The Instigator
benko12345678
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Geographia
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Russia should not be sanctioned!

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/23/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,355 times Debate No: 55288
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (28)
Votes (0)

 

benko12345678

Pro

The arguments in this debate will be based on the negative impact of these sanctions against EU countries (such as Slovenia). In an extreme case, the GDP of Slovenia would decrease by 1,3% resulting in a 1,6 billion euro loss, a worse case would be presented in Denmark, which is Russia's number 1 european trading partner, while Slovenia is in second place. Even Germany opposes this act. If an escalation of Europe's stand-off with Moscow over Ukraine results in economic sanctions, more than 6,000 German companies who do business with Russia would suffer catastrophic losses, Germany's main trade body has warned.
Not to mention Russia's already failing economy going even further down the hill. The low level of investments (nearly 20% of GDP per year when the normal level is nearly 30% of GDP), worsening demographic situation (the number of residents in Russia has decreased by five million in comparison with 1990), and outdated structure of the economy gradually so reduced the competitiveness of Russian producers that import to Russia increased fivefold from 2000 to 2008, while export only increased 40%. Today Russia exports chiefly oil and natural gas, and the production of knowledge-intensive products has been decreasing (Russia produces no more than 20 civil aircraft per year) or is dependent on foreign partners (cars, consumer goods).
When the rise of oil prices stopped in 2008, so did the average growth of the Russian economy, which stuck at a level less of than 1%. The federal budget decreased because of rapidly growing imports since 2009; although the 2006 oil price of 30 USD per barrel was sufficient to smooth the budget, this year oil should be selling for 115 USD per barrel.
It is therefore no exaggeration to say that Russia missed the best period in its modern history, and in 2014 it is in a very delicate economic situation. The Russian authorities" attempt to create a modern technological park in Skolkovo resulted in the waste of a more than a billion dollars. That number is actually not so frightening when compared with the absurd 50 billion dollars for the Olympic Games in Sochi. The high level of corruption, the unpredictable behavior of bureaucrats, and the lack of independent courts have placed Russia 124th among the 147 countries whose economic positions are tracked by the World Economic Forum.2013 was a bad year, but this year the confidence of Russian and foreign investors is unequivocally lost. Investments have been declining constantly as those who can change their money into dollars or, better yet, transfer their capital to foreign banks. According to the Russian government"s valuation, 70 billion USD has been withdrawn in the first three months " more than all of last year! Since the beginning of this year, the ruble has lost 10% of its value against the dollar, though the Central Bank has spent 40 billion USD on foreign currency interventions to bolster the national currency.

Sources:

http://www.bbc.com......

http://voiceofrussia.com......

http://www.siol.net......

http://www.bbc.com......
Geographia

Con

The debate is over Russia and should it be sanctioned over Ukraine. I would say the BOP is shared because the debate is a dichotomy. Either we sanction Russia, or we don't. Anyway, Pro is saying we should NOT sanction Russia. I say we SHOULD sanction Russia.

Now that my preamble is finished, let's start with Pro's argument.

< Pro's argument >

From what I gathered from his argument is that Russia is under economic stress, and for that reason, we should not sanction them. He also notes that Europe would suffer, which is probably true. However, he doesn't say why America (Seeing how my opponent is from Eastern Europe, and I am American, I will simply say "America".) or other nations shouldn't sanction Russia. Only about Russia's weak economy. I say that makes sanctions BETTER because it creates more pressure on said nation. I don't think Russia burning bridges with Germany hurts them more then Germany because they are only losing business. Germany seems to be able to be self sufficient in the near future anyway.[1]

< My argument >

This is more so connected with Russia's business in Ukraine. What Russia is doing in Ukraine is probably not for the good of all, and is spreading political chaos in Europe. We have seen this before, not with Russia, but with Nazi Germany. With sanctions, we can make the annexation of Crimea unprofitable, and that is the point. I will expand more, next round.





