The Instigator
TheRussian
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
bsh1
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

The Ukrainian Government is massacring civilians and needs to be stopped

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
bsh1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/16/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,085 times Debate No: 60562
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (5)

 

TheRussian

Pro

I will be arguing that the current Ukrainian government is corrupt, evil and fascist. They are murdering innocent civilians and need to be stopped before the situation gets worse.

My opponent may begin his/her argument in Round 1.
bsh1

Con

I thank Pro for the opportunity to debate this topic. He says that I "may" begin my arguments in R1, implying that this is optional. I chose not to do so at this time.

However, I would like to define a key term in the resolution. "Massacre" means "the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty." [http://i.word.com...] I would argue that when discussing a massacre, we use international legal norms as standards by which to evaluate our arguments. Specifically, I suggest that as this debate is set in the contest of an ongoing civil war in Ukraine, that we interpret the term "massacre" to imply the unlawful killing, en masse, of civilians in the war zone; such a massacre would naturally constitute a war crime. [http://en.m.wikipedia.org...]

I also wish to point out that Pro has the sole BOP, as he is affirming a positive claim. [http://www.qcc.cuny.edu...]

With that, I turn things over to Pro. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
TheRussian

Pro

Thank you for accepting and good luck to my opponent as well!

Now, I would like to establish the definition of the terms that we will be arguing/using:
MASSACRE:
1. the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

EVIL
: morally bad

: causing harm or injury to someone
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

CORRUPT:
1a : morally degenerate and perverted
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

FASCIST:
very harsh control or authority
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

CIVILIAN:
1. a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

If my opponent would like to establish any other definitions or discuss them, I request that he do so in the comments. After an agreement is reached in the comments, he may use it in the debate.

With that out of the way, we can begin.

The Ukrainian military is actively bombing villages and cities which are primarily (if not completely) populated by civilians. As a result, dozens of civilians are being killed by airstrikes and artillery fire.
http://www.hrw.org...
http://revolution-news.com...
http://www.globalresearch.ca...

It cannot be called "accidental" because this has been going on for months and the Ukrainian government has not changed its strategy in any way to minimize civilian losses.

This is inhumane and must be stopped. The civilians are not capable of significantly improving their conditions, so I propose external intervention by another nation. This may include but is not limited to: direct military action against the Ukrainian military and/or heavy sanctions that will force the Ukrainian government to discontinue its current course of action.

On to Con.
bsh1

Con

Thanks to Russian for this debate!

TERMS

I will challenge just two of Pro's definitions. I see no reason to do this in the comments, as these definitions are material to the text of the debate, and judges should retain the right to select those definitions they find most apt.

"Evil" implies much, much more than simply "causing harm or injury to someone" or being "morally bad." Someone who is misguided or who unintentionally causes harm to someone is not evil, nor is a petty criminal, who is arguable "morally bad," evil. The term "evil" implies the highest level of moral depravity--something on par with Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. It is "the absence or complete opposite of that which is ascribed as being good. Often, evil is used to denote profound immorality." [1]

"Fascist" is simply more than "harsh control or authority." Stalin, a communist, exercised very harsh control, yet he was no fascist. Fascism denotes a very specific ideology and brand of authoritarianism seen in leaders like Benito Mussolini. Here is a very brief description of fascism: "Fascist ideology consistently invokes the primacy of the state. Leaders such as Benito Mussolini in Italy and Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany embodied the state and claimed immense power. Fascism borrowed theories and terminology from socialism but replaced socialism's focus on class conflict with a focus on conflict between nations and races. Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky to secure national self-sufficiency and independence through protectionist and interventionist economic policies" [2] For more on the subject, consult the source I gave.

Also, I would clarify that "atrocious" means "extremely wicked, brutal, or cruel: barbaric." [3] With that, we can proceed to discuss the arguments.

BURDENS

Recall that Pro has the sole BOP has he is affirming a positive claim. Also note that Pro asserts that it is his job to show "that the current Ukrainian government is corrupt, evil and fascist." If he fails to prove any single one of these points, he has lost the debate.

Since Pro bears the sole BOP, I do not need to offer a constructive case. Merely, I must negate or cast sufficient doubt upon Pro's arguments. This I will now endeavor to do.

REBUTTALS

Pro makes one argument: "The Ukrainian military is actively bombing villages and cities which are primarily (if not completely) populated by civilians." Pro further claims that these bombings are not accidental.

