The Instigator
STALIN
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Oromagi
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Stalin was the most influential leader of the 20th century (meaning he effected the world the most).

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...
Oromagi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,447 times Debate No: 39560
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

STALIN

Pro

If you accept this debate then please state your arguments. I will respond in the next round. Please state which leader in your opinion was more influential in your opinion.
Oromagi

Con

I'll accept and thank Pro for the opportunity to debate.

I. Thesis

A. Although Joseph Stalin was an undoubtedly influential figure in the history of the 20th Century, Pro overstates Stalin's influence by placing him at the top of the list of influential leaders. I contend that some leaders' legacies are more global and more enduring than Stalin's and so disprove Pro's argument.

II. Defining Influence

A. Merriam-Webster's defines influence as

: the power to change or affect someone or something : the power to cause changes without directly forcing them to happen [1]

1. If we accept this definition, Stalin must be considered at a disadvantaged position relative to leaders who relied on methods of persuasion beyond brute force. So much of Stalin's legacy is comprised of acts of naked aggression and oppression that by this definition Stalin is barely worth mentioning.

B. OED defines influence as

: the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself [2]

1. By this definition, Stalin is definitely in the running for influence on the history of the USSR, the propagation of Communism, and the outcome of WWII.

C. I'd be willing to consider other definitions offered by Pro in Round 2.

III. Defining Leader

A. Merriam-Webster's offers this definition of leader

:
a first or principal performer of a group [3]

1. By this definition, Stalin definitely drops down the list of influence. I think the case can be made, for example, that Freud had a more tangible impact on the everyday lives of people in the 20th Century than did Stalin. Time Magazine, in fact, placed Einstein at the top of their list of the 100 most influential people of the 20th Century. [4]

B. It is possible that Pro wishes to confine his argument to political leadership. By this definition, Stalin climbs the rankings, although he still has to contend with figures like Gandhi and John Paul II, particularly if we are employing the non-force definition of influence.

C. It is possible that Pro wishes to confine his argument to heads of state. By this definition, I think the non-force definition is pretty much excluded and Stalin is almost certainly in the top ten, although I still would not place him at the top of list of influential 20th Century head of state. Even confined to Russia, a good argument can be made that Lenin was a more charismatic influence on the Russian Revolution or that Gorbachev achieved more good for the Russian people by reversing the dictatorial model brought about by Stalin.

IV. More influential leader

A. I wish to emphasize that the burden of proof will be on Pro to supply evidence that Stalin was the most influential leader. By asking for another name, Pro may be trying share this burden by forcing Con to defend one individual reputation in contrast to Stalin. My job is only to refute Stalin as number one, not to endorse a single candidate. Nevertheless, the argument is made far less abstract on both sides by contrasting real personalities against Stalin. If we are going with a non-force argument, then I might nominate Freud or Gandhi as more influential than Stalin. But a more cogent debate might be had by simply offering Stalin's peer and rival, Winston Churchill. When one considers global influence and long-standing impact on the 20th Century, Churchill is undoubtedly a more significant figure than Stalin.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[4] http://content.time.com...
Debate Round No. 1
STALIN

Pro

I appreciate all of the definitions you gave.

You state several leaders who had considerable influence on world:

Gandhi: Ghandi was influential, but he was never the sole leader of India. Ghandi returned to India in 1915 and helped to overthrow the British in 1947. However he was not so influential because India broke up into two countries after the British left. Ghandi argued that Hindus and Muslims could live together in one country and other political leaders said that this was not possible. After much fighting, Gandhi's influence was not enough to keep the people together.

Freud: I do not know who he is but I looked him up. It is clear that he was influential only in sciences and the humanities. He was never really a leader.

Churchill: Churchill never spread much influence beyond his country. It is easy to prove that Churchill was not a more significant figure than Stalin. He was only the leader of Britain for a five years. And Stalin effected the lives of his people much more than Churchill effected the lives of his people.

- Stalin had huge influence. Not one other leader had such complete control over his people for so long. He spread his influence across Asia, Europe, and the globe. When Stalin first came to power, only the USSR was under the influence of Communism. After Stalin died, communism was spread globally and for many countries Stalin's ideology became a threat. He had more control over a larger part of the globe than any other leader of the 20th century. Stalin also transformed the Soviet Union more than other leaders transformed his country. From a poor agricultural country, the USSR became a global superpower. Hitler and Mao did not do this in the way Stalin did. Hitlers country ended in ruins and Mao never really made China into the equal of the USSR. No other leader of the 20th century transformed a country in the way Stalin did.

Sources:

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

http://www.cbv.ns.ca...

http://www.politicsforum.org...

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

Con


Sounds like Pro wants to go with heads of state and a definition of influence that includes the use of force. So I'll set Gandhi aside, except to say that Gandhi's influence was profound for non-violent movements like the American Civil Rights movement and the Myanmar Republic's recent reforms in response to Aung San Suu Kyi's non-violent dissidence, as well as the many British colonies who achieved independence after India.

I'll also set Freud aside except to say as the Father of Psychoanalysis, no other 20th century figure did more to popularize psychology. It is hard to imagine the ways our understanding of human personality and mental health would have evolved in the absence of Sigmund Freud's foundational thinking. Freud's work creates an essential context for massive bodies of human achievement in the 20th century- Art, Writing, Feminism and really all civil rights, Psychology, Sociology. This is not to say that Freud's work was itself so potent. Rather, the personality of the 20th Century is defined in so many ways by reaction and response to Freud. I expect Pro loses a bit of authority on the subject of the 20th Century simply by admitting he's never heard of Sigmund Freud.

I'm content to contrast Winston Churchill's influence against that of Joseph Stalin. If I can establish that Churchill had a greater effect on the character and development of the 20th Century than did Stalin, than Pro's thesis that Stalin was the MOST influential will be disproved.

Let's start out with a little experiment.

Search Joseph Stalin on Google= 5,020,000 results
Search Franklin D. Roosevelt on google= 18,000,000 results
Search Adolph Hitler on google= 30,400,000 results
Search Winston Churchill on google= 53,900,000 results

Hardly conclusive, but instructive for the purposes of gauging relative interest in the digital age. In the 5 and 6 decades since their deaths, 10 times as many web pages are referencing Winston Churchill than Stalin. If this was simply demonstrating English language bias or American bias (I'm sure both are a factor), we'd expect to Roosevelt hits to be close to Churchill. The truth is that Churchill was so impactful that it is difficult to discuss many modern geopolitical issues without summoning his name. It would be impossible to describe all of Churchill's lasting accomplishments in the space of 8,000 characters, so I'll only touch on a few of the major achievements.