[1] http://www.renewableenergyworld.com...
Debate Round No. 1
benko12345678

Pro

Firstly, it doesn't matter where you're from. And this is exactly my point. America is doing what's best for its own litle *** (forgive my rude choice of words). But the USA would also be very deeply hurt by this...
The economic sanctions the United States imposed on Russia over the Ukraine crisis don't hurt only the Russian economy. They hurt some U.S. companies that do business in Russia, too.
John Deere, which makes heavy farm equipment and has two factories in Russia, was the latest company to blame weaker sales on economic sanctions. Despite beating its fiscal second-quarter earnings by 16 cents, the company best-known for its green and yellow tractors, cut its full-year outlook, saying sales of its tractors and harvesters would fall "significantly" in Ukraine, Russia and other ex-Soviet republics. The company cited credit restrictions by its customers there for the weak outlook. After Russia's annexation of Crimea, McDonald's closed three of its fast-food outlets there. The company said it had to cut evening hours in some stores in the region because of less foot traffic. The hamburger giant has more than 400 stores in Russia and gets roughly 9% of its revenue there. Visa and MasterCard also feel the pain as sanctions levied against a handful of Russian banks forced them to stop servicing those banks. Bank customers that hold Visa or MasterCard credit cards can't use them to make purchases. U.S. companies view Russia as a "growth" market, and they do about $40 billion worth of business annually with Russia.
Germany would lose businesses in Russia, exactly. But this isn't simply ,,Losing a business' Germany would have no choice but to completely isolate themselves from all russian trade, which, mind you, brings in around 10% of all EU trade... Germany has also on several occasions stated that they oppose sanctions, so really, the only country that supports them is...big shock...USA...Also, I see no reason to pressure Russia even further. What exactly will these sanctions accomplish? Putin won't care, he does what he pleases...You would be harming the people of Russia, not the leaders. It is also plainly obvious that Crimea belongs to Russia... It was only given to Ukraine by Gorbachev in the days of the CCCP (USSR) to maintain peace within said nation. INTERESTING FACT: Putin actually WARNED the pro-russian seperatists in Crimea and the rest of Ukraine to remain peaceful and to leave the business to the country's leaders. Blame the seperatists, not Russia. The russian military intervention that you mention never happened. Russian troops are stationed on the borders of Ukraine, not on Crimea. Doneck and Lugansk are another matter entirely...I do see Russia's error there. Imagine if the Hungarians suddenly decided they wanted Murska Sobota...bad example, since you're american, here's a more suitable one: Imagine if the canadians just decided to steal Ohio...So yes, I do see your point in Doneck and Lugansk, but economocial sanctions or military interventions are not the answer. Let the russian minorities in Lugansk and Doneck leave Ukraine and move to Russia, problem solved. But no, America is DETERMINED to become the only economical and military superpower and they seek to root out any competition...

Comparing Russia to nazi germany...really. The biggest crimes of the dritten reich were the holocaust and the invasion of France (and numerous other invasions), but this does not mean that EVERY action of the nationalist-socialists had a negative impac. You forget that a large part of Poland was indeed part of the german empire before the end of world war one. Russia also had a large part in Poland (soviet-polish war). However, all these are besides the point. Comparing Germany's actions to the acts of the russian federation...Germany took a part of Poland in the beginning, the part that might have even belonged to them. The difference? The majority of the local population didn't agree with the german takeover...as well as the fact that later on, Germany conquered all of Poland. Russia only claimed the area that is rightfully theirs and took it peacefully. Again, sanctions against russia are completely unneccessary and harmful. Imagine if the world sanctioned nazi germany back then...do you think that would have stopped the wehrmarcht? the SS? No, no it wouldn't. The only thing it would accomplish would be german rage and there was already too much of that... Again, the sanctions would be useless, harmful and could possibly start world war three...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

http://blogs.reuters.com...

http://edition.cnn.com...

http://afghancentral.blogspot.com...
Geographia

Con

I want voters to realize that Pro still isn't saying why we shouldn't, only saying a negative outcome. Even I know that the outcome would appear to net a negative. So please, voters, remember that Pro has to go beyond the outcome and prove that we should not sanction Russia. This is a little hard for me because I am basically asking for a leap of faith, that sanctions would make the Crimean and Ukraine missions unprofitable. I do have something in mind. Anyway, onwards.


Firstly, it doesn't matter where you're from. And this is exactly my point. America is doing what's best for its own litle *** (forgive my rude choice of words). But the USA would also be very deeply hurt by this...
The economic sanctions the United States imposed on Russia over the Ukraine crisis don't hurt only the Russian economy. They hurt some U.S. companies that do business in Russia, too.

