The Instigator
TacoStand22
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheRussian
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Nabisco-Russia Conspiracy is True

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 2/5/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 583 times Debate No: 86079
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)

 

TacoStand22

Pro

In this argument, I will attempt to prove that Russian Chancellor Vledimir Putin, known for his efforts to restore greatness to Russia, and his government are clandestinely working with the American corporation Nabisco. The idea seems absolutely absurd, which is why it has managed to fly under the radar until recently. However, there is an abundance of evidence for this conspiracy.

According to the New York Times, "RJR [Nabisco], while also known for such food brands as Ritz crackers and Oreo cookies, derives about two-thirds of its profits from tobacco. Its cigarette sales in Russia and the rest of the former Soviet Union had been running at an impressive rate in the first half of the year, close to 20 percent of international profits, said Emanuel Goldman, a tobacco and beverage analyst with Paine Webber in San Francisco. Last year, the company's sales there accounted for 15 percent of international profits and represented 42 percent of international volume." As you can see, tobacco sales in Russia are a major source of revenue for Nabisco. As a result, Putin's recent efforts to dramatically decrease smoking in Russia (http://www.themoscowtimes.com...) should present a major issue for them.

Meanwhile, Russia has been facing major economic issues since its loss to the United States in the Cold War in 1991. These problems have been widely cited as the motive for Russia's invasion of the nation Ukraine in 2014.
Below are some articles discussing this continued economic decline:
- https://www.washingtonpost.com...
- http://www.businessinsider.com...
- http://www.dw.com...

These economic problems have hit Russia where it really hurts: its military. 4 years ago, Russia could hardly have accomplished such an invasion as demonstrated in Ukraine. Now, Russia's military is undergoing some major development. (http://www.nationalinterest.org...) Here, it is even listed as the second-strongest military in the world as of right now: http://www.globalfirepower.com.... So Russia's military problems have been inexplicably solved, while Nabisco's stocks have gone up over the past three years.

Some have come to believe there is a correlation here. A new conspiracy theory postulates that, in exchange for military funding, Russian Chancellor Vledimir Putin used his control over the Russian media to advertise Nabisco products (other than tobacco, of course). Now, Russians make up 2-3% of all internet usage worldwide on average, putting them in sixth place out of all countries for this statistic. For comparison, Russia comprises roughly 2% of the world's population. (http://www.internetlivestats.com...) This goes to show how important of a factor the Internet is in modern Russia. Putin-related or Russia-related material on the Internet will be seen by nearly everyone in the nation. This is the genius of this idea. There is no doubt that Vledimir Putin is very self-aware. During the entire duration of his position as Chancellor so far, he has managed to portray himself as a very powerful, intimidating individual through propaganda. This includes making clever use of the Internet.

Vledimir Putin is using his image to promote arguably the most popular Nabisco product in America, Nabisco's home nation. These are clever tactics being employed by both Nabisco and Putin.

Here, we have the final piece of evidence, the one that ties all of these questions and facts together, and validates the previous claim:
http://livedoor.blogimg.jp...
TheRussian

Con

I thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate. It's not every day that my username brings such interesting topics to the table.

I would like to note that for this debate, my opponent has sole BoP.

There are several comments my opponent makes in regards to the Russian military with which I disagree, but that is a debate for another day.

"...tobacco sales in Russia are a major source of revenue for Nabisco. As a result, Putin's recent efforts to dramatically decrease smoking in Russia should present a major issue for them."
Does this not go against your own claim? If Putin was collaborating with Nabisco, why would so much emphasis be put on stopping smoking? It seems that my opponent's second paragraph shows the exact opposite of what he/she is trying to prove in this debate.

"...Putin used his control over the Russian media to advertise Nabisco products (other than tobacco, of course)."
I request a source for this claim. And even if this is so, why not advertise tobacco as well?

"Vledimir Putin is using his image to promote arguably the most popular Nabisco product in America, Nabisco's home nation. "
I request a source for this claim as well. Also, what product are you referring to here?

"So Russia's military problems have been inexplicably solved"
What exact problems are you referring to?

Overall, the only real evidence I see in my opponent's argument that suggest that this conspiracy is true is that:
1. The Russian military has been growing actively in recent times.
2. Nabisco stocks have also increased.

I feel that my opponent is going to have to present much more information to get anywhere close to proving that the two are related in any way. Russian increase in military size and quality is simply due to increased spending as a result of the international tensions, primarily between Russia and the US.