*It should be noted that before entering politics in 1900, Churchill was already a celebrity, having fought as an officer in the Spanish, South African, and British armies in an astonishing number of engagements around the world: Afghanistan, Sudan, Transvaal, India and Cuba. His published books, newspaper and magazine articles describing these campaigns in vivid detail made him one of the most famous men in England.

*As Colonial Undersecretary in 1906, Churchill was the principle force in granting equal vote and political rights to both Britons and Boers in the formation of the Union of South Africa, essentially forming the Whites in/Blacks and Indians out fault line around which all South African politics evolved in the 20th Century. If half the white had been disenfranchised in 1906, South African politics would have been very different over the past 100 years.

*As President of the Board of Trade in 1909, Churchill authored the first universal minimum wage in history, set standards for Labor disputes and set up the National Labor Exchange, the British office of Unemployment.

*As British Home Secretary authored the National Insurance Act, which provided nearly universal health care and unemployment benefits.

*As First Lord of the Admiralty, Churchill was instrumental in converting British fleets from coal to oil just prior to WWI. He established the Royal Naval Air Service which later formed the basis for the world's first air force. Churchill is credited with defining the first practical application of tanks, developing, funding, and committing the first tanks used in warfare. (They are, in fact, called "tanks" because Churchill disguised the project as a vehicle for carrying water to the front lines). At the outset of WWI, Churchill ordered the seizure of two dreadnought battleships that Britain had built for the Ottoman Empire against the direct orders of his superiors. This incident became the deciding factor for the Ottoman Empire to ally with Germany and Austro-Hungary against the Triple Entente of Britain, France, and Russia. Without Churchill, the Ottoman Empire might never have entered the war, lost and then been carved up to form the modern Middle East. Churchill also ordered the disastrous invasion of Gallipoli which remains the most solemn and momentous event in the history of Austrailia and New Zealand.

*Resigning after Gallipoli, Churchill commanded the 6th Royal Scots battalion on the front lines in Belgium, to the astonished appreciation of many Brits.

*As Secretary of State for Air & War, Churchill oversaw the British intervention on behalf of the White Russian during the Russian Civil War, bombing Bolshevik ports and planes and supplying tanks.

*As Colonial Secretary, Churchill created the most effective force fighting the Irish Republican Army, the Black & Tans. He was one of the negotiators and signatories of the Anglo-Irish Treaty from which modern Ireland was created. At the same time, Churchill was in charge of re-organizing the Middle East after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. More than any other person, Churchill designed the shape of the modern Middle East. Churchill drew and enforced the borders of Palestine, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, and Iraq. Churchill decided whether Kurds were Iraqis or Kurdistanis. Churchill decided which Druze were Lebanese, or Palestinian, or Syrian. Churchill carved out Kuwait and placed it under British protection. Without Churchill, the Syrian Civil War might be very different or might not have taken place at all. Without Churchill, Saddam Hussein have had no reason to invade Kuwait sparking the Gulf and Iraq wars. Without Churchill support of Zionism, Jordan and Palestine would probably have been one state, making the creation of Israel impossible to imagine.

*As First Lord of the Admiralty again in 1939, Churchill demanded the British offensive into Norway and began his famous National Broadcasts that prepared and bolstered the nation for war.

*As Prime Minister and Minister of Defense mobilized English speaking peoples around the world for war against Germany and Japan. Here his influences are so many and so profound that hundreds of books are devoted to the subject. More than any other man, Churchill commuted Roosevelt and America to an anti-German position. More than any other man, Churchill preserved the Western flank against Germany until D-Day. After the war, Churchill and Stalin divided Europe, defined East and West Germany, modern Poland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. After the war, Churchill was the foremost opponent of Soviet Hegemony in Eastern Europe, giving speeches around the world that popularized the notions of Cold War, Iron Curtain, and a balance of force between superpowers.
Churchill encouraged Muslim separatists in India and jailed Hindu separatists during the war while allowing Muslim separatists to campaign, prefiguring the partitioning of India and the emergence of Pakistan. Through it all, Churchill wrote every day, maintained a journal, and authored 38 books, winning the Nobel Prize for Literature for his history of the Second World War. After the war, Churchill participated in the dismantling of the British Empire.

So, I'll refute that Churchill's influence was limited to 5 years in Great Britain. He was the leading light in British politics for nearly 50 years, and no other single person has drawn more international border lines or decided the fates of nationalities with a stroke of his pen.










Debate Round No. 2
STALIN

Pro

So you will argue that Winston Churchill's influence was greater than Stalin's.

"Let's start out with a little experiment.

Search Joseph Stalin on Google= 5,020,000 results
Search Franklin D. Roosevelt on google= 18,000,000 results
Search Adolph Hitler on google= 30,400,000 results
Search Winston Churchill on google= 53,900,000 results"

How many results you find on google doesn"t say anything. I typed "Battle of Stalingrad" into google and got 3,240,000 results. Then I type "D-Day" into google and get 5,160,000,000. Yet it is obvious that D-Day had no effect on the outcome of the war while Stalingrad was the most important battle of WWII as well as the turning point of the war. The reason you see so many results for Roosevelt, Churchill, and Hitler is because google is a western corporation. Also, many people don"t really see Stalin as being of any importance.

You also go into depth talking about how Churchill influenced different parts of the globe. All of what you said was correct; however you also miss out on several important details. Churchill may have been an officer in armies around the world and had a huge impact in many British colonies, yet he did not actually "build" the British Empire. He may have played an important role in WWI and WWII; however he had no effect on the outcome of these wars. Even though Churchill sent aid to help the whites during the Russian Civil War, this aid did not affect the outcome of the war since the reds still won.

You completely miss out on several negative aspects of Churchill"s influence. He was responsible for prolonging WWII and the destruction of the British Empire.