America doesn't really profit from this. I read your round. You are basically repeating yourself. And I will say the same thing. If X Company did work in Nazi Germany, should America stop to think, "Hey, this might hurt us."? No. Of course, Russia is kinda breaking International Law here. And, Putin's arguments for annexation echo the annexation of Austria.

Germany would lose businesses in Russia, exactly. But this isn't simply ,,Losing a business' Germany would have no choice but to completely isolate themselves from all russian trade, which, mind you, brings in around 10% of all EU

Because of times like these. You don’t really want to be tied to a nation that boldly taken a part of another nation.

...really, the only country that supports them is...big shock...USA...

Talking out of the blue, but no one really important, except maybe Churchill (I think?), wanted more action against Hitler. So what's your point?

Also, I see no reason to pressure Russia even further.

Alas, that thought was relevant in the 1930's. Where there is smoke, there's fire.

What exactly will these sanctions accomplish? Putin won't care, he does what he pleases...You would be harming the people of Russia, not the leaders. It is also plainly obvious that Crimea belongs to Russia... It was only given to Ukraine by Gorbachev in the days of the CCCP (USSR) to maintain peace within said nation.

The sanctions are a reminder to Putin that the World will not have another Hitler. And to make Crimea unprofitable. And, by not doing stuff, you hurt the Ukraine citizens who live in Crimea. Also, try taking back a gift at Christmas, and see where that got you. Doubly so when said person who you taken from gave their nukes in exchange for have their borders intact, which, yes, Russia broke.

Putin actually WARNED the pro-russian seperatists in Crimea and the rest of Ukraine to remain peaceful and to leave the business to the country's leaders. Blame the seperatists, not Russia.

Putin did? Or did he SAY he did? I would like a source on the matter that isn't an opionon piece.

Blame the seperatists, not Russia. The russian military intervention that you mention never happened. Russian troops are stationed on the borders of Ukraine, not on Crimea.

Doesn't matter.

But no, America is DETERMINED to become the only economical and military superpower and they seek to root out any competition...

One of your many appeals to emotion. Also, Russia's Military isn't doing too hot. They are not push-overs, but there is no "competition" in the sense you are thinking. Please stay on topic.

. Russia only claimed the area that is rightfully theirs and took it peacefully.

It's not, though. And, ironically Ukraine isn't too peacefully either.

Again, sanctions against russia are completely unneccessary and harmful.

You haven't shown how so. Just what may happen?

Imagine if the world sanctioned nazi germany back then...do you think that would have stopped the wehrmarcht? the SS? No, no it wouldn't.

Yep. That would be a case where you break out the good-old war. If Russia invades Poland again...Then there will be a Third World War. But because doing nothing is better?



I want voters to notice the Appeals to Emotion and subtle Appeals to Ignorance, that we don’t know HOW Russia would react, they might get angry, etc..


My arguments.


Russia and Ukraine signed a treaty over Ukraine's borders.


Ever heard about the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances? I don’t exactly think it is a "treaty", but an agreement, which is rather serious when it involves nukes. Do you think when Ukraine disarms and has no defense, and this happens, do you think that Nuke Nations would hold on to their nukes? Do you think that Russia would make a move if Ukraine had nukes? The issue here is that Russia can go back on their word. They can take, and they can steal. This is why we need the sanctions. They might sting, but so does World War 3.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

A note to the voters: I have shown that we should sanction Russia, and that History seems to be repeating. However, Pro has made fallacious arguments and did NOT show WHY not sanctioning Russia will net a benefit.

Vote Geo.

Debate Round No. 2
benko12345678

Pro

Disclaimer: Let's try to be friends here and not call each other's claims: 'fallacious' I provided full evidence that proved how the already broken economy would break. Don't speak like this anymore, people might think you're pompous.

I read your counter argument and saw something that made me tear out every hair on my head: Churchill wanted more action against Hitler... WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE RUSSIAN ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA. THIS IS NOT A DEBATE ON THE HOLOCAUST OR ANY OTHER ELEMENT OF WORLD WAR 2. THERE WILL BE NO MORE TALK OF THIS SUBJECT IN THIS DEBATE. Now that that's out of the way: I would like to start with refuting your argument, I will do the rest later.