I curiously await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 1
TacoStand22

Pro

I agree that only I have burden of proof for this debate.

Let's take a look at my opponent's counter-claims, and explain what he is misunderstanding in each one:

- "Does this not go against your own claim? If Putin was collaborating with Nabisco, why would so much emphasis be put on stopping smoking? It seems that my opponent's second paragraph shows the exact opposite of what he/she is trying to prove in this debate." Vledemir Putin does want to stop smoking in Russia. To help achieve this goal, he is working with Nabisco to promote their other products and decrease tobacco sales in Russia. This is a positive relationship for both parties: Putin can decrease smoking in Russia (which would normally hurt Nabisco), but by helping advertise Nabisco's other products they can counteract that lost revenue. In exchange, they are providing him with funding.

- "I request a source for this claim. And even if this is so, why not advertise tobacco as well?" This is the conspiracy theory. If someone was attempting to prove, for example, that the US government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks (for the record, I am not arguing for or against this notion, just citing the theory as an example), they just have proof of that. They would use evidence that supports the theory itself. Also, Putin would not be advertising tobacco for the reasons I cited in the previous paragraph.

- "I request a source for this claim as well. Also, what product are you referring to here?" This statement refers to the final image. That product is the Ritz cracker. This is where the idea seems absurd, which has allowed it to fly under the radar. The popularity of this "meme" has been used to associate Putin with the crackers in Russia and bring awareness to them.

- "What exact problems are you referring to?" The problem is the lack of funding I cited in my original argument.
TheRussian

Con

"This is a positive relationship for both parties: Putin can decrease smoking in Russia (which would normally hurt Nabisco), but by helping advertise Nabisco's other products they can counteract that lost revenue. In exchange, they are providing him with funding."
But what is Putin or Nabisco gaining through Putin's anti-smoking campaign? If he wants to support Nabisco, there's no point in trying to eradicate smoking. That's like -1 for Nabisco, and then +1 for him advertising Nabisco's other products (evidence of which has not been shown). Wouldn't it be better to be neutral on smoking (+1 for Nabisco) AND advertise the other products? (another +1). By putting up an anti-smoking campaign, Putin is hitting on a huge section of Nabisco's revenue (as my opponent showed in Round 1).

"Also, Putin would not be advertising tobacco for the reasons I cited in the previous paragraph."
But there is no reason. Neither party is gaining anything by Putin campaigning against smoking.

My opponent has yet to show that the increase in Russian military spending and increase in price of Nabisco's stocks have anything to do with each other. So far, it seems that it's nothing more than coincidence, as there is little evidence of cooperation between the Russian government and Nabisco.
Debate Round No. 2
TacoStand22

Pro

The motives behind this deal are slightly complex, so it's understandable that my opponent is confused by them.

"But what is Putin or Nabisco gaining through Putin's anti-smoking campaign? If he wants to support Nabisco, there's no point in trying to eradicate smoking. That's like -1 for Nabisco, and then +1 for him advertising Nabisco's other products (evidence of which has not been shown). Wouldn't it be better to be neutral on smoking (+1 for Nabisco) AND advertise the other products? (another +1). By putting up an anti-smoking campaign, Putin is hitting on a huge section of Nabisco's revenue (as my opponent showed in Round 1)."

- Veldemir Putin wants to decrease (or ideally, eradicate) smoking in Russia. This is obviously because smoking is unhealthy.
- As I have shown and my opponent has acknowledged, this would present a problem for Nabisco, economically.
- If Putin were to be neutral on smoking AND advertise the other projects, yes that would be great for Nabisco. But it would be terrible for Putin, because he wants to decrease smoking.
- The issue in question here is not Putin's position on tobacco. The conspiracy formed because of it.
- Because of that "-1" created for Nabisco by Putin's efforts to decrease smoking, Nabisco needs to increase revenue in Russia.
- Now, Nabisco is an enormous company. It's not unrealistic that it could have provided funding to Russia, especially if it was essentially an investment for Nabisco (and an important one at that).
- So basically, in exchange for advertisement in Russia, Nabisco is providing funding for the Russian military.
- The "-1" of that lost tobacco revenue is counteracted with the "+1" of the other products being advertised.
- The "-1" of economic problems affecting Russia's military funding is counteracted with the "+1" of funding from Nabisco.

