The Instigator
JohnF.Kennedy
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
dsjpk5
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Should Turkish violations of Greek Airspace be halted?

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 1 vote the winner is...
dsjpk5
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/14/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 590 times Debate No: 91255
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

JohnF.Kennedy

Pro

On the occasion of the shooting down of the Russian Su-24 jet by Turkey, there are quite some people – Greeks and expats living in Greece – wondering what it seems to be the obvious: why is not there has been downing similar airplane either from Greece or from Turkey during the 17-year long history of the famous Greek-Turkish so-called “dogfights”.

“Dogfights” describes the practice where Greek F-16 and Mirage fighter jets and Turkish mostly F-16s get involved in dangerous flight maneuvers chasing each other. The practice is to understand as tactical military provocations triggered by Turkish fighter jets to challenge Greece’s national and airspace sovereignty over the Aegean Sea. At times, the fighter jests are armed.

Video footage of this happening: https://www.youtube.com...


Occasionally the dog fights end in casualties on both sides and there is only one incident that has been alleged that a Turkish plane was accidentally shot down by a Greek one.

“The incident occurred in 1996 and it was first described as an accident. In 2004, a Greek newspaper published claims that the Turkish plane had unintentionally been shot down by the Greek one. The shootdown was confirmed by the Turkish government but denied by the Greek side.”


Greece and Turkey, both are members of the NATO, they are allies that are theoretically not allowed to shoot down each other’s airplanes.

Of course, there have been several conflicts between the two countries that brought them on the verge of a war (Imia/Kardak crisis in 1996) and it was then US-President Bill Clinton who personally intervened to diffuse the crisis. The previous serious conflict between Turkey and Greece was when Ankara invaded Cyrpus in 1974 and Greece sent armed forces to help the Cypriot brothers.

One more reason that Greek or Turkish air space violations are dealt with dogfights and not with shooting down each other’s planes is that Greece belongs to the European Union and that Athens can claim its right to turn a conflict with a non-EU member into a European one.

Not that Turkey would care much about such an issue. In recent past, Ankara had issued warnings of its airspace violations against flying patrols of the Frontex.

Turkish incidents with Frontex

1) In September 2009, a Turkish military radar issued a warning to a Latvian helicopter patrolling in the eastern Aegean—part of the EU’s Frontex programme to combat illegal immigration—to leave the area. The Turkish General Staff reported that the Latvian Frontex aircraft had violated Turkish airspace west of Didim.

According to a Hellenic Air Force announcement, the incident occurred as the Frontex helicopter—identified as an Italian-made Agusta A109—was patrolling in Greek air space near the small isle of Farmakonisi, which lies on a favorite route used by migrant smugglers.

Frontex officials stated that they simply ignored the Turkish warnings as they did not recognise their being in Turkish airspace and continued their duties.

2) Another incident took place on October 2009 in the aerial area above the eastern Aegean sea, off the island of Lesbos.

3) On 20 November 2009, the Turkish General Staff issued a press

dsjpk5

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for creating this debate.

PLAGIARISM

My opponent plagiarized his entire first round argument from the following website:

http://www.keeptalkinggreece.com...

I ask the voters to consider this when voting on this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
JohnF.Kennedy

Pro

Thank you for accepting the debate.
I'd like to say that I used that website as a starting argument and didn't just plagiarize.

Continuing on:
Turkey should halt its' violations of Greek Airspace, not just because it's hypocritical, but because it is a danger to Greek national security. Airspace violations have become increasingly common in recent years. Greek military reports that over 2000 intrusions were made in just a month: [img]http://cdn1.theweek.co.uk...[/img]
http://www.ekathimerini.com...

Reminder that dogfighting also costs a lot of money that each country could've spent on other areas of defense, instead of useless spending on dogfighting. The two countries almost went to war [in 1987, 1996 and 2006 (casualties have existed throughout)] because of foolishness between the two sides.

Of course the Greek Defense minister has proposed the building of a NATO base in one of the Aegean Islands to closely observe the incidents. (http://www.ekathimerini.com...)

Turkey has always used the matter of "sovereignty" as an excuse for this, when nearly 95% of the Aegean Sea has been claimed by Greece: [img]http://lh6.ggpht.com...[/img]

Of course the dispute isn't just because of pride, the Aegean sea holds many valuable resources too. This should not be a problem though, since Greece and Turkey both have signed a treaty (http://www.nytimes.com...) with each other that prohibits the drilling of oil in the Aegean, but for some reason continues to make an issue of this. While Greece has little ways to import oil, when Turkey has direct access to the middle east (and there have been many accusations that it imports oil illegaly from ISIS).