I will make fthree responses to this argument:

(1) Ukraine preemptively warned civilians of the coming danger and advised them to evacuate the region. [4]
(2) When rebels populate civilians areas and intermingle with civilians, they jeopardize the civilians lives as well, using the civilians as--in effect--human shields. It would, in fact, prolong the conflict to allow the rebels to launch attacks on Ukraine without retaliating and halting their advance, and thus it is necessary to take the fight to them where possible. Due to the proximity of civilians and militia, some collateral damage is to be expected, but this does not meet the definition of an "atrocity."
(3) Revolution news is clearly a pro-Russian news agency that is biased against Kiev (or at least the article cited is) and HRW was unable to definitely confirm that the Grad rockets were fired by Kiev's forces or to assess the exact extent of the damage levied by the alleged Grad rocketfire. As for the third source, it offers no concrete evidence to support its claims, and so is not to be trusted.

I apologize for the brevity of my comments--I will expand later. I have been very rushed of late.

SOURCES

1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
2 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
3 - http://www.merriam-webster.com...
4 - http://www.voanews.com...
Debate Round No. 2
TheRussian

Pro

I agree that evil is "profound immorality" and that fascist also has a nationalist and racist connotation.

I now move on to address my opponent's rebuttals.

"Ukraine preemptively warned civilians of the coming danger and advised them to evacuate the region."
I read my opponent's source and it says: "Lysenko warned civilians to leave the areas around Donetsk and neighboring Luhansk province". These are regions where the civil war has been raging on for months. This article was published on August 11. It is pointless to "warn" civilians to leave AFTER the assault has been going on for this long. If this warning was put out several weeks BEFORE the onslaught to give civilians time to leave or even gather their thoughts on the situation, that would be different. This warning was issued several months into the conflict, making it pointless.

"When rebels populate civilians areas and intermingle with civilians, they jeopardize the civilians lives as well, using the civilians as--in effect--human shields."
I don't see how you can use civilians as "human shields" against artillery shells and bombs. If my opponent is suggesting that the separatists are purposely going into cities to "dissuade" the Ukrainian military from using artillery, planes etc., then it obviously is not working at all. Don't forget that the separatists are civilians who decided to take up arms, so it is logical that they would stay and protect the region/city that they are from.

"It would, in fact, prolong the conflict to allow the rebels to launch attacks on Ukraine without retaliating and halting their advance, and thus it is necessary to take the fight to them where possible."
The rebels are not actively pushing into Pro-Ukrainian territory. In fact, the Ukrainian military is virtually the only force that is encroaching on the enemy territory in this conflict. The separatists do not want more Ukrainian land and there is no point of them trying to push into Ukraine-held territory. The want to be independent on the land that they have (Donetsk and Luhansk) and are simply trying to protect it.
http://news.yahoo.com...
http://www.euronews.com...
http://www.aljazeera.com...

"Due to the proximity of civilians and militia, some collateral damage is to be expected, but this does not meet the definition of an 'atrocity.'"
There's more than just "some" collateral damage. 800 civilians have been killed and at least 2,155 injured. This is data from a month ago, meaning that the death toll (and number of injuries) has increased even further since then.
http://www.nytimes.com...

Ukraine's actions may not meet the definition of "atrocity", but they certainly meet the definition of "cruelty".
CRUEL:
b : inhuman treatment
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

There are many ways that the Ukrainian military could minimize civilian losses. For example, they could move to more accurate methods of eliminating the separatists instead of just bombing the area which causes very much unnecessary collateral damage since artillery fire and airstrikes are typically not very accurate.

I believe that killing women, elderly and children along with the mass destruction of homes and facilities such as hospitals is inhumane.

"Revolution news is clearly a pro-Russian news agency that is biased against Kiev (or at least the article cited is)"
I will replace "Revolution news" with the following articles:
http://www.globalresearch.ca...
http://www.voltairenet.org...

"HRW was unable to definitely confirm that the Grad rockets were fired by Kiev's forces or to assess the exact extent of the damage levied by the alleged Grad rocketfire."
There is no other logical source of this damage. The Ukrainian military has Grad rocket systems for sure, the rebels most likely don't. In fact, the Ukrainian military recently hosted a parade in which they showed their Grad rocket systems.
https://news.vice.com...