,,Ever heard about the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances? I don"t exactly think it is a "treaty", but an agreement, which is rather serious when it involves nukes. Do you think when Ukraine disarms and has no defense, and this happens, do you think that Nuke Nations would hold on to their nukes? Do you think that Russia would make a move if Ukraine had nukes? The issue here is that Russia can go back on their word. They can take, and they can steal. This is why we need the sanctions. They might sting, but so does World War 3.'

Why are we even bringing this up? It's Russia's annexation of Crimea that's the subject matter here, not Russia's military arsenal. Also, the budapest memorandum on security assurances does not apply to the Crimea crisis because separation of Crimea was driven by an internal political and social-economic crisis (this statement was provided from the link YOU provided.) Russia isn't planning on starting world war 3. Crimea voted on a referendum and decided to join Russia. 97% of the Crimean population is russian...You're stating that we should punish an already broken country for an act that would in all other cases be considered tolerable? Let's look at a highly-talked-about subject-ISRAEL. Israel did precisely what Russia is doing in Palestine, only they did it by force and against the will of the population (much more like the dritten reich). If we do choose to sanction Russia, we should do the same to Israel.

NOW, let's begin with your starting counter-arguments and refute the refutations (always wanted to say that).

,,America doesn't really profit from this. I read your round. You are basically repeating yourself. And I will say the same thing. If X Company did work in Nazi Germany, should America stop to think, "Hey, this might hurt us."? No. Of course, Russia is kinda breaking International Law here. And, Putin's arguments for annexation echo the annexation of Austria.'

,,America doesn't really profit from this.' Yet more words of self-harm. In my argument I stated that america doesn't profit, in fact, they lose lobbies and businesses... Again, please don't compare this to the acts of the third reich, it's ludicrous. Also, you should probably go back to school and learn more about world war 2. America didn't join the war until 1941, before that they fully cooperated with the third reich. They only joined the war after the bombing of pearl harbour and after they were substantially gifted by the allies. America's factories continued working for the first three years of the war. Russia is not breaking internation law. The annexation of Crimea was fully legal and ethical. If most of the population wishes to join Russia, let them. Te annexation of AUSTRIA however is another matter entirely. Not only was the government of Austria strictly pro-nazi, but the wehrmarcht seemed to contribute as well.

,,Because of times like these. You don"t really want to be tied to a nation that boldly taken a part of another nation. '
Unless that nation provides 10% of your GDP... Germany (and the rest of the EU) would be plunged into deficit if this came to pass...

,,Talking out of the blue, but no one really important, except maybe Churchill (I think?), wanted more action against Hitler. So what's your point?'
I already addressed how incredibly idiotic this comment is...my point was that only America supports the sanctions against Russia, don't bring good ol' Winston into this and please stop comparing Putin to Hitler...

,,Alas, that thought was relevant in the 1930's. Where there is smoke, there's fire.'
In the 1930's, as I said before, america was doing full business with nazi germany (need we forget that the Hindenburg zeppelin's last flight was New York?) Russia's actions cannot be compared to the actions of nazi germany. Austria, back then, was led by pro-nationalist socialist extremists who mostly forced the population to accept the forced annexation. Not to mention, Austria was its own independent country while Crimea is a small peninsula that, by international law, belongs to Russia.

,,The sanctions are a reminder to Putin that the World will not have another Hitler. And to make Crimea unprofitable. And, by not doing stuff, you hurt the Ukraine citizens who live in Crimea. Also, try taking back a gift at Christmas, and see where that got you. Doubly so when said person who you taken from gave their nukes in exchange for have their borders intact, which, yes, Russia broke.'

So really we'll be punishing Russia for Putin's actions. As I said a while ago, do you think that economical sanctions would have stopped nazi germany? A country that was, from 1918, bankrupt and forbidden from having any type of arsenal? There are precisely 4% of ukranians living on crimea, 1% of which voted to join Russia...Let them stay there or let them leave, it's their choice. In addition to your whole christmas gift comparison (I'm jewish for the record), Imagine if it turned out that you accidentaly put your one of your favourite toys in there and a little tiny piece for the receiver, what would you do? Russia didn't break any agreement, the Budapest memorandum does not apply in this situation. Crimea was always an object of doubt. The Budapest Memorandum is not a formal treaty, but rather, a diplomatic document under which signatories made promises to each other as part of the denuclearization of former Soviet republics after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Under the memorandum, Ukraine promised to remove all Soviet-era nuclear weapons from its territory.
In return, Russia essentially consecrated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine as an independent state, which Russia did not break, they simply peacefully took an area that wished to join them. It is an unofficial treaty and has no means of enforcement.