Such provocations from Turkey must stop, not only because they're a threat and may cause a world-wide crisis, but because it brings instability in the region, especially for citizens living in Greek islands in constant fear.
One of the latest incidents in Imia, Greek and Turkish warships were in a very close distance from each other, close to the Turkish coast, that could escalate in a serious situation.
dsjpk5

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for his response. Having said that, I have to take issue with his claim that he "didn't just plagiarize". He absolutely plagiarized. But don't take my word for it. Click on the link I provided. He copied it word for word, and passed it off as his own work by not using quotation marks or citing the source.

With that out of the way, I am glad to see my opponent has chosen to actually use his own words in this round. We now can begin this debate in earnest on this very interesting subject. Below you will find my response:

REBUTTAL

With all due respect to my opponent, his entire second round argument is based on a misconception. This entire controversy is the result of Greece's poor interpretation of the Treaty of Lausanne. In it, Turkey gave up some of its islands to Italy (who later gave them to Greece). Greece seems to be under the impression that this includes the isles of Imia/Kardak. [1] However, one needs only to read article 15 of the treaty to find that these isles were NOT included among the ones surrendered by Turkey. [2] With this in mind, since Turkey still maintains sovereignty over them, it has every right to patrol them. This being the case, Turkey is NOT violating Greek airspace, and therefore has nothing it needs to stop doing.

With this in mind, the resolution has been negated since Turkey is not guilty of what the resolution claims its doing.

Sources:

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

2. http://wwi.lib.byu.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
JohnF.Kennedy

Pro

Thank you for replying.
Excuse me for fueling more into the little side argument but perhaps I should make it clearer for the voters that you misunderstood what I said. I'm not denying that I plagiarized but I am saying that I used the site for my introduction for a personal reason, but certainly didn't pass it off as my work. Although, I agree I should've quoted it or use it as a citation and I apologize, but anyways:


"This entire controversy is the result of Greece's poor interpretation of the Treaty of Lausanne. In it, Turkey gave up some of its islands to Italy (who later gave them to Greece). "

Unfortunately, this is incorrect.
The islands that were given to Italy (specifically Rode and Dodecanese), weren't given by Turkey, in fact, a Turkish state didn't exist at that time(Ottoman Empire) and those islands were given to the Italians in the Treaty of Sevres.
And I would also like to state that the islands had significant Greek population.
Alongside with that Greece was given the regions of Smyrna and Thrace (which is lost afterwards in the Asian minor disaster due to other reasons).

However, one needs only to read article 15 of the treaty to find that these isles were NOT included among the ones surrendered by Turkey.

Article 15 states only the Dodecanese, which were ceded to Italy. (Might I add that Turkey has claimed sovereignty over these islands in previous disputes, but they've been turned into light demilitarized zones.)

With this in mind, since Turkey still maintains sovereignty over them, it has every right to patrol them.

This is blatantly wrong. Since even Turkish authorities have claimed that the areas, were in fact, never retained under Turkish sovereignty in 1923.
Adding on to this:
Article 12
"[...] Except where a provision to the contrary is contained in the present Treaty, the islands situated at less than three miles from the Asiatic coast remain under Turkish sovereignty."

This is article 12 of the Treaty of Laussane. Imia/Kardak is situated right outside the 3 mile boundary.


Further on I'd like to mention that you are only focusing on the tiny islands of Imia/Kardak, which are, quite literally, empty. Thus, meaning that there is absolutely no population living there, neither any reason for both countries to claim them. This of course serves as a good excuse for Turkey to provoke Greece, as it always has (I believe its rather obvious that Turkey has an aggressive policy on its neighbours, as you've seen on the news these past few months). So, like I have said, it's quite foolish to use sovereignty as an argument since its clearly not the case. To expand on this, if Greece does indeed negotiate on these tiny rocks and maybe actually deliver them, who's to say that Turkey won't attempt to go after other, bigger pieces of rock?
But if you'd like to continue with this argument, there have been other, newer diplomatic dealings between Greece, Italy and Turkey regarding the Aegean.

As I have stated above, your one and sole argument is focusing on Imia/Kardak. Clearly those aren't the only islands/islets under dispute and definitely not the primary subject. (And I am pretty certain that 22 planes daily don't fit in such a small location).
So continuing on, I'm going to say that Turkey not only breaches national bounderies that have been set and agreed upon, but continues to violate Greek national airspace, which isn't just Imia/Kardak -as you've assumed- but other regions/provinces as well.
One of such examples being on the coast of Karpathos, in which Turkish military aircraft, which violated Greek airspace, and was not registered in the national FIR, engaged in a mock dogfight, resulting in the death of a Greek pilot and injury of the Turkish one.