It is much more likely for a professional, government-funded military to have such technology rather than the untrained separatists who decided to take up arms.

"As for the third source, it offers no concrete evidence to support its claims, and so is not to be trusted."
The article clearly says: "These killings were ordered by the government of president Petro Poroshenko. The evidence amply confirms that these killings are organized by the Armed Forces and National Guard."
The simple fact that the rebels lack air-power and heavy artillery guns is enough to conclude that the Ukrainian military is responsible for most, if not all, civilian bombings. Also consider that there is not a single reason why the separatists would target areas populated with civilians.
http://www.globalresearch.ca...

I now move on to support my claims that the Ukrainian government is "corrupt, evil and fascist".
The fact that the Ukrainian government is relentlessly bombing defenseless men, women, children and elders is enough to prove that the government can be regarded as evil.

We established that the definition of "corrupt" is "1a : morally degenerate and perverted". Once again, the above proves that the Ukrainian government is morally degenerate as they massacre civilians.

I also claim that the Ukrainian government is fascist. It is no secret that there are several members of the Ukrainian government that are either members or founders of the Svoboda political party, which is a far right sector, Nazi party.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com...
http://www.globalresearch.ca...

I await my opponent's response.
bsh1

Con

I would like to sincerely apologize for not giving this debate more of my attention. With 3 mafia forum games going on, a tournament I am running, and several other active debates I am contesting, I have been pressed for time. I thank my opponent once again for this debate, and hope make up for my previous lack of involvement this round.

DEFINITIONS

My opponent does not contest my definitions. Thus, we can extend that "Evil" is "the absence or complete opposite of that which is ascribed as being good," and that "Fascism" refers to a specific ideology of authoritarian leadership, racial conflict, ultranationalism, and autarky, and that "Atrocious" means "extremely wicked, brutal, or cruel: barbaric."

BURDENS

Pro also does not contest that he bears the sole BOP in this debate, and must prove five things to win: that the government in Kiev (1) is corrupt, (2) is evil, (3) is fascist, (4) is massacring civilians, and (5) needs to stop massacring civilians. If Pro fails to show any one of these, he has lost.

REBUTTALS

P1: Preemptive Warning

The warning came prior to a planned, long-term assault. Sure, the war may have been in this area before, but unless Pro can show that Ukraine failed to warn civilians when major military offense were occurring in those regions, he cannot substantiate his arguments. If Kiev does warn people in advance of such planned operations, as this example seems to imply, it is certainly not the villain Pro makes it out to be.

P2: Human Shields + Prolonged Conflict

Whether or not the strategy has worked, keeping military installations or troops near civilian locations does use civilians as human shields and places them in harms way. It is therefore not the fault of the Ukrainian government when civilians are hurt, because it is the separatist that have chosen to fight close to civilian areas.

As for the idea that the separatists haven't encroached into Ukrainian land--that is patently false. All land held by the separatists is legally part of Ukraine. Thus, all the land the separatists occupy has been encroached upon. But Pro's points are non-responsive to mine. If Ukraine doesn't take the fight to the separatists, the separatists will take the fight to Ukraine. [2]

Finally, again, some collateral damage is to be expected, and Con seems to agree with this. However, he says that more than some collateral damage has occurred. Unfortunately, his source, the NY Times, does not say who is responsible for all or most of those deaths and injuries. We just don't know how many are attributable to Kiev.

Additionally, that NY Times article suggests that the harm to civilians has been caused by aging weaponry. So, it is safe to assume that if Kiev could minimize harms to civilians with more precise weapons, it would do so.

And Ukraine is doing a lot to allow civilians to escape. Its "armed forces will do what they can to provide transportation for citizens wishing to flee." [see my 4th source from last round]

P3: Sources

The rebels do, in fact, have grad rockets, so it's not the only logical explanation that Kiev is at fault. [1] The rebels are largely bankrolled by the Russians, and actual have better technology than Kiev. So, if, as Pro suggests, "It is much more likely for a professional, government-funded military to have such technology," it is more likely than not that the separatists have the better armament due to Moscow's support.

The cite that Pro is talking about doesn't provide any evidence to back up its claims and makes a ton of bare assertions. Just because it says a killing was carried out by Poroshenko doesn't mean it was--where is the evidence?! None is provided.

I will address everything else and conclude next round.

