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

Putin is a threat to world peace.

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: 1/26/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 615 times Debate No: 68956
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




I would like this debate to consist of an opening argument and a chance for rebuttal. I will be against this motion.


I must suppose that you believe Putin is not a threat to world peace as you took the position of con, if that is incorrect, then please excuse my acceptance, it was a mistake and at best this debate is a tie, or chalk one up in my loss column, it matters not one bit to me.

All world leaders with armies of mercenaries and conscripts are a threat to world peace. That is my argument.
Debate Round No. 1


I would suggest that if you consider Putin to be a threat to world peace, you would consider Obama and Cameron threats as well. Putin was one of the very few leaders who supplying the rebels in Syria who we now know to be Islamic state with dangerous weapons, when these two gentlemen were greatly in favour of it. I'd argue that Crimea was not a sudden Russian act of aggression but rather one of defence. From just looking at a map it can be seen that NATO has been expanding in recent years. The Ukrainian prime minister received two economic deals from EU and Russia. Russia's offered more for a cheaper price and so he could not be blamed for choosing it. The EU then chose to give full backing to the putsch of a democratically elected leader. With Ukraine in uncertainty, there was a possibility of the country allowing the presence of NATO troops. Sevastopol was a key Russian port, which Ukraine had allowed Russia to use since the USSR collapsed. With the resources to do so one could not blame Putin for wanting to keep this strategic military location. A referendum was held and despite the result being suspicious, it can be said it was more democratic than the newly established Ukrainian government. Therefore I consider it an act of defence against NATO expansion/EU aggression. If you consider Obama, Cameron etc. as more of a threat than Putin, I would agree. That is what I wanted to argue here. Though I think in the highly unlikely event of armed conflict with Russia, EU/NATO actions would be chiefly to blame.


I will respond to each sentence of your argument.
Yes, they all fit the mold as they all control armies of mercenaries and conscripts.
I do not quite understand the second sentence, but that fact in my mind is that sending weapons to barbarians, no matter which side they are on is wrong.
Yes annexing Crimea was an act of defense, and defiance, both are fair ideas. Who would not defend tyranny and also defend their land? All tyrants suppose this to be their right.
Putin's approach to NATO is eye for eye, tooth, who could blame him?
We all live under economic tyranny, which means only the elite bankers profit from the creation of wars. You believe that economics trump right from wrong?
Putin was democratically elected, as are most of the leaders these days. We are being forced to war by the elite bankers, they will sell arms, and body bags to the populace, nothing more, nothing less, while waving the carrot of economic benefit before the donkey populace.

That is all I can say tonight, but please......

BRING IT FOR ROUND 3. If you are so devoted to your selfless leaders.
Debate Round No. 2


I apologise for the second sentence. I meant to say 'was one of the few leaders who did not support supplying weapons to the Syrian rebels we now know to be IS'. You seem to agree with that. We both seem to share some key points in our arguments. However the thrust of my argument is that Putin is not a threat to world peace as it is unlikely that a conflict will start based on his actions alone. The West will always want an enemy. China and Turkey have far greater media censorship and human rights abuses than Russia and yet our governments are far more friendly with them. Comparisons could be drawn between Tibet + Turkish Kurdistan and Crimea but that is not my point. Putin is one of the few leaders who looks out for the interests of his countries' national sovereignty, which is one of the reasons why the West hates him. He may be a tyrant like Erdogan but I don't believe he will threaten world peace. His origins are humble, his mother a factory worker and his father a navy marine, so I wouldn't consider him part of the elite. I see no evidence to suggest, as the media seems to have convinced so many people with its endless anti-Russian propaganda that Putin could ever be to blame for starting a global crisis. If you disagree I would be grateful to see why Putin alone is a threat and not the Western political elite.


I believe that all of the UN countries, and their leaders, and especially the economic system we live under, are threats to world peace, and certainly Putin is not the least threatening.

Good debate!
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Max.Wallace 1 year ago
I always open with an argument, this is a war of words, like jousting, not fencing.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
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 Checkmark-1 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: Con automatically loses because he doesnt argue against pro's most complelling argument that he clearly stated during the acceptance round. "All world leaders with armies of mercenaries and conscripts are a threat to world peace. That is my argument." This argument is an entire case takeout and is a very good point, con never refutes this key idea and instead goes on semmingly meaningless bouts about whether the fact of Russia seizing Ukraine implies danger rather than in general if Putin is a threat.