I apologize for posting this late and for the lack of some sources(I'm certain books could make a legitimate source), but I'm currently on mobile posting this.

dsjpk5

Con

Thanks to my opponent for his speedy reply.

My opponent seems to waffle on his plagiarism in this round. On the one hand, he admits he plagiarized, but on the other hand, he claims he didn't pass it off as his own work. Maybe he isn't aware how the word "plagiarism" is defined. If so, I'm glad to clear up any confusion he may have:

pla"gia"rism
G2;plājəG6;rizəm/Submit
noun
the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. [3]

This should settle the issue.

REBUTTALS

Logical Fallacy

1. The vast majority of my opponent's argument in this round is based upon a logical fallacy, and as such, should be wholly rejected by the voters. The specific fallacy he is guilty of is one that is known as a "bare assertion". This happens when someone makes an argument, but doesn't support it with evidence. [4] In this case, my opponent argues Turkey has invaded Greece's airspace in places like Karpathos, for instance, but he offers ZERO evidence to support his claim. He also implies that Turkey violated the airspace of Rode and Dodecanese. He also says Turkey reonounced Imia and Kardak. Apparently, we're just supposed to take him at his word because he says so.

With this in mind, I ask the voters to reject such arguments as the baseless claims that they are.

Bait and Switch

2. My opponent also seems to have attempted a bait and switch. It is clear that when it came to my argument concerning the Treaty of Lausanne, I referred specifically to the isles of Imia/Kardak. I made no mention of any other islands. My argument is that Turkey never gave up sovereignty of these islands (see article 15) and therefore Greece has no right to accuse Turkey of violating their airspace. Unfortunately, my opponent has implied I was referring to some other islands, but I never did. Also, the three mile radius my opponent refers to in article 12 is irrelevant when it comes to the isles of Imia/Kardak since article 15 specifically says which islands Turkey renounced. Since Imia and Kardak were not specifically renounced, there is no reason to believe they were.

I now turn this debate back over to Pro. I look forward to reading his next argument.

Sources:

3. http://www.google.com...

4. http://www.toolkitforthinking.com...
Debate Round No. 3
JohnF.Kennedy

Pro

JohnF.Kennedy forfeited this round.
dsjpk5

Con

My opponent has forfeited this round despite having been online a few times over the past 72 hours. I can only presume it's because he is unable to refute my points. Either that, or he has joined the Greek Air Force.

I extend all my arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
JohnF.Kennedy

Pro

JohnF.Kennedy forfeited this round.
dsjpk5

Con

My opponent plagiarized, forfeited two rounds, and dropped many of my arguments as a result of these forfeits. With this in mind, I urge everyone to vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by JohnF.Kennedy 11 months ago
JohnF.Kennedy
Just a little update,

Erdogan seeks to revoke the Treaty of Lausanne, we should return back to Sevres and just annex the entirety of western Turkey anyways.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
I would like to thank my opponent for his valiant effort in rounds two and three. I wish him best of luck!
Posted by ssadi 1 year ago
ssadi
Dear JohnF.Kennedy,

In a debate, one should fill his/her BOP, no matter how short his/her arguments are.. If they fill, then it is done.

"That's too bad since only greek newspapers tend to report these situations."

Bare assertion!

How can we justify the authenticity of those reports?

I currently live in Turkey and there are reports for Greek violations of Turkish airspace from official military sources and in media.. One could reference Turkish newspapers and find you wrong. Two sources with completely opposite claims cannot be right at the same time.. Therefore, at least one is not right. Both sources report things in favor of their country, which makes them subjective and unreliable..

"Jesus christ, listen, I'm not really in the mood to argue again, I did forfeit two rounds in the end since I didn't have the time anyways, but please."

That still doesn't mean that Con didn't have a better conduct. You could at least write 1 or 2 short sentences that you will not be able to post due to lack of time.. Although that is also forfeiture, it is better than forfeiture by expiration of time.

"It's not that hard to assume that further treaties/deals were made after 1923,"

If it is not that hard to assume that further treaties/deals were made, then it wouldn't be hard to actually bring those treaties/deals up here. A voter votes according to what is presented, not what could be presented or assumed. For example, a person who claims 2+2=5 may win a debate for providing better arguments than his/her opponent. A voter has to vote accordingly, even if he/she knows that 2+2=5 is false.

Plus, it's not that hard to assume that further treaties/deals regarding the resolution were not made after 1923.. You see, both are easy to assume.. But in a debate you have to provide evidence to show which one is true.

"especially with a world war, a civil war, a coup d'etat and a cold war between that time period."