1 - http://www.nytimes.com...
2 - http://www.usatoday.com...
Debate Round No. 3
TheRussian

Pro

"I would like to sincerely apologize for not giving this debate more of my attention."
That's alright, I too have been very busy lately.

REBUTTALS:

"All land held by the separatists is legally part of Ukraine. Thus, all the land the separatists occupy has been encroached upon."
That is true, but my point was that the separatists are not out trying to "conquer" more territory. They are trying to defend the hometowns that they already have.

"But Pro's points are non-responsive to mine. If Ukraine doesn't take the fight to the separatists, the separatists will take the fight to Ukraine."
The source my opponent provides for this is very biased Western propaganda that is set against the separatists. The separatists have declared themselves as two Republics and are merely seeking to protect their self-declared nations. They are not trying to "take the fight" to anyone.

"If Kiev does warn people in advance of such planned operations, as this example seems to imply, it is certainly not the villain Pro makes it out to be."
My opponent has NOT managed to prove that Kiev gave an early warning of the coming onslaught. (Before it actually began, not several months afterwards).

"It is therefore not the fault of the Ukrainian government when civilians are hurt, because it is the separatist that have chosen to fight close to civilian areas."
As mentioned, bombing an entire civilian-filled city that may have separatists there is a terrible method as it causes very much unnecessary destruction. This is the same as having several civilians and a separatist in a room and to throw a grenade in there in order to kill the separatist. Extremely ineffective. There are many ways that the Ukrainian government could minimize losses, but refuses to do so.

"Unfortunately, his source, the NY Times, does not say who is responsible for all or most of those deaths and injuries. We just don't know how many are attributable to Kiev."
While that is true, we can safely assume that most, if not all, of the deaths and injuries are a result of Kiev's attacks because the separatists have no interest in killing civilians. Also note that the separatists do NOT have an air-force of any kind, nor do they have heavy artillery guns. Since vast majority all of the civilian deaths are a result of artillery and aerial bombardment, it is unreasonable to assume that the separatists were responsible.
http://www.nytimes.com...

I would also like to note that the article says: "the investigation 'strongly indicates that Ukrainian government forces were responsible' for the four attacks." The investigation is over who fired the Grad rockets.
http://www.nytimes.com...

"So, it is safe to assume that if Kiev could minimize harms to civilians with more precise weapons, it would do so."
I believe this is an incorrect assumption. Kiev could even try using more infantry and armored vehicles that would be able to actually target the separatists, instead of sitting back and bombing away at the area in which separatists are supposed to be.

"And Ukraine is doing a lot to allow civilians to escape."
Below is a map of the two main regions of where the separatists are located. You will notice that these regions represent the majority of the Ukrainian war-zone that borders with Russia, which means that the separatists are actually in control of the flow of civilians into Russia. Kiev has very little impact on this. The separatists are the ones who are letting hundreds of thousands of civilians out of Ukraine.



"The rebels are largely bankrolled by the Russians"
My opponent did not provide a source for this claim, and most of the sources that he might provide consist of Western media accusing Russia of sending in weapons disguised as humanitarian aid (with little to no evidence to support the claim). I would like to note that Russia and the Red Cross are collaborating to provide humanitarian aid to Ukraine.

I would also like to note that many of my opponent's arguments seem to be irrelevant to the debate. The debate is not: "The Ukrainian government is more responsible for civilian death than separatists". The debate is the simple fact that the Ukrainian government is killing civilians en masse, which I have proved.

ARGUMENTS:

1) Ukrainian Government is corrupt- My opponent did not contest my definition of corrupt, which was: "morally degenerate and perverted". I believe that it IS morally perverted that the Ukrainian government is actively funding military operations that consistenly kill civilians by the dozens.

2) Ukrainian Government is evil- I believe that this, too, has been proven. The Ukrainian government is actively bombing regions with thousands of helpless men, women, children and elderly, dozens of which are being killed and hundreds are being injured. I believe this can be regarded as "cruel" and "evil".

3) Ukrainian Government is fascist- As mentioned in my previous argument, many members of the Ukrainian government are also members of Svoboda, a far-right sector. I would also like to note that the red and black fascist flag is being hung around the Ukraine and far-right sector Neo-Nazis are actively being recruited by the Ukrainian National Guard.
http://ukraine-human-rights.org...