My opponent commented that evidence has not been shown for Putin advertising Nabisco's other products. The concept of him advertising Nabisco's products is the theory here. I'm trying to prove it. As I have explained in a previous argument, it would be impossible to simply "prove" the theory directly, so I am compiling and presenting the evidence that supports it.

"My opponent has yet to show that the increase in Russian military spending and increase in price of Nabisco's stocks have anything to do with each other. So far, it seems that it's nothing more than coincidence, as there is little evidence of cooperation between the Russian government and Nabisco."

I have definitely shown that the increase in Russian military funding and the increase in price of Nabisco's stocks are related.
- I have explained why, and provided evidence that supports everything I've said.
-In the same way that the burden of proof lies on the person defending a theory and a theory itself is impossible to directly prove, it is impossible to 100%, conclusively validate such a claim. Otherwise, it would be a fact, not a theory.
- However, if sufficient evidence is provided, a theory can be "proven" as extensively as possible. I have definitely provided sufficient evidence.

In summary (with evidence):
- I claimed that losing tobacco sales in Russia would deal a major blow to Nabisco. ("RJR [Nabisco], while also known for such food brands as Ritz crackers and Oreo cookies, derives about two-thirds of its profits from tobacco. Its cigarette sales in Russia and the rest of the former Soviet Union had been running at an impressive rate in the first half of the year, close to 20 percent of international profits, said Emanuel Goldman, a tobacco and beverage analyst with Paine Webber in San Francisco. Last year, the company's sales there accounted for 15 percent of international profits and represented 42 percent of international volume.")
- I claimed that Russian Chancellor Veldemir Putin is working to decrease smoking in Russia. ("The report was published in a bid to outline the government's achievements in fulfilling President Vladimir Putin's so-called "May Orders," a series of campaign promises " including ones related to improved health in Russian society"), ("President Putin has approved the bill that will gradually outlaw smoking in most of Russia"s public places, ban tobacco advertising and impose restrictions on the sale of cigarettes.")
- I claimed that Russia had been having military problems, due to economic problems. (""Keep Putin in perspective; don't play to the cult of personality", Freedman warned. "Russia is less powerful in many respects than the UK", he added. It does have larger armed forces and more nukes, but its economy is in deep trouble... Freedman was speaking the other day at a conference on "Global Trends and Implications for British Security" at the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi). Russia may be a "Great Power" by virtue of its nuclear arsenal and permanent seat on the UN security council, but being a "Great Power" was highly overrated, he suggested. It may have started to rebuild its armed forces, but they are no match for Nato's. Russia's GDP is close to that of Italy, and its per capita GDP is less than Poland's. Oil and gas prices have fallen and Russia is having trouble attracting inward investment.") ("A senior Ukrainian official has told AFP that both the leaders of Belarus and Kazakhstan are trying to distance themselves from the Kremlin as they seek alliances in Europe. The unnamed official said both leaders said Mr Putin "is weak." Russian political analysts agree with the view as top Russian allies may be afraid that siding with Russia might involve them in its economic crisis.")
- I claimed that Russia's military is now increasing in strength. ("Many analysts have called Russia militarily weak, with some pointing specifically to its shortcomings in air and naval forces in Syria. But based on Russia"s battlefield performance so far, this assessment seems off: To the contrary, Russia has shown that it has the capability and capacity (not to mention willingness) to employ its conventional forces to achieve limited political objectives.") ("Russia's new Armata super-tank's designers are claiming to have made what is the world's first invisible tank. The T-14 war machine is loaded with high tech equipment that will screen it from enemy radar and infra-red heat-seeking target finders, claimed developers UralVagonZavod in an interview with Moscow news radio. ... Loaded with the battlefield's most powerful gun, armed with a remote control turret, and equipped with armour that explodes on impact to stop shells reaching the crew, Russia claims the tanks is 20 years ahead of the West.")
- Veldemir Putin is a man of great influence to the people of Russia. Regardless of whether or not it paints him in a positive light, content on the Internet that involves him attracts much attention. As with all other sources of great interest on the Internet, this popularity lends itself to advertising. Nowadays, we see advertising everywhere. Product placement has become increasingly common in film and television, but it can even be found in unexpected places. A common example of this is "celebrity seeding," in which a celebrity indirectly promotes a product. This has become very common on social media, where some accounts with the most followers are actually paid to post pictures including a specific product. This works in the same way product placement would in a film or television episode. ("These days, some of the most effective audience influencers rarely appear in celebrity magazines, but have the highest followers and fans on social media channels such as Twitter, YouTube and Facebook. And because of Twitter, the journey time between gifting and endorsement is much quicker and generates image and video content which brands can use through their own social media networks.") I mention this trend because I understand that, mainly as a result of the impossibility of providing direct evidence that the pictures are advertisements, this is the most difficult part of the theory to believe. But I truly believe I have proven to the best of my ability that there is a reason for this conspiracy to have taken place, that the expected effects have actually occurred, and that the idea is far from being as absurd as it initially sounds. A picture of Putin on a Ritz cracker, the most well-known example, would gain popularity among those who dislike him, or find him humorous. Such a ridiculous image would be humorous to people with that opinion, and as a result, would become very popular among them. Similarly to how, say, Dove Soap might pay DJ Khaled to feature one of their products in an Instagram post, Nabisco is exercising product placement with Russia on the Internet (and I have already proven the significance of the Internet in Russia in a previous argument).