It was your responsibility to provide us w
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
I don't want to get into some giant flame war, so I'm going to keep my comments positive:

I think that was an excellent, thoughtful RFD.
Posted by JohnF.Kennedy 1 year ago
JohnF.Kennedy
" apogologize"
oh jesus i clearly can't spell at this time
Posted by JohnF.Kennedy 1 year ago
JohnF.Kennedy
"assume" was incorrect wording, i apogologize
Posted by JohnF.Kennedy 1 year ago
JohnF.Kennedy
mate, con hasn't even made an argument other than try to refute my point on imia/kardak

"1. The source, keeptalkinggreece.com, is not a reliable source for the subject, since it is a completely subjective source (in favor of Greece)."
That's too bad since only greek newspapers tend to report these situations.

"2. The information provided in the source are mere opinions of the writer with nickname "keeptalkinggreece","
It was merely an introduction.

"Greece unjustly tries to gain sovereignty over an isle that belongs to Turkey"
Jesus christ, listen, I'm not really in the mood to argue again, I did forfeit two rounds in the end since I didn't have the time anyways, but please. It's not that hard to assume that further treaties/deals were made after 1923, especially with a world war, a civil war, a coup d'etat and a cold war between that time period.
Posted by ssadi 1 year ago
ssadi
My RFD - [Part 1 of 2]

RESOLUTION & BOP

The resolution is a question about whether Turkish violations of Greek Airspace should be halted or not. This implies that, as Pro also tries to explain, Turkey IS violating Greek Airspace. Therefore the BOPs are as follows:

Pro has to show that (1) Turkey is violating Greek Airspace AND (2) provide reason that those violations should be halted.

Con has to show that EITHER Turkey is not violating Greek Airspace (hence no violation to be halted) OR even if there are violations, they should not be halted.

ARGUMENTS

ROUND 1

Con points out that Pro"s entire arguments in round 1 are copied from a webpage word-for-word without citation and Pro admits that, hence plagiarism. Furthermore, the source is not a reliable source for, at least, two reasons:

1. The source, keeptalkinggreece.com, is not a reliable source for the subject, since it is a completely subjective source (in favor of Greece).

2. The information provided in the source are mere opinions of the writer with nickname "keeptalkinggreece",

Since the materials are plagiarized and unreliable, then they cannot affirm the resolution.

ROUND 2

Pro argues that Turkey has violated Greece Airspace providing some sources, again subjective in favor of Greece. You can find opposite claims from Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Republic of Turkey here:

http://www.mfa.gov.tr...

I am trying to say that providing subjective sources in favor of one side is not a convincing argument. Con successfully points this out, by providing a source to Treaty of Lausanne, that Greece unjustly tries to gain sovereignty over an isle that belongs to Turkey. This source being an objective evidence for sovereignty of Turkey over Imia/Kardak shows that Turkey has full right to patrol Imia/Kardak.

***continue to part 2 below***
Posted by ssadi 1 year ago
ssadi
My RFD - [Part 2 of 2]

ROUND 3

Pro claims that Con"s arguments are not true. Con points out that Pro"s objections are bare assertions, which is apparently true since there are no evidence other than Pro"s words. Pro claims that according to Article 12 Imia/Kardak is under Greece"s sovereignty since it is outside 3 miles boundary. This is, too, a bare assertion that Imia/Kardak is outside the 3 miles boundary. In addition, Con points out that in Article 15 the names of islands that belong to Greece are listed explicitly where Imia/Kardak is not mentioned.

Pro forfeited rounds 4 & 5.

CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS

Pro plagiarized, used unreliable sources to support their claims, made bare assertions, hence provided no convincing arguments to affirm the resolution.

Con, on the other hand, in addition to successfully addressing and refuting all of Pro"s arguments, provided a strong and convincing argument (Article 15 of Treaty of Lausanne) which shows that Turkey is not violating Greek airspace. So, Con filled their BOP and the resolution is negated.

Therefore, I vote Con for better arguments.

CONDUCT

Pro plagiarized and forfeited 2 out of 5 rounds, therefore conduct goes to Con.

SOURCES

I would like to vote for sources as well because it was very important to use reliable sources for this debate.

As I discussed above, Pro plagiarized and used unreliable sources to support their claims.

Con, on the other hand, provided the most reliable source (of Treaty of Lausanne) to support their claim which sufficiently filled their BOP.

For these reasons, I vote Con for sources.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ssadi 1 year ago
ssadi
JohnF.Kennedydsjpk5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: My RFD are under comments: The first (posted) two comments. If you have any objection to my RFD, PM me about it please, so that I was directly notified. I can reconsider any point you object to.