After Germany defeated France, they offered to make peace with Britain, yet Churchill refused to do so. And WWII was also what destroyed the British Empire. Churchill"s influence was not strong enough to make the people of Britain vote for him to continue being prime minister. On the other hand, most of the people of the USSR would probably have voted for Stalin if the same thing ever happened in the Soviet Union.

Stalin"s influence helped to form a new country. He helped the Bolsheviks take power and played a role in the Russian Civil War. However this was all minor. From 1925-1953, Stalin transformed the Soviet Union from a poor agricultural peasant society into a global superpower killing over 40 million people in the process. Stalin"s 5-year plans and collectivization helped some people, and killed others. Stalin played a more influential role in the outcome of WWII than Churchill ever did since most of the German forces were defeated on the eastern front. After the Second World War, Stalin had direct control over half of Europe as well as the Soviet Union. The Soviet invasion of Manchuria, the Kuril Islands, Outer Mongolia, and North Korea ensured that Communism would become the dominant power in eastern Asia and other parts of the continent. Stalin gave Manchuria to Mao Zedong and after the communists took power in China, sent aid to help Mao build his country. Stalin set the stage for the cold war and by the 1950"s Stalin"s influence stretched across the globe.
The people of the Soviet Union viewed Stalin as a god; this was how strong Stalin"s influence had become in his country. The people of Britain on the other hand simply viewed Churchill as another politician. Churchill may have influenced parts of Africa, the Middle East, and India, but this influence never lasted very long and had little effect on the course of history.
"After the war, Churchill was the foremost opponent of Soviet Hegemony in Eastern Europe, giving speeches around the world that popularized the notions of Cold War, Iron Curtain, and a balance of force between superpowers"
Many people gave speeches around the world, however words are simply words. Speeches may affect how people think, but they do not effect what people do.

"It should be noted that before entering politics in 1900, Churchill was already a celebrity, having fought as an officer in the Spanish, South African, and British armies in an astonishing number of engagements around the world: Afghanistan, Sudan, Transvaal, India and Cuba."

Churchill helped secure the British Empire. There were many other people who played an even more important role in building Britain"s empire. Churchill never conquered as much territory as Stalin did (as a matter of fact he didn"t really conquer any territories for the British since he was only an officer).

"As Colonial Undersecretary in 1906, Churchill was the principle force in granting equal vote and political rights to both Britons and Boers in the formation of the Union of South Africa, essentially forming the Whites in/Blacks and Indians out fault line around which all South African politics evolved in the 20th Century. If half the white had been disenfranchised in 1906, South African politics would have been very different over the past 100 years. As President of the Board of Trade in 1909, Churchill authored the first universal minimum wage in history, set standards for Labor disputes and set up the National Labor Exchange, the British office of Unemployment."

He granted equal votes to Britons and Boers in South Africa, a small colony. I do not understand how that is more influential than taking away votes altogether for a country of almost 200 million. Churchill affected a small unimportant colony which doesn"t really show Churchill as a more influential leader than Stalin. He was President of Board of Trade and authorized the first universal minimum wage in history. Yet that does not really show how Churchill was more influential.

"As First Lord of the Admiralty, Churchill was instrumental in converting British fleets from coal to oil just prior to WWI. He established the Royal Naval Air Service which later formed the basis for the world's first air force. Churchill is credited with defining the first practical application of tanks, developing, funding, and committing the first tanks used in warfare. (They are, in fact, called "tanks" because Churchill disguised the project as a vehicle for carrying water to the front lines). At the outset of WWI, Churchill ordered the seizure of two dreadnought battleships that Britain had built for the Ottoman Empire against the direct orders of his superiors. This incident became the deciding factor for the Ottoman Empire to ally with Germany and Austro-Hungary against the Triple Entente of Britain, France, and Russia. Without Churchill, the Ottoman Empire might never have entered the war, lost and then been carved up to form the modern Middle East. Churchill also ordered the disastrous invasion of Gallipoli which remains the most solemn and momentous event in the history of Australia and New Zealand."

Here you talk about how Churchill was instrumental in converting Britain"s fleets from coal to oil prior to WWI and how Churchill helped construct the world"s first air force. Stalin also established oil fields. Stalin also constructed an air force and that air force was by far the largest in history (in 1941 the Soviets had an air force larger than that of all other countries combined). Churchill was not any significant general in WWI and although he may have played a role in the Ottoman entry into the war, he did not really affect the outcome of the war.
Conclusion: Most of Stalin"s influence began to spread globally during and after WWII. The USSR saved Britain during the Second World War. At the same time as Stalin"s ideology became a global influence, Churchill as you said, "was giving speeches". It is also easy to prove that Hitler or Czar Nicholas II had more influence on the world than Churchill did.

*I wrote this in a word document and I'm not sure why your words did not come out italicized.
Oromagi

Con

How many results you find on google doesn't say anything.

Like I said, hardly conclusive. However, I find the results more compelling than Pro. We can agree that a Google search might reflect English language bias, Western Bias, corporate bias, etc. but we cannot simply dismiss those biases as unrepresentative of influence in the 20th century. English was the language of influence in the second half of the 20th century, Western democracies were the most influential states, Capitalism the most influential economic model. We can agree that the model contains biases and still find the results instructive. The reason you got lopsided results for D-day is because google is including results for the letter D and the word day. If you give each battle its proper name: the Invasion of Normandy and the Battle of Stalingrad, you get more balanced results:5,550,000 results vs. 5,630,000 results which still reflects Western bias but the Battle of Stalingrad gets the edge it deserves.

Also, many people don"t really see Stalin as being of any importance.

Interesting statement and one that deeply undermines your argument. How can Stalin be the MOST influential leader of the 20th Century, but many people don't see Stalin as being of any importance. By definition, a MOST influential leader must be considered of great importance to most people. Since many people don't think Stalin had any importance, he does not qualify as MOST influential.

[Churchill] did not actually "build" the British Empire.

Quite the opposite. More than any person, Churchill dismantled the British Empire, the single most important political state of the 19th Century. The choices Churchill made and the methods he used in that dismantling gave the 20th Century its shape.

[Churchill} played an important role in WWI and WWII; however he had no effect on the outcome of these wars.