,,Putin did? Or did he SAY he did? I would like a source on the matter that isn't an opionon piece.'

I'm afraid I could not find an english source...I only found a slovenian one...sorry for the inconvenience, but it's where I read about Putin warning the separatists. You can google translate it if you want.

http://razvoj.vecer.com...
IF THIS LINK IS NOT SATISFACTORY, LAY THIS ARGUMENT ASIDE, SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE.

,,Doesn't matter.'

I'm afraid it does. There was no russian military intervention. The russian military was always stationed on the borders and according to recent sources, they have returned to their bases.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

,,One of your many appeals to emotion. Also, Russia's Military isn't doing too hot. They are not push-overs, but there is no "competition" in the sense you are thinking. Please stay on topic.'

No my friend, you stay on topic and stop with your constant comparisons to world war 2. You are CONSTANTLY attempting to appeal to those who are aware of its horrors-therefore appealing to emotion. My arguments are simply based on the fact that America seems to be the only country that supports these sanctions, completely unaware that it might destroy their economy or just plain irrational. Russia's military is no subject matter, stay focused. I brought this up in the first place to emphasise America's need to be superior. But obviously this does not belong in this debate, so let's just abandon that. The russian military was never involved in any business in Ukraine, it was the pro-russian separatists. America also seems to be considering military intervention, which is totally absurd. The business in Lugansk and Doneck is understood, but this is not the subject matter either. Our debate is based on why Russia should not be sanctioned. I gave irrefutable facts, black on white, which you ignored, instead focusing on my side-arguments, which I only included to expose America's position. This is an economical debate, if you cease with the politics/warfare, so will I.

,,It's not, though. And, ironically Ukraine isn't too peaceful either.'

Ukraine is not peaceful because of the protests from both extremes, the pro-ukranians and the pro-russians. Both of these groups are illegal and should be shut down, stop trying to connect Russia with them. If someone misplaced their book in someone else's bag and wanted it back, which the owner of the back would refuse and a third party would then beat up the latter, would you blame the owner of the book?

,,You haven't shown how so. Just what may happen? '

Oh, but I have. Economical ties would break, GDP's would fall at extreme levels. The WORLD would be plunged into deficit. Were all my previous arguments invalid? I have a feeling they were in your head.

,,Yep. That would be a case where you break out the good-old war. If Russia invades Poland again...Then there will be a Third World War. But because doing nothing is better?
I want voters to notice the Appeals to Emotion and subtle Appeals to Ignorance, that we don"t know HOW Russia would react, they might get angry, etc..'

Russia would not invade Poland, we all know how that turned out for them. We would be damaging ourselves more if we did sanction it.There were no appeals to emotion in my arguments, more so in yours.
Geographia

Con

I am sorry, I cannot bold text. No matter, what Pro says will be in brackets.

< I read your counter argument and saw something that made me tear out every hair on my head: Churchill wanted more action against Hitler... WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE RUSSIAN ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA. THIS IS NOT A DEBATE ON THE HOLOCAUST OR ANY OTHER ELEMENT OF WORLD WAR 2. THERE WILL BE NO MORE TALK OF THIS SUBJECT IN THIS DEBATE. Now that that's out of the way: I would like to start with refuting your argument, I will do the rest later. >

I take it that is a concession, no? Exactly. I am asking for more action against Putin, for actions he did.

< Why are we even bringing this up? It's Russia's annexation of Crimea that's the subject matter here, not Russia's military arsenal. Also, the budapest memorandum on security assurances does not apply to the Crimea crisis because separation of Crimea was driven by an internal political and social-economic crisis (this statement was provided from the link YOU provided. >

Ah. And Putin did not support the rebels and proclaim Crimea as his own?

< Russia isn't planning on starting world war 3. Crimea voted on a referendum and decided to join Russia. 97% of the Crimean population is russian... >

Yes, and Austrians in the 1930's were also German. Hitler was justified in uniting Austria and the Sudetenland to Germany. Germans were treated badly in Europe. Hitler was trying to protect his people. Get the point I'm trying to make?

