The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Resolved: The United States should intervene in Ukraine.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/21/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,105 times Debate No: 49592
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




Hello, I am debating Mestari on wether or not the US should intervene in Ukraine.


The Military intervention we are talking about must be significant enough to conceivably halt Russian intervention.

"Intervention" can mean anything from allout war to 'War Games'.

"Should" implies that the US has a duty to try to stop Russia from taking over Crimea.

No Lawyering.

No forfeiting.

R1 can be for acceptance.

The BOP is on me.


For the record, this is for the DDO Olympics: Super Combined Round 2. I wish my opponent the best of luck.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you.

I will now outline my case.

POINT ONE: Russian actions mirror Germany's actions before WW2.

We all know about the events that taken played around Germany before WW2, right? The tactic of Appeasement, of course, didn't work out. So, I ask you this; would it be conceivable to say that intervention would stop Germany before WW2 started? Maybe there wouldn"t be a WW2. But, as Russia is doing the same illegal things, should we again stick our head in? If Russia wants to invade Belarus because it thinks that native Russian are not being treated well, would you support Military involvement? Now you may say something like;

"But NightCats, just because it happened ~75 years ago doesn't mean it will happen now. After all, Germany was pushed by Social Issues."

No, but what I am saying is that snippet worth of history is enough for it to be justified to confront Russia, that where there is smoke, there"s fire.

POINT TWO: The Aftermath?

In 1994 Ukraine, the US, Russia, and a few other nations had promised to Ukraine in a treaty that if Ukraine gave up they're Nuclear Weapons; their borders will be protected [1]. Russia broke this treaty by invading Crimea. If Crimea goes over to the Russians, then, perhaps fallacious, the thought that Nuclear weapons protect borders will be brought back. This is of course silly, but to Ukraine, it might not be.

I will start the debate with these two points and hand the rod to Mestari.



As outlined in round 1, "The Military intervention we are talking about must be significant enough to conceivably halt Russian intervention." In order to determine the consequences of the military intervention, and therefore understand if we should affirm or negate the topic we must outline specifically how the United States would use its military in order to stop Russia. Do we simply station troops in Ukraine and hope Russia does not invade? Do we use our air force? If so, whose airbase is it that we suggest asking for access from? My opponent has the burden of providing a specific course of action that we can then discuss. As my opponent said, he has the burden of proof, in this case that includes providing a plan of action.

My stance will not be that Ukraine is not deserving of support, but rather that the consequences of military intervention will be so great as to proclaim that the United States should not intervene in Ukraine.
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you. For future use, I will clarify my case.

I believe that supporting the Ukrainian army in mainland Ukraine will benefit not only them, but to the local nations nearby. Now, I have to prove that it is conceivable that Russia would back off or not to make such bold threats to Ukrainian safety.

Here is a backdrop.

Ukraine, by itself, may not be worth the war games. But Poland is. So is Germany. These nations will be affected when Russia steam rolls over Ukraine, as it would tip the balance of power and bring Russian expansion to something that wasn't seen since Cold War era times. Eastern Europe isn't something you just say "Eh, no biggie." to. Now, you might be saying that the Crimean"s voted to join Russia. But as of now, the UN is saying the vote is illegal.[1]
With Russia taking over Crimea in something that"s almost an act of war, we have to stop Russia and protect the stability of Eastern Europe.
Now, support sending troops and supplies to Ukraine to prevent the area Balkanizing, that"s all. Do what is happening is South Korea, but have it used as the Crimean"s confusion over who runs who. Russia will simply not invade because it would mean war with the USA. That is a deterrent. Spreading turmoil across Europe never ended well anyway



My opponent still has not fulfilled his burden. He must advocate military intervention - as stated in round 1 - that is significant enough to conceivably halt Russian intervention in Ukraine. We're making progress, he wants to send troops and supplies now, however he hasn't quite made it there yet. How many troops, what supplies? Where are we deploying the troops? Is this just the Army, the Marines? Air force maybe? Do we move boats into the Black Sea? How are these troops going to halt Russian Intervention. The resolution is a question of cost-benefit analysis. For me to measure the costs I need to know exactly how we plan to approach the crisis. Unless I have a specific course of action, I can't argue for any costs without making them up.
Debate Round No. 3


There appeared to be some confusion and the issue of semantics. My point is that reinforcing, like having a fair number of boots on the ground, the idea of Ukraine's control over Crimea by the USA would be enough to sway Russia.


This debate is really simple. In round 1 my opponent stated that not only does he have the burden of proof, but that he must advocate military intervention significant enough to conceivably halt Russian intervention. Never did he advocate any specific form of military intervention. How many soldiers is a, "fair number of boots on the ground?" Is that 10 soldiers? 1,000? 10,000? My opponent has failed to prove anything because he has failed to provide an exact course of action. He hasn't given a number of soldiers, a base to operate from, a method of training soldiers for a Eastern European battlefield. He hasn't done anything to uphold his burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: This wasn't really a great debate...let's be honest. Sources go Pro for providing them, but I was not convinced that Pro met his BOP. His plan needed more details. Args to Con.
Vote Placed by Geogeer 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con played a poor game of semantics. Pro outlined in his opening statement that the involvement could be small to severe. The debate topic was that the US should intervene in the Ukraine. Points Pro.