Overall, there is an abundance of evidence to support the idea that the Nabisco-Russia Conspiracy is true.
TheRussian

Con

"But it would be terrible for Putin, because he wants to decrease smoking."
I disagree with this point, but there's no purpose in arguing it because neither of us have any evidence. "...terrible for Putin..." seems like a huge exaggeration. It might be bad for the nation as a whole, in the long run, but not for Putin necessarily.

"Now, Nabisco is an enormous company. It's not unrealistic that it could have provided funding to Russia, especially if it was essentially an investment for Nabisco"
My opponent provides no statistics or information to support this claim. Nabisco would have to donate massive sums of money to the Russian government in order to make any significant impact on the Russian military budget of $46 billion.
http://www.globalfirepower.com...

"My opponent commented that evidence has not been shown for Putin advertising Nabisco's other products. The concept of him advertising Nabisco's products is the theory here. I'm trying to prove it."
My opponent's entire theory pretty much relies on this single point. He has not shown any evidence for Putin's advertising of Nabisco's products other than the picture shown in Round 1, which seems to be weak proof.

"I have definitely shown that the increase in Russian military funding and the increase in price of Nabisco's stocks are related."
Not at all. My opponent has only managed to show that the two occurred at roughly the same time.

My opponent then goes to describe essentially how product placements works and while I understand that the image could technically be considered product placement, my opponent hasn't really shown it to be effective, nor has he provided any other examples.

Overall, I'd say that there is a serious lack of evidence to this theory as my opponent has not managed to show any connection between the increase in Russian military funding and increase in Nabisco's stocks besides the fact that they occur at roughly the same.

I thank my opponent for bringing this idea to the table.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TacoStand22 1 year ago
TacoStand22
I understand. That is where the argument loses many people, so I decided to put it at the very end so you would hear me out and take my points seriously.

The absurdity of the picture is why it has spread, which of course was the intention behind its creation.
Posted by TheRussian 1 year ago
TheRussian
The comment didn't imply that your argument was low quality, but rather that the subject/conspiracy itself is very strange haha
Posted by TheRussian 1 year ago
TheRussian
The comment didn't imply that your argument was low quality, but rather that the subject/conspiracy itself is very strange haha
Posted by TheRussian 1 year ago
TheRussian
The comment didn't imply that your argument was low quality, but rather that the subject/conspiracy itself is very strange haha
Posted by TheRussian 1 year ago
TheRussian
Please don't take offense at my comment. It's just that after the entire argument, your very last sentence/pic got me a little suspicious :P
Posted by TacoStand22 1 year ago
TacoStand22
While I appreciate the compliment, I am slightly offended by the implication that this is a troll debate.

This is a theory that has captured my interest recently, and I believe it deserves some attention and discussion.
Posted by TheRussian 1 year ago
TheRussian
If this is a troll debate, I'm impressed by the amount of effort put into it :P
Posted by jewishharp 1 year ago
jewishharp
I thank you for your kind words dear friend, I hope this will shine light to bring down the tyranny of Veldimir Putin. He shames the Russian name.
Posted by TacoStand22 1 year ago
TacoStand22
Thanks, jewishharp! I'm not quite familiar with Russian geography, so I don't know where h0;k5;l0;k6;k7;l3;n0; or Agidel is located, but that is really neat! Thank you for your perspective on these issues.
Posted by jewishharp 1 year ago
jewishharp
I am new to this site and did not know that i could not use Russian in the comments, this is the city i live in: Agidel
No votes have been placed for this debate.