to maybe speed them up by again providing revolutionaries with supplies and giving them Marxist theories, etc.
Trotsky didn't, however, instigate the war against the Polish, he simply commanded his troops in order to defend his homeland. Like you said, none of the Bolsheviks doubted the necessity of "forcing the Polish bridge", but that doesn't mean they were going to all out invade Poland unless it was self defense before their economy reached a sufficient point where they actually could invade or they knew they could without creating global conflict.
You could also say that the invasion of a country thats turning fascist is a completely different matter from a country that could turn Communist. You'd think the defeat of fascism would have a better short term net benefit over the rise of Communism, therefore I'm not sure his defeat of fascist countries would be looked down upon as the world remembers what Mussolini and Hitler became. This isn't going against his net benefit, if anything the defeat of fascist countries is a net benefit and in no way would've been looked down upon by the rest of the world.
I didn't contradict myself in this argument.
Evidence of Trotsy's legitimate hope for an eventually democratic Soviet Union lies in the fact that he originally was a Mensheviki. As you probably know, seeing as it seems you're fairly educated on early Soviet history, the mensheviks split from the Russian Social Democratic Party at the same time as the Bolsheviks, simply because they believed Lenin was too exclusive in what made a party member. Being a menshevik, Trotsky made it clear what his opinion on bureacracy and totalitarianism was - he wanted a large range of views when making decisions.
Trotsky's actions do not denote an opposition of his to democracy. As you stated in your original argument, Trotsky himself would only do conscription if volunteers were not sufficient. Trotsky believed short term conscription was necessary in order to maintain the possibility of an eventual Soviet Democracy. Trotsky believed a citizen has a duty to defend his country because citizenship in a democracy requires sharing burdens as well as benefits, and because freedom from foreign or oppressive rule like burearcracy and the victory of the Whites was important to society as a whole.
Trotsky supported the Russian Revolution, but on the condition, which existed, of general anti-feudal autocratic feelings in the hearts of almost all Russians. The people of Russia were starving, and Trotsky believed he had the solution to a problem they all saw and wished to fight. That is democracy, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks at first represented the ideas all the Russians had against Russian monarchy and its supporters, the undemocratic whites. He simply helped lead a struggle for the rights of the average russian.
The particular uprising in general you are referring to is the October revolution, which was a revolution to free the people of Russia from the tyranny of the Tsar. If anything, this is a fight for democracy. The support of a failed revolution doesn't mean he's undemocratic, the failure of the revolutionaries to free themselves from tyranny isn't the fault of Trotsky and if anything their revolution was premature if it failed. Again, revolutions of this type are strictly for democracy.
Your sources do not say that Trotsky supports executions and violence against people that don't want communism. In fact, the only executions and violence he ever committed were against the supporters of the Russian monarchy who are to blame for the stiflings of democracy. None of the sources (3,4,5) actually say Leon Trotsky's name once.
4) Command Economy
Did not contradict. The "need" for the USSR to absorb other countries economies or at least convert them to a command economy model does not mean that he would have forced Communism on them until Capitalism had reached its decline and they had a revolution of their own, which he would've supported through means of the spread of marxist thoughts and supplies.
Trotsky and almost all orthodox marxists in the left opposition unaminously agree that a revolution against capitalism should only be staged at the time in which Capitalism has finally declined to a level where the worker is living in complete poverty while the bourgieousie has accumulated all the wealth. The need for the USSR to absorb others will be cured through the non forced conversion of countries to the command economy model but through the support of Communist revolutionaries in other countries.
In addition, as I've already stated, Trotsky was against bureacracy and undemocratic ideas, which was proven when he supported the left opposition to Stalin. A democratic command economy model is what he supported, which negates your opinion on Trotsky's management of a command economy.
To summarize my arguments:
Leon Trotsky, the Russian Revolutionary, would've have an overall net benefit on society and the world because of these unrefuted reasons:
1) He would have prevented the rise of Hitler and possibly WW2, if not would've ended it swiftly saving perhaps near 100 million.
2) He would've enforced a strong anti-fascist sentiment in Europe preventing many tragedies resulting from the horrid system.
3) Would've led the Russians to a form of democratic Marxism and perhaps soon the whole world.
4) Finally, he would've attained a higher state of living for his people and perhaps the world by creating a perfect Command Economy model fueled by permanent revolution and a democratic control of the means of production.
All of my opponents refutations to these advantages have been defeated. Aff wins. I don't have enough characters to list all of my sources, but here are the few new ones I used for this round.
The Communist Manifesto
At this point, I would like to ask all readers to quickly scan over, namely to to where in R2 I stated that numerous countries were anti-communistic and would not stand for wide spread communist revolutions sponsored by the USSR. I then recommend looking to my opponent's R3 to where he addresses this (or actually, doesn't) and determine if he would actually trigger a world war or not. I also ask readers to check up on the sources, namely those that have directly quoted Trotsky and Lenin and those that are wikipeadia (namely on the reasons for the Soviet-Polish war). Finally, when it comes to his actions on war, please re-check the sources that show his military activity over a various years.
I would also remind voters that this is over Trotsky as completely independent of Stalin's timeline (this was agreed in the comments section prior to the debate being accepted).
With that said, I pass this on to the voters as I finish this round just over 1,200 characters.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Bodhivaka 4 years 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:||5||1|
Reasons for voting decision: This was a very good and interesting debate! Both participants made a strong case; however, I believe Pro ultimately presented more compelling arguments, thereby effectively upholding the resolution of this debate; as such, he gets points for arguments. Pro also gets points for sources, due to the fact that Con (at times) cited his assertions with irrelevant sources. Lastly, Con get's points for conduct, seeing as he chose to comply with the original rules of the debate, while Pro did not.
Vote Placed by The_Chaos_Heart 4 years 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:||6||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Both debaters were respectful to one another, especially in allowing for extra writing space in the end, which is why I will give conduct to Con. I am giving spelling and grammar to Pro, simply because I noticed one or two errors more in Con's writing (such as at one point spelling 'Trotsky' as 'Tortsky' in Round 3). I am giving arguments to Pro, as I do not think Con adequately showed how Leon Trotsky would have done less good than harm. Con was accurate when depicting anti-communist feelings globally, but this in of itself speaks nothing about Trotsky. Further more, Con never truly refuted the idea that Trotsky would have been a very democratic leader, though he did point out conscription. But this one point alone doesn't show "more bad than good", as it was necessary for Con to argue. Finally, I'm giving sources to Pro, because it would seem there were a few times where Con's sources, as pointed out by Pro, did not actually support what he was saying.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate