The Instigator
Amedexyius
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
ArgueRon
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Vladimir Putin is a Beneficial President to Russia

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 2 votes the winner is...
Amedexyius
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/14/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 321 times Debate No: 93725
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)

 

Amedexyius

Pro

Recommended Debating Guide, Not Mandatory

1.) Opening Arguments
2.) Rebuttals and Other Points
3.) Finishing Statements

I won't be providing background on this debate. I recommend only to accept this debate if you have knowledge or are studious in contemporary global and Russian history.

Opening Argument

Russian President Vladimir Putin is highly criticized by Western Powers for his controversial moves of seizing private companies and organizations in Russia and tightening liberties in Russia. My argument is that all the moves that Vladimir Putin has done has been in the best interests of Russia regardless of the claims that the Western World has made that he is attempting to advance a totalitarian agenda into Russia. Vladimir Putin's 2 biggest contributions to the Russian nation was through Economics (Which covers a lot of branches) and Anti-Corruption.

Economics

Vladimir Putin helped bring up the Russian GDP by approximately 800% during his first and second term. To help with the numbers and characters limit, I've provided a graph.



Putin introduced a series of serious reforming economic policies to help stimulate and create a rising economy in Russia that was previously crushed by a mismanaging Yeltsin and the fall of the Soviet Union. Through rising in oil prices in Russia, Putin made a variety of government sanctioned investments into multiple industries and markets that dominate Russia today including energy, vehicles and aerial technology [1]. These investments allowed privatization in previously government influenced areas which in turn gave a nourishment of the Russian economy. Putin had also helped established multiple free trade zones in ex-Soviet states which helped those nations create their own progressive economies that would begin independent markets as Russia did when Putin took office. Putin also seized multiple energy corporations that were known for rampant corruption and siphoned finances from other markets and individuals that were known for their corruption and were covered by the corrupt memebrs of the Yeltsin administration. These government seizing programs are still alive in Russia to help to combat the oligarchs that are partially covered by other corrupt members in the low government and police ranks [2].

Anti-Corruption

Putin has been hit by a chain of allegations from multiple high ranking individuals in Russia, and the West. There has been minimal evidence to support these claims, but there is evidence to show that Putin has been helping to clean the Russian government and economy from corruption that grew during Yeltsin's term. Putin's programs to remove corruption that had deep roots in Russia were slow but successful, although due to it's massive influence in the Russian government that they had but still partially exist, these programs are still alive to this day [3]. The actions that Putin took in order to remove the oligarchies [4] that helped create a stronger gap between the classes in Russia were a progressive move that helped the Russian economy enjoy more of the financial benefits they had taken in from the profits of the energy and technology markets which was also partly a result of Putin's decisions and administration. I will also leave this argument here so I can progress my points in round two.

Sources
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://fortune.com...
[3] https://www.rt.com...
[4] http://rbth.com...
ArgueRon

Con

No, in fact, Putin has not improved Russia's position in the areas of economy OR politics. First, he may have grown the GDP numerically but the percent change is negative (see 1). As oil exports from Russia drop, so does the percent change of GDP, meaning that he is in fact failing the economic sector. Food prices are rising and benefits are falling, which is ironic because Putin is trying to return to the era of the Soviets.

His nostalgia is the reason for his expansionism, and he is hurting the whole of Eastern Europe. Ukraine is not Russia. Belarus is not Russia. Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan are not Russia. Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Moldova are not Russia. The era of the Soviet Union is over. He is trying to foster the same culture of xenophobia and snobbism that previous leaders such as Stalin did. I have no doubt that Stalin is Putin's role model, and for your information, due to Stalin's aggressive policies, Russian casualties in WWII were over a third of the total (2). Stalin was cruel towards his countrymen and was a hypocrite.

Putin has fostered a culture of corruption, both in domestic leaders and international leaders.

SOURCES:
A. http://www.economist.com...
IMAGES:
1. http://cdn.static-economist.com...
2. https://upload.wikimedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Amedexyius

Pro

Rebuttals and Counter Arguments

My opponent decides to start their argument with stating that Putin did not improve Russia in economy or politics without providing a solidified foundation. The current recession Russia is in is due to a global oil price plunge which would allow Russia (a nation that relies on oil as exports and income) to suffer heavily [1]. This price plunge is not under the control of Putin, and any person who understands the fundamentals of global economics would understand a leader is powerless to controlling the prices of oil, when it is balanced by supply and demand. My opponent did not refute my previous argument regarding the 800% rise in GDP of Russia and simply states reasoning that is a product of supply and demand, not economic actions.

If my opponent decides not to stay within the confines of reasoning that Putin is indubitably a beneficial President, to Russia, international action should not be considered as a swaying reason in this debate as my opponent has listed above. I will also state, simply to entertain, that Putin has only taken military action against international law in Ukraine and Georgia. Both of which were to maintain Russian interests as a response to American troops and NATO arrivals both in Georgia [2] and Ukraine [3], respectively. I will not provide further incentive to this argument, as beyond the laying of facts, the matter becomes of perspective as both Russian and Western powers had used unconventional and controversial actions to advance their interests.

Sources
[1] http://www.bbc.com...
[2] http://www.cnn.com...
[3] http://www.cnn.com...
ArgueRon

Con

My opponent argues his case with several logical fallacies. First, he uses a continuum fallacy, that according to Wikipedia (F) "causes one to erroneously reject a vague claim simply because it is not as precise as one would like it to be. Vagueness alone does not necessarily imply invalidity." The second is attacking the argument, not rebuttal of the claims.

Putin's support for Victor Yanukovych, the corrupt former Ukrainian president, has demonstrated his own corruption. He is supporting a man who redirected state income to his own personal zone (B). Yanukovych has embezelled 70 billion dollars to offshore accounts, yet claims that it was "declared on my taxes" (C). For this, Interpol declared him a wanted person on charges of misappropriation of property. Putin is harboring a man who owns a mansion with gazelles and peacocks while his country is just starting to slowly crawl out of a recession (D). His mansion cost $100 million to build, while Ukraine"s per capita GDP is $7,300. Putin is explicitly showing his support for someone who spent the same as over 13,000 people"s contribution to GDP. If that isn"t supporting corruption, I don"t know what is.

On another continent, he supports Xi Jinping. This is the man who is creating a personality cult to rival Mao. Xi is censoring free media (E) and expecting acceptance from Western figures. In a document circulated by members of China"s Communist Party, there are seven values that are "dangerous Western values". These are: constitutional democracy, universal values of human rights, civil society, pro-market neo-liberalism, media independence, historical nihilism [criticisms of