Hmmm...Churchill is credited with inventing the tank and establishing the first air force. Are you saying that tanks and air forces had no effect on the outcome of WWI and WWII? Of course you aren't. Churchill provided the casus belli for the Ottoman Empire to enter the war on the Axis side during WWI. The implosion of the Middle east was an important outcome of WWI for which Churchill gets credit as both the cause of implosion and the arbiter of the resulting spoils of war. It might be overstatement to say that Britain would certainly have fallen without Churchill. However, it would not be overstatement to say that without Churchill there would be no Dunkirk. By sending a few thousand British soldiers on a suicide feint into Holland, Churchill bought time in which he could evacuate the core of the English army. If England had lost 300,000 soldiers in the opening months of the war, the possibility of invading England might have been irresistible. Without Churchill, there would be no strong English resistance in Egypt. Churchill famously flew to Cairo and fired the generals who wished to wage a defensive war in Egypt. British build up forced Rommel to attack and collapse at the Second Battle of El Alamein. Without El Alamein, Hitler would have cut off the Commonwealth, owned the Suez and created his route to Middle East oil. Therefore, Hitler would have no need to take Stalingrad or split off divisions into the Caucasus. Without Churchill, there would be no Stalingrad. Without Churchill, there would be no Battle of Kursk. I expect Russia would probably have survived even without these victories, but the outcome of the war is less certain.

You completely miss out on several negative aspects of Churchill"s influence. He was responsible for prolonging WWII and the destruction of the British Empire.

In fact, I consider much of Churchill's influence negative. Tanks and air forces are generally negative artifacts. Gallipoli is an appalling mistake. Forcing Israel into being in the Middle East has had lasting and terrible consequences world-wide. Churchill gets a big chunk of the blame for the Gulf War, the Iraq War, 4 Arab-Israeli wars, 3 India-Pakistan wars, etc. Negative influence is still influence. If we discount any of Stalin's influences that might be considered negative, we are left with no legacy at all. At least Churchill also began the first minimum wage and universal health insurance programs. At least Churchill also brokered peace treaties and peaceful solutions to many anti-colonial national independence movements. At least Churchill also authored great books and documented his perspective for history. If we remove paranoid violence from Stalin's legacy, we are left with a hole- virtually no legacy at all.

After Germany defeated France, they offered to make peace with Britain, yet Churchill refused to do so.

Considering Hitler's track record in maintaining peace treaties, Churchill's decision was the correct one for the preservation of England.

Churchill"s influence was not strong enough to make the people of Britain vote for him to continue being prime minister.

Churchill had to win 14 General Elections in order to maintain his 50 years in office; no small feat. Pro seems unaware that Churchill was elected to a second term as Prime Minister in 1951-55. Put another way, Churchill was a Member of Parliament carving up empires when Stalin was still a kid failing at Seminary school. Churchill was still a member of Parliament, still carving up empires for years after Stalin's death in 1953.

On the other hand, most of the people of the USSR would probably have voted for Stalin if the same thing ever happened in the Soviet Union.

Stalin said: "It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes." When the Soviets stood for election in 1937, they arrested all opposition members in two waves just before the election. Results? The Communist party were re-elected with 99.3% of the vote. If Stalin had wanted to find out how he might fare in a democratic election, he had several opportunities. Instead he arrested and/or killed any candidates who opposed him. By all accounts, Stalin was a uniquely uncharismatic man, and would not likely have maintained power in any democratic context.

Stalin played a more influential role in the outcome of WWII than Churchill ever did since most of the German forces were defeated on the eastern front.

The point of influence is debatable. There is no debating that Russians bore the major burdens of WWII and that Stalingrad and Kursk were the turning points of the war. If we were debating which leader won WWII, Pro might have a better chance here. However, we are debating most influential 20th Century figure. Both Stalin and Churchill were major victors of WWII. Both were architects of the Cold War. But Churchill was also a victor in WWI. And Churchill was also an architect of WWII, in as much as his policies guaranteed Japanese expansion, American involvement, German confinement. And Churchill was also an architect of all Middle Eastern politics since WWI. And Churchill was also an architect of the post-colonial emergence of Africa and Asia. And Churchill was also an architect of 20th Century liberal social policy.

Here's one measure of the difference in influence.

Stalin died of a stroke in 1953, probably after ingesting rat poison provided by Lavrentiy Beria. His death was slow and probably preventable. He lay in a puddle of his own urine for a full day before anybody had the courage to enter his bedchambers and find out why he had not emerged. It took another twelve hours to find a doctor willing to take the political risk of examining Stalin. Once Kruschev emerged as the new Premier, he immediately began a process of de-Stalinization since clearly a correction was needed.
A legacy of fear and violence is unpleasant to behold.

Unlike Stalin, Churchill was surrounded by friends and family at his death. Churchill received the largest state funeral in history. Unlike Stalin, Churchill's legacy and laurels increased rather than decreased after his death. No correction was required.




Debate Round No. 3
STALIN

Pro

Well there should be like 10 times as many results for Battle of Stalingrad as there would be for Normandy Invasion.

WWI and WWII
Who cares if Churchill was responsible for the construction of tanks or if he refused to give in to Germany in WWII. The fact remains that Churchill never did much to effect the actual outcome of those wars.

"Interesting statement and one that deeply undermines your argument. How can Stalin be the MOST influential leader of the 20th Century, but many people don't see Stalin as being of any importance. By definition, a MOST influential leader must be considered of great importance to most people. Since many people don't think Stalin had any importance, he does not qualify as MOST influential."

My point was that many people don't see Stalin as being important because they don't know much about him.

" If England had lost 300,000 soldiers in the opening months of the war, the possibility of invading England might have been irresistible. Without Churchill, there would be no strong English resistance in Egypt."

As a matter of fact, Britain and France lost 2.2 million soldiers in France alone. And the reason Britain survived was not because Churchill successfully evacuated 300,000 men at Dunkirk, but because Hitler made the mistake of switching from bombing RAF airfields when Britain was down to its last breath and would have lost in the Battle of Britain to bombing cities. In this case, I say that Hitler played the influential role. Britain's fate was decided by Hitler's choices, not Churchill's. And even if the soldiers at Dunkirk had not been evacuated, Hitler would still have had to destroy the RAF.

"Churchill famously flew to Cairo and fired the generals who wished to wage a defensive war in Egypt."

Churchill fired generals, Stalin purged them. I would say that Stalin purging 8 of his best marshals and replacing them with political personnel he could trust before WWII even began was more influential in the war because this decision almost lost Russia the war.

"British build up forced Rommel to attack and collapse at the Second Battle of El Alamein. Without El Alamein, Hitler would have cut off the Commonwealth, owned the Suez and created his route to Middle East oil. Therefore, Hitler would have no need to take Stalingrad or split off divisions into the Caucasus. "

Actually Hitler was already fighting at Stalingrad and in the Caucuses at the same time that the battle of El Alamein was going on. Hitler would still have attacked Stalingrad even if he did not capture the Middle Eastern oil fields because he wanted the wipe the city of Stalin of the face of the earth; it would have been a political victory, but not a strategic victory.
Stalingrad does not contain oil, the Caucus Oil Fields do and Hitler put more effort into capturing Stalingrad than he did into taking the Caucus Oil fields and winning at El Alamein combined.

"Without Churchill, there would be no Stalingrad. Without Churchill, there would be no Battle of Kursk. I expect Russia would probably have survived even without these victories, but the outcome of the war is less certain."

Without Churchill, Hitler would still have wanted to capture Stalingrad. If the Soviets won the battle then the Battle of Kursk would still have happened.

"Churchill gets a big chunk of the blame for the Gulf War, the Iraq War, 4 Arab-Israeli wars, 3 India-Pakistan wars, etc. "

These wars were more like minor engagements than what happened on the eastern front. Stalin's decisions effected the outcome of the war in the east and the war in the war in the east determined whether Germany would have the empire that Hitler believed was Germany's destiny to have.

"Pro seems unaware that Churchill was elected to a second term as Prime Minister in 1951-55."

I am well aware of this. Still, Stalin was the dictator of the USSR for 28 years while Churchill was Prime Minister for only 9 years.

"...Churchill was a Member of Parliament carving up empires..."

And where are these empires today? The Soviets Union may have collapsed in 1991, but Ukraine and other former Soviet states still largely depend on Russia. The Soviet Union and the effects of Stalin are still largely intact.

"Stalin died of a stroke in 1953, probably after ingesting rat poison provided by Lavrentiy Beria. His death was slow and probably preventable."

Stalin only died from stroke, rat poison never played a role in Stalin's death. Lavrentiy Beria was a coward who never questioned Stalin's orders. Where would he suddenly get the courage of risking his life to kill Stalin. Stalin died from stroke.

"Stalin said: "It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes." When the Soviets stood for election in 1937, they arrested all opposition members in two waves just before the election. Results? The Communist party were re-elected with 99.3% of the vote."

I was talking about had the Soviet people voted for him in 1953, sorry I did not make myself clear.

"Unlike Stalin, Churchill was surrounded by friends and family at his death. Churchill received the largest state funeral in history."

Stalin was also surrounded by Communist friends even though he did kill some of them. Stalin's influence was so strong that he made the millions of people who was not being sent to the gulag or starved to death think that he was their friend.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I will rank Churchill's influence with Hitler's influence. Stalin's influence was greater. The outcome of WWII was decided by Stalin, especially if you consider the fact that 80% of the German Wehrmacht was destroyed in the east. Although it was Stalin who almost lost the war, it was his decisions that also won the war in the end. Had Stalin not made the decision of putting his marshals in command in late 1941 and making all of the civilians of the USSR join the red army, Germany would most likely have won in the east and after doing so, crush Britain. After that, the United States would most likely have lost WWII against the axis powers. Hitlers thousand year Reich would have become a reality. Had there been no Stalin in charge of the Soviet Union, there would probably have been no Churchill in charge of Britain by 1942. Although there may have been another leader who could have successfully defeated Hitler, that leader never took power. It was Stalin who shaped the globe while Churchill was wondering if Britain would survive another month. If Stalin had not been there then the two superpowers today would probably not be China and the USA, but Germany and Japan.
Oromagi

Con

STALIN
Well there should be like 10 times as many results for Battle of Stalingrad as there would be for Normandy Invasion.

Oromagi
We agree that the Battle of Stalingrad was the Second World War's turning point. Perhaps it highlights the influence of Western democracies like the UK and the US that google results don't reflect the importance of Stalingrad, and by extension, the influence of Western leaders like Churchill. Churchill, after all, wrote an important history of the Second World War for which he won the Nobel Prize. History is written by the victors. The USSR, the US, and the UK were victors after WWII, but the USSR lost the Cold War. Would the USSR been more enduring without the apocalyptic policies of Stalin? The answer is at least possibly yes.

STALIN
Who cares if Churchill was responsible for the construction of tanks or if he refused to give in to Germany in WWII?

Oromagi
History cares. History is very interested in the influence of tanks on 20th Century warfare, even if Pro is not. History notes that Hitler's biggest error was fighting a war on two fronts and Churchill gets the lion share of the credit for maintaining one arm of that vise.

STALIN
The fact remains that Churchill never did much to effect the actual outcome of those wars.

Oromagi
The New York Times would beg to differ:

"He was the linchpin of the Grand Alliance of 26 nations that vanquished the Axis powers in 1945 after nearly six years of war. "

The Queen of England would beg to differ:

"the survival of this country and the sister nations of the Commonwealth, in the face of the greatest danger that has ever threatened them, will be a perpetual memorial to his leadership."

Hitler would beg to differ:

In May 1941, there was a significant decline in the German air raids on Great Britain, because the bombers were needed in the East. The Wehrmacht invaded the Soviet Union six weeks later.

What a compliment! Hitler believed that it was easier to conquer Moscow instead of London. Shortly before his demise in 1945, Hitler complained that Churchill was the "real father of this war."

https://www.google.com...

STALIN

many people don't see Stalin as being important because they don't know much about him.

Oromagi
Another important aspect of influence. Although people can be influenced by someone they've never heard of (Freud's influence on Pro, for example), influence is substantially increased when people feel compelled to learn about a figure. Pro's argument continues to crumble.

STALIN
As a matter of fact, Britain and France lost 2.2 million soldiers in France alone.

Oromagi
Looks like Pro is quoting WWI casualty figures. Total British losses including colonies in all campaigns during the Second World War are estimated at 450,000.

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

STALIN
the reason Britain survived was not because Churchill successfully evacuated 300,000 men at Dunkirk, but because Hitler made the mistake of switching from bombing RAF airfields when Britain was down to its last breath and would have lost in the Battle of Britain to bombing cities. In this case, I say that Hitler played the influential role. Britain's fate was decided by Hitler's choices, not Churchill's.

Oromagi
Which is just another way of saying that the RAF, invented by Churchill in WWI, commanded by Churchill in WWII, successfully defended Britain. Don't forget about Britain's formidable Navy, also modernized and commanded by Sir Winston. That said, the loss of Dunkirk would probably have been meant the UK's acquiescence. Ian Kershaw, one of the foremost authorities on Hitler and the Third Reich, expects that the UK would have sued for peace if the men at Dunkirk had been taken. He believes that Hitler's first condition would have been the resignation of Churchill:

http://www.laphamsquarterly.org...

STALIN
Churchill fired generals, Stalin purged them. I would say that Stalin purging 8 of his best marshals and replacing them with political personnel he could trust before WWII even began was more influential in the war because this decision almost lost Russia the war.

Oromagi
Point for Mr. Churchill then, wouldn't you say? Firing generals rather than slaughtering them is clearly the more influential choice. Yes, killing a man is one kind of influence. But preserving a man and using his achievements to forward your goals is at once more difficult and more effective.

STALIN
Hitler was already fighting at Stalingrad and in the Caucuses at the same time that the battle of El Alamein was going on. Hitler would still have attacked Stalingrad even if he did not capture the Middle Eastern oil fields because he wanted the wipe the city of Stalin of the face of the earth; it would have been a political victory, but not a strategic victory.

Oromagi
El Alamein began on July 1st; Stalingrad on Aug 23rd. The British won El Alamein on Nov. 11, Paulus surrendered at Stalingrad on Jan 31, 1943. We can agree that Hitler's focus on occupying Stalingrad was disproportional to its importance for any oil transport from the Caucasus. However, by the Summer of '42, oil was Germany's Achilles heel. Hitler had two roads to oil- take the Middle East or the Caucasus. Hitler hoped that the Rommel would meet List in Persia by the end of the summer. If Rommel had taken the Suez, Germany could have reinforced Army Group B at Stalingrad with Army Group A who was racing south to secure the oil fields before winter. Yes, Hitler could have and should have withdrawn from the stalemate of Stalingrad, but Stalingrad was the narrow point between the Don and Volga rivers. Giving up Stalingrad meant withdrawing behind the Don, which meant cutting off the Caucasus for another winter. As Hitler said after El Alamein, "If I do not get the oil of Maikop and Grozny then I must finish this war." Churchill put it better: " Before Alamein we never had a victory. After Alamein, we never had a defeat."

<a href=http://upload.wikimedia.org...; />


STALIN
Without Churchill, Hitler would still have wanted to capture Stalingrad.

Oromagi
Agreed, but he would not have needed to capture Stalingrad.

STALIN
[the Gulf War, the Iraq War, 4 Arab-Israeli wars, 3 India-Pakistan wars, etc.] were more like minor engagements than what happened on the eastern front.

Oromagi
Pro misses the point. At issue here is lasting influence. Long after Churchill and Stalin are dead, many wars are still fought over lines that Churchill drew, nationalities that Churchill defined. The same cannot be said of Stalin, except perhaps for the Chechen uprising.

STALIN
Still, Stalin was the dictator of the USSR for 28 years while Churchill was Prime Minister for only 9 years.

Oromagi
I have already demonstrated that Churchill was the most potent force in British politics for 55 years, in and out of office, in and out of favor.

STALIN
Stalin only died from stroke, rat poison never played a role in Stalin's death. Lavrentiy Beria was a coward who never questioned Stalin's orders.

Oromagi
We may never know for certain, but the Beria rat poison theory continues to gain momentum:

http://www.nytimes.com...

According to Kruschev, Beria boasted of the murder 2 months after Stalin's death.

STALIN
Stalin was also surrounded by Communist friends even though he did kill some of them. Stalin's influence was so strong that he made the millions of people who was not being sent to the gulag or starved to death think that he was their friend.

Oromagi
Stalin had no friends at the end. A man with his hand on the nuclear trigger, but not one person dared to check up on him for 14 hours. The fear and genocide of dictators is a kind of influence, but they lack the enduring influence of intellectual and inspirational achievement.

Out of space! I'll address Pro's summation in my closing argument.


Debate Round No. 4
STALIN

Pro

"History cares. History is very interested in the influence of tanks on 20th Century warfare, even if Pro is not. History notes that Hitler's biggest error was fighting a war on two fronts and Churchill gets the lion share of the credit for maintaining one arm of that vise."

Churchill constructed tanks, Stalin constructed tanks, Hitler constructed tanks. Churchill constructed planes, Stalin constructed planes, Hitler constructed planes. The only difference is that you claim that Churchill began building planes and tanks first. Britain constructed tanks and planes first. Germany exploited the abilities of the tank and planes the most. Russia built the most tanks and planes. You simply claim that since Churchill ordered tanks and planes built first that this supports your argument about Churchill being more influential. And Hitler never really fought a war on two fronts until 1944, 11 months before the end of the war. I do not count Africa and Italy as a second front, they were more like minor conflicts compared to the eastern front. Germany sent most of their men to the east until the allies invaded France.

You seem to have found some quotes to support your case on Britain playing a major role in defeating Germany.

However Ribbentrop says otherwise.
Ribbentrop claims that the three main reasons for Germany's defeat were:
Unexpectedly stubborn resistance from the Soviet Union.
The large-scale supply of arms and equipment from the US to the Soviet Union, under the lend-lease agreement.
The success of the Western Allies in the struggle for air supremacy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk...
And out of those three reasons, Britain played an important role in only one, the struggle for air supremacy. The US did more during the bombings of Germany than Britain. In addition to this, Britain would not survived had America not sent supplies during 1940 and 1941 to help Britain. Britain never had more than 40 divisions. http://www.world-war-2.info... I would rate the role of Britain in defeating Germany at 5-6%.

"Another important aspect of influence. Although people can be influenced by someone they've never heard of (Freud's influence on Pro, for example), influence is substantially increased when people feel compelled to learn about a figure. Pro's argument continues to crumble."