4) Ukrainian Government is massacring civilians- As many sources have shown, the actions of the Ukrainian government and military are directly causing the death of many civilians. I believe this point, too, has been proven.
http://www.globalresearch.ca...

5) The Ukrainian Government needs to be stopped- As we understand, the civilians are not capable of improving their conditions and are completely at the mercy of the Ukrainian Military. The separatists are also not able to protect the civilians. This means that only external interference is capable of stopping the onslaught and saving the civilians. Considering the above, I have fullfilled my BoP.

I greatly appreciate my opponent's cool head and lack of aggression.

Thank you for the thought-provoking debate.
bsh1

Con

I will address the arguments presented in R4 and then review the debate with a view to why a Con ballot is merited. Thanks to anyone who has taken the time to read this debate and to Russian for instigating it and participating in it with me.

REBUTTALS

P1: Preemptive Warning

Pro says that I haven't proven that the warning came before the conflict. I said, and the article clearly states, that a warning was provided BEFORE armed troops moved in to a specific area. Thus, the warnings came prior to the onslaught.

P2: Human Shields + Prolonged Conflict

Pro does not deny that the separatists are using people as human shields. So, again, Ukraine should not be held responsible for the deaths of those civilians. Instead, he says, "As mentioned, bombing an entire civilian-filled city that may have separatists there is a terrible method as it causes very much unnecessary destruction." Let's look at the example of Israel and Gaza--rockets come out of largely civilian areas in Gaza. Israel has two options: (1) let itself be bombarded without retaliating, or (2) defend itself by targeting areas even if civilian causalities may occur. Obviously, (1) isn't a viable option because Ukraine has a duty to protect itself and its citizens from attack, which leaves it with (2).

My opponent concedes that all land held by the separatists is legally part of Ukraine. Thus, Kiev is justified in defending it against forces who would make it their own.

As for my source, simply because it is printed in the U.S., that does not make it biased. It is a highly respected and widely circulated newspaper [2] and is unlikely to report untruths as that would jeopardize its reputation as a credible news source.

By acknowledging that Donetsk and Luhansk belong to Ukraine, which Pro does, then we must assume that Donetsk and Luhansk are not legally separate nations--they are integral components of Ukraine engaged in an illegal insurgent movement against the government of that country. The fact that these insurgents are advancing shows that they are taking the fight to Ukraine [1] and they cannot justify their actions by claiming to be defending two "republics" which don't lawfully even exist.

Pro agrees that his source does not say that Kiev is responsible for most civilian death. Pro says he claim to that conclusion because the separatists lack heavy artillery and an airforce. Frankly, the former is just not true--there is reason to suspect that the separatists have access to such weaponry. [3] So, again, Pro cannot blame Kiev for the majority of these deaths. As for the investigation, since Grad rockets were in the possession of the separatists (I cited a source to this effect earlier), and since we are unaware of whether to investigators knew that at the time of the report, the report's conclusions are also suspect.

Pro offers no evidence to back up his claim that the rebels are facilitating civilian evacuations. The map proves nothing, frankly. As a matter of fact, Kiev has reported that rebels fired on innocent civilians attempting to fee the war zone [4]; amidst these competing claims, it is hard, if not impossible, to discern what is true. Without knowing for certain that the rebels are helping people flee, Pro cannot present this assertion as fact.

P3: Sources

I have given myriad sources that underscore Russian interference in Ukraine's internal affairs. There are reports surfacing now that Russia as deployed troops to the effected regions. [5]

Pro DROPS that the rebels have access to Grad rockets. Pro also DROPS that his source (which claims Poroshenko massacred civilians) is unreliable. Extend both of these points, please.

VOTING ISSUES

Firstly, I would like to note that Pro must show each and every one of these things to be true. If he has failed to win just one of these arguments (if he loses or ties just one) I have won the debate. He has conceded my interpretation of the BOP, so this analysis was extended.

1 - Corruption: A morally degenerate government would not have given prior warning to individuals who were about to be assaulted by ground forces.

2 - Evil: A government that is fulfilling its social contract responsibility to defend itself against attack and rebellion is not evil; esp. when many of the civilian causalities can be attributed to the other side's use of human shields. Kiev should not be held responsible for those death; in fact, Pro cannot even show that Kiev is responsible for most civilian deaths.

