The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Trotsky, good or bad?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/12/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,553 times Debate No: 36590
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




I will be arguing that Leon Trotsky, was a good person. His views of Social Democracy could have done amazing things to this world, not to mention he valued the common man and the peoples voice.

Con must dislike Leon Trotsky, and must take this debate seriously. (No Trollin')



I accept this debate and I will now allow my opponent to make his arguements.
Debate Round No. 1


TrotskyistRebel forfeited this round.


Hmmmmmm.... I was hoping my opponent would have posted an arguement, but I guess I have to take the crockeds with the straights.

Communism is destruction of religon

For the first thing that Trotsky wanted was to impose Communism across the world by starting massive Communist Revolutions. Trotsky himself converted from being Jewish to athist so he could be Communist. The world has needed Religon and much people would need religon for comfort. If this was to go through World War 3 would have started based on a religous war and the Cold War would have broken down a lot earlier. Nuclear exchange would have been very likely to happen and this would likely lead to extintion of humanity.;

So to basicly conclude, if Trotsky would have live then the world would be a very different place where it is today.
Debate Round No. 2


Oh my. I thought I had made the time to post arguments longer. My fault, I should had checked on the debate as well to see if anyone had accepted. Apologies to my opponent for making him start off, and thanks to him for accepting and doing so.

Alright, now to begin to refute.

"Communism is destruction of religion"
Con states here in his argument that many people would need religion for comfort. Now I don't quite understand what you are saying here. Are you saying they feel safer? Because under the Soviet Union there was a much lower rate of Crime then there is now. And also there we're and are still such things as Religious Communist groups. Christian Communism was also very important in the early stages of forming Communism.

Con also states that "If this was to go through World War 3 would have started based on a religious war" Are you saying that because a Nation would be Atheist that all the Religious Nations would want to destroy it? Because there have been many Nations ruled under State Atheism before, such as Cuba, China, Albania, and of course the Soviet Union. And I don't recall any of these nations facing a World War based on there Atheistic views.

For all interested in State Atheism and a couple of my Arguments, here is the link to a Wiki page telling all about it:

-Sorry for the short argument, I'm boarding my plane now. :(

If Con is up to a much longer rematch, it would be great to debate with you once again!



Communism is destruction of religon.

Yes I am saying that. authors like August Miller have stated in his novel, Brave New World, that people went to religon for comfort. Pro brings up that crime rates were low, but he fails to show that of the USSR's Starvation Camps in Ukrane. They made the Nazi Consentration camps look like fun houses in places like Gulag. really what Pro is saying is really if Trotsky was incharge like I brought up last round how he wanted start communist revolutions around the world. Thus casing more hunger camps like Gulag.

For the religous war arguement again I stated that it's because of Trotsky wanting to expand communism and this forces atheisism upon a state. Still this is showing how Con's last arguement was irrelivent.

By showing how Trotsky would destroy humanity and defeating my opponent's arguement's I urge you to vote Con.

(*side note* I'd love to debate you again Pro)
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Kiroen 4 years ago
Con should check his sources again. There was no starvation camps in Ukraine. The nazi propaganda made a good job spreading all these lies, and there were some American founded journalists who had interests in making people believe it was true. For further information read John Simpson's "Unreliable Sources".

There was an starvation in the early 30s in Ukraine, as there had been starvations in most of Russia every few years until Bolsheviks modernized agriculture. Indirect source:
Posted by Kiroen 4 years ago
I would like to see a debate by specialized and honest historians about Trotsky since the Russian Revolution until his death. I doubt it will fall from the sky, but I lose nothing for asking.
Posted by Noctan 4 years ago
I left at 'serious debate'.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bsh1 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con, quite clearly, had more extensive arguments, and thus better technical debate.