Most people don't know much about Hitler either besides the fact that he was the leader of Germany and killed Jews. Most people don't know much about Churchill besides the fact that he was the leader of Britain. I live on the west coast of the US and went to school in America. All that was ever mentioned about Churchill was that he was the leader of Britain during WWII. So although you might be able to find many websites about Churchill online, you can find few people in the world who actually know that much about Churchill and his influence.

"Looks like Pro is quoting WWI casualty figures. Total British losses including colonies in all campaigns during the Second World War are estimated at 450,000."

By "lost" I meant that Britain and France "lost" (killed/captured by Germany) 2.2 million men in France.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Which is just another way of saying that the RAF, invented by Churchill in WWI, commanded by Churchill in WWII, successfully defended Britain. Don't forget about Britain's formidable Navy, also modernized and commanded by Sir Winston. That said, the loss of Dunkirk would probably have been meant the UK's acquiescence. Ian Kershaw, one of the foremost authorities on Hitler and the Third Reich, expects that the UK would have sued for peace if the men at Dunkirk had been taken. He believes that Hitler's first condition would have been the resignation of Churchill"

In the end, Hitler and his allies would have defeated Britain, sooner or later. Hitler ordered Operation Sealion to be postponed indefinitely on September 17, 1940 although the invasion could have gone alone: the only question would be whether it would succeed. Germany definitely had the numbers even though the RAF had not been destroyed so it stood a good chance of a successful invasion. http://en.wikipedia.org... However Hitler postponed Sealion indefinitely for several reasons. 1)The invasion of Britain would result in heavy losses for Germany. 2)Hitler believed that Britain was already defeated and would collapse within a matter of time; German submarines he believed would starve England soon. 3)Hitler believed that Britain's only hope of surviving was the USA and Russia. America was a country led by "blacks and Jews". Russia on the other hand had invaded parts of Romania and was 100 miles away from Germany's only supply of oil. So Hitler believed that with the successful defeat of Russia, the war would be won. So instead of sending 4 million men to finish off Britain in Africa and later invade Britain, Hitler ordered those 4 million men to prepare for Operation Barbarossa. This is an example of the way Stalin and Stalin's decisions saved Britain and possibly the world.

"Point for Mr. Churchill then, wouldn't you say? Firing generals rather than slaughtering them is clearly the more influential choice. Yes, killing a man is one kind of influence. But preserving a man and using his achievements to forward your goals is at once more difficult and more effective. "

Did Churchill ever hire those generals again? Churchill firing his generals is influential because it helped Britain win the war. Stalin purging his generals is also just as influential because it resulted in the failed Soviet invasion of Finland and Germany almost completely destroying the Soviet Union.

'As Hitler said after El Alamein, "If I do not get the oil of Maikop and Grozny then I must finish this war." Churchill put it better: " Before Alamein we never had a victory. After Alamein, we never had a defeat."'

Hitler said that, however Hitler never acted that way. He believed that the war could still be won even after the Soviets and Western Allies were at the gates of Berlin. Churchil said that, however it was definitely not true. Was the Battle of Britain not a British victory? Was Operation Compass not a British victory? http://en.wikipedia.org...
I would say that both the Battle of Britain and Operation Compass were larger victories than the Battle of El Alamein.

"Agreed, but he would not have needed to capture Stalingrad."

Hitler never needed to capture Stalingrad, he only needed the oil-fields. Hitler only decided to try taking Stalingrad because it was the "city of Stalin", capturing the city would be a great political victory for Hitler.

"Pro misses the point. At issue here is lasting influence. Long after Churchill and Stalin are dead, many wars are still fought over lines that Churchill drew, nationalities that Churchill defined. The same cannot be said of Stalin, except perhaps for the Chechen uprising."

And Stalin's Eastern Front shaped the globe. There are conflicts everywhere in the world and there are many of them.

Conclusion: Anyway I am reaching max characters so I will conclude here. Stalin influenced the shape of the globe. Churchill influenced a few colonies. Churchill helped develop the first tanks and planes. Stalin built some of the best tanks and planes, most powerful, and in the largest numbers. Stalin built the largest army in history and his decisions, both correct and incorrect ones were decisive in WWII.

Please vote for PRO!
Oromagi

Con

I promised to address Pro's closing remarks in round 4, so I'll start there. For 4 rounds, the thrust of Pro's argument has been that Stalin is the principle victor of WW2, and therefore the most influential leader of the 20th Century. We can agree that the USSRs' victory in WW2 has been underplayed by the West without necessarily promoting Stalin to most influential. First, WWII was an essential event of the 20th Century, but not the only event. In terms of one war's impact on art, literature, culture, & politics I would argue that the first world war was more seminal than the second. Second, military victory is not in itself influence. We can agree that George Bush Sr.'s military victories were more significant than Ronald Reagan's without implying that Bush was the more influential. Third, Pro cannot discount Churchill in WW2 because Hitler thrust the crisis upon him while simultaneously lauding Stalin for enduring similar circumstance. In truth, Churchill gets the better part of credit in such a comparison because, unlike Stalin, Churchill did not beg to join Hitler in the Axis alliance.

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


STALIN

Churchill constructed tanks, Stalin constructed tanks...Churchill constructed planes, Stalin constructed planes... You simply claim that since Churchill ordered tanks and planes built first that this supports your argument about Churchill being more influential.

Oromagi

Churchill invented tanks. He's the reason tanks are called "tanks". In fact, he declined the opportunity to place his name on the patent. Churchill is the military leader who said, let's put a gun and some armour on a tractor chassis and see what it can do against barbed wire. When Stalin deployed tanks he was following in Churchill's footsteps 20 years later. As an early pilot himself, Churchill was the first military leader to employ airplanes in a wide range of tactics. As first Lord of the Admiralty, he directed the construction of the first aircraft carriers, the first planes used against submarines. When Stalin deployed planes 20 years later, he was following in Churchill's footsteps.


STALIN

Hitler never really fought a war on two fronts until 1944.