3 - Fascism: All of Pro's arguments here were new, which is typically illicit in the final round. As such, they should be disregarded. Once they are dismissed, Con has no evidence to support this point. Moreover, showing that right-wing extremists hung a banner somewhere does not mean that the whole government of Ukraine is fascist; nor does the fact that some members of Ukraine's government may be Neo-Nazis.

4 - Massacring Civilians: Again, Con cannot show that Kiev is responsible for the majority of those deaths. Also, his main source supporting this has been thoroughly discredited.

5 - Should be Stopped: Ukraine has a right to defend itself against attack and ensure its territorial integrity in the face of an illegal rebellion. To do this, it needs to take the fight to the separatists, and that is what Kiev has done. It shouldn't be stopped, because then its right to self-defense would be violated.

Conclusion - Ultimately, Pro has the sole BOP and he has failed to meet it.

Thank you. Please VOTE CON!

SOURCES

1 - http://www.businessweek.com...
2 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
3 - http://www.nytimes.com...
4 - http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
5 - http://www.thedailybeast.com...
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheRussian 2 years ago
TheRussian
If you have BOP (like I did in this debate) that means that you have to prove your point, but if you don't have BOP, then you can simply pick apart your opponent's arguments...don't have to make any of your own. So, in this debate, bsh1 only had to refute my arguments, he didn't have to prove that the Ukrainian Gov't is NOT massacring civilians
Posted by TheRussian 2 years ago
TheRussian
Burden of Proof
Posted by justindmack 2 years ago
justindmack
What is a BOP?
Posted by TheRussian 3 years ago
TheRussian
Hard to blame Ukrainian government? haha, no it's not :P We can of course debate "Russian interference" as well, but...what Russian interference?
Posted by TrasguTravieso 3 years ago
TrasguTravieso
Just commenting to follow the debate, don't mind me.
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
interesting arguments you got there.
Posted by TheRussian 3 years ago
TheRussian
My opponent is very good and I don't know what he has up his sleeve :P we'll see...
Posted by debate_power 3 years ago
debate_power
Please win russian
Posted by TheRussian 3 years ago
TheRussian
I suppose you are correct....I will do so next Round
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
"needs to be stopped" is pretty vague. Are you suggesting military intervention, or some external political efforts? If you're going to suggest an international policy change, your argument (and the debate as a whole) is best served by your specificity.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
TheRussianbsh1Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Decided not to vote.
Vote Placed by LDPOFODebATeR0328 3 years ago
LDPOFODebATeR0328
TheRussianbsh1Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: I felt that bsh1 was successfully able to prove how the current Ukrainian government isn't corrupt. TheRussian had better S&G and more reliable sources. Neg should have not used Wikipedia as a source... I feel that Wikipedia is extremely unreliable.
Vote Placed by debate_power 3 years ago
debate_power
TheRussianbsh1Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The very fact that the Ukrainian government does not care that it is slaughtering civilians, despite bsh's and Russian's agreement that it is using them as human shields (which can be argued against because the towns and cities are the fighters' place of residence). They are not officially fascist, though it would do everybody good to notice that they and the ones who uphold them do behave incredibly cruelly and, indeed, the "national guard" is composed primarily of openly anti-Semitic and Neo-Nazi elements. In Mariupol, for example, "Pravy Sektor" men deliberately lit a building filled with Russian dissidents on fire and beat them to death with baseball bats when they tried to escape. As much as I agree with Pro's points that the Ukrainian government is corrupt and evil, I can't say for sure that it is fascist, though I know it is upheld and abetted by far-right Neo-Nazi elements, and also swiftly falling apart. Then why do I agree with Pro? Because of the title of the debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
TheRussianbsh1Tied
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: pro failed to show the uG is massacring civilians
Vote Placed by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
TheRussianbsh1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This is a startlingly simple debate to judge. PRO did not show that the Ukrainian government is massacring civilians, so he could not show that the Ukrainian government needed to be stopped from doing something that it is not doing. However, that was his only burden. He does not need to prove that the Ukrainian government is evil, fascist, etc. Though, even if he did, he would have still lost. Nonetheless, CON beat PRO on the ancillary and the extraneous arguments -though all that is relevant to who won this debate is the fact that, in CON's own words, "Again, Con cannot show that Kiev is responsible for the majority of those deaths. Also, his main source supporting this has been thoroughly discredited." Sources, likewise, to CON for reasons that have already been stated.