< You're stating that we should punish an already broken country for an act that would in all other cases be considered tolerable? Let's look at a highly-talked-about subject-ISRAEL. Israel did precisely what Russia is doing in Palestine, only they did it by force and against the will of the population (much more like the dritten reich). If we do choose to sanction Russia, we should do the same to Israel. >

Ah, but this is off task. However, there was some shabby work done when Israel was founded. The Middle East is Hell on Earth, eh? Oh, and Russia isn't taking Crimea peacefully. Sending troops across the border isn't peace.

< Again, please don't compare this to the acts of the third reich, it's ludicrous. Also, you should probably go back to school and learn more about world war 2. America didn't join the war until 1941, before that they fully cooperated with the third reich. They only joined the war after the bombing of pearl harbour and after they were substantially gifted by the allies. America's factories continued working for the first three years of the war. Russia is not breaking internation law. The annexation of Crimea was fully legal and ethical. If most of the population wishes... >

How did America work with Nazi Germany?

< Unless that nation provides 10% of your GDP... Germany (and the rest of the EU) would be plunged into deficit if this came to pass... >

If Russia actually does this, they would collapse. They won't just cut ties if they have Russia's future in mind. There will be rattled sabers, that's it.

< I already addressed how incredibly idiotic this comment is...my point was that only America supports the sanctions against Russia, don't bring good ol' Winston into this and please stop comparing Putin to Hitler... >

Oh I see. Well, that was aggressive.

< Russia's actions cannot be compared to the actions of nazi germany. >

No kidding. However, the preluding events to World War 2 can.

< by international law, belongs to Russia. >

No. Look back on that link I gave you.

< So really we'll be punishing Russia for Putin's actions. As I said a while ago, do you think that economical sanctions would have stopped nazi germany? A country that was, from 1918, bankrupt and forbidden from having any type of arsenal? There are precisely 4% of ukranians living on crimea, 1% of which voted to join Russia...Let them stay there or let them leave, it's their choice. In addition to your whole christmas gift comparison (I'm jewish for the record), Imagine if it turned out that you accidentaly put your one of your favourite toys in there and a little tiny piece for the receiver, what would you do? Russia didn't break any agreement, the Budapest memorandum does not apply in this situation. Crimea was always an object of doubt. The Budapest Memorandum is not a formal treaty, but rather, a diplomatic document under which signatories made promises to each other as part of the denuclearization of former Soviet republics after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Under the memorandum, Ukraine promised to remove all Soviet-era nuclear weapons from its territory.
In return, Russia essentially consecrated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine as an independent state, which Russia did not break, they simply peacefully took an area that wished to join them. It is an unofficial treaty and has no means of enforcement. >

If you were asked to leave your home, would you be happy? But it's too late bringing this up. The vote wasn't done by the UN. It's invalid.

I'm afraid the rest of Pro's round is ranting and not of much use.

Pro has not brung legit sources, nor did his arguments have base and he has insulted me multiple times. I suggest a Con vote.
Debate Round No. 3
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by benko12345678 2 years ago
benko12345678
:P I told you, it's probably anti-homophobic prejudice (not saying homophobia is acceptable in a modern society-your argument is not homophobic). People tend to vote for the one they agree, rather than the one they find better.
Posted by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
Damn I would have voted but this is not my field. Also benko I know, but I should have still won :P
In any case Im just messin with ya :)
Posted by benko12345678 2 years ago
benko12345678
nobody voted...
Posted by benko12345678 2 years ago
benko12345678
Naive? How am I naive?
Posted by Geographia 2 years ago
Geographia
Oh benko, how naive you are.
Posted by benko12345678 2 years ago
benko12345678
Also, you pretty much only provided your own beliefs. Kinda the same thing Geographia is doing... only you did it in a much more civilized and subtle way (no offense to Geo)
Posted by benko12345678 2 years ago
benko12345678
Now now Ajab...just because the voter disagrees with you doesn't mean he's 13...
Posted by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
benko means to say I destroyed him, he called me names, a 13 year old gave him the vote on a topic which is the discussion of academic philosophy.
Posted by benko12345678 2 years ago
benko12345678
I'm considering it :P
Posted by Geographia 2 years ago
Geographia
So do you want to redo that debate?
No votes have been placed for this debate.