Oromagi

So, Pro does not count the Battle of Britain, the Battle of Norway, the Battle of the Atlantic, the Battle of the Mediterranean, the Battle of North Africa, the Invasion of Italy, the Battle of Greece, strategic bombing of the Rhine including the massive destruction in Hamburg & Cologne, Lend-Lease, espionage, and sabotage in his history of WW2. I can see why Stalin looms so large in Pro's revised history of the war, although I think any serious historian would be appalled by such a profoundly limited perspective. John Keegan, for example, cites the Battle of Greece as the turning point in the war since it forced Germany to delay Operation Barbarossa by critical weeks that allowed winter weather to prevent the fall of Leningrad and Moscow.


STALIN


You seem to have found some quotes to support your case on Britain playing a major role in defeating Germany.

Nope, that's Pro's particular obsession. My argument is that Churchill is more influential than Stalin, so I quoted the New York Times, Queen Elizabeth II, and Adolph Hitler giving Churchill the primary credit for victory in WW2. I edited out similar credit from JFK and Reagan to save space. Churchill's influence on the Allies went far beyond Britain's military participation.

STALIN

I live on the west coast of the US and went to school in America. All that was ever mentioned about Churchill was that he was the leader of Britain during WWII. So although you might be able to find many websites about Churchill online, you can find few people in the world who actually know that much about Churchill and his influence.

Oromagi

Interesting fact: There are 12 American high schools named after Winston Churchill. Roosevelt has 10. Stalin? Zero.

STALIN

By "lost" I meant that Britain and France "lost" (killed/captured by Germany) 2.2 million men in France.

Oromagi

Since we discussing the achievement at Dunkirk, a highly distorting figure. By including the number for all French (especially 1.5 million French captured), Belgians, Poles, and Brits killed, wounded, or captured Pro makes it seem as if Dunkirk only salvaged 3/22nds of the British Expeditionary Force when 2 out of every 3 British soldiers were actually rescued. Of the 2.2 million number cited by Pro, only 68,000 Brits were killed, wounded, or captured (using Pro's source).

STALIN

This is an example of the way Stalin and Stalin's decisions saved Britain and possibly the world.

Oromagi

Well, let's not delude ourselves regarding Stalin's intent. Stalin never saved anybody from anything. If Stalin thought he could have successfully invaded and enslaved Western Europe or China or the United States after the war, he would have done so. Stalin was every bit the bloodsoaked, power mad, conquering tyrant Hitler was, probably more.

STALIN

Did Churchill ever hire those generals again?

Oromagi

In a wartime democracy? Of course. Auchinleck and his staff were re-assigned to India where they remained until Indian Independence.


STALIN


Hitler never needed to capture Stalingrad, he only needed the oil-fields.

Oromagi

Pro ignores my point (and map) showing that Stalingrad controls the Don. If the Russians held Stalingrad, German forces in the Caucasus would be cut off and/or forced to withdraw behind the Don for another winter. Since Hitler knew he had to have oil before winter or lose the war, Stalingrad was a must.

STALIN

Pro concludes by saying: Stalin built the largest army in history and his decisions, both correct and incorrect ones were decisive in WWII.

Oromagi

So much of this debate has had the character of Churchill vs. Stalin: who won WWII that we need to take a breath and remember the discussion at hand is whether Stalin was the most influential leader of the 20th Century. Although I have used Churchill as a foil, and that's been fun, Churchill is only one example of a leader who was more influential than Stalin: Einstein, Freud, Turing, FDR, Gandhi, MLK are a few who might make a similar claim.

Unlike Stalin, Churchill's legacy continues to unfold, even today. Churchill supported Alan Turing when the British Army wouldn't, leading to the invention of the first computer. When John Kerry met with Iranian diplomats this week, Churchill's ghost was at the table because he took Iran's oil in the 1930's and helped replace Iran's president in 1953. As the U.S. rolls out Obamacare, Churchill's ghost reminds us how he funded universal health care 100 years ago. As the U.S. Government sues BP over the Gulf Spill, Churchill's ghost is in the courtroom because he assembled the small group of lords who bought Burmah oil, then gave it the Persian oil that made British Petroleum. When Stanley McChristal considers how best to restore Autonomy, he consults Churchill.

Stalin's influence cannot be denied, but his influence is the legacy of many brutes: death and destruction. It does not take that much talent to be a paranoid mass murderer. Stalin was the man on top, but his role might have been played by many others. If J. Edgar Hoover been born in Russia and had a similar chance at power, would he have governed any differently? Probably not. Stalin's influence is similar to Hitler's in that both men assumed control of a small group of political radicals, took autocratic control by force and propaganda and secret police and personality cult and led their countries into hell. Only Stalin rivals Hitler in the ranks of leaders responsible for the deaths of tens of millions. Before his death, Lenin dictated his testament urging the Communist Party to reject Stalin and remove him from power, a document Stalin suppressed. As soon as Kruschev took power after Stalin's power, he led the USSR in the process of de-Stalinization. Stalin's closest political allies rejected him before he took power and rejected him again as soon as he was gone, his influence fading ever since.




Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Artur 3 years ago
Artur
later, I will read it, but I want to contribute now:

the cold war, among the USSR and the USA, among the west and the east, among capitalism and communism, and e.t.c is founded by Churchil, Churchill started cold war, I think this maybe the biggest effect in 20th century.

I think, Churchil was more influential(effected world more than Stalin, now among my favorites and at the time I have free time, I will read)
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
I will respont tomorrow.
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
I was beginning to think that you wouldn't post:D Nice last minute round.
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
I'm glad you liked the debate. I am very interested in the history of WWII and the Soviet Union. Although I may be wrong about Stalin being the most influential leader of the 20th century, I will try to have strong support for my claim. Also, I will respond tomorrow Orogami. I do not have enough time today.
Posted by SloppyJoe6412 3 years ago
SloppyJoe6412
This is truly a fascinating debate, and I'm kicking myself for not seeing it in time to take part of it.

I hope the debaters focus on -or at least review- practical results, i.e. where Russia was before Stalin, where it was after him, where it is now and what its historical evolution has been. And the same should be applicable to any other candidate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by SloppyJoe6412 3 years ago
SloppyJoe6412
STALINOromagiTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is a more thorough, more articulated debater. However his position is intrinsically weak -his proof is essentially anglo-centric opinions of anglo writers and politicians. While pro is not a very convincing debater, he happens to be sitting in the right seat.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
STALINOromagiTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Very close debate. Ultimately I agreed with the Con that if most people do not know anything about Stalin, he is most likely not the most influential leader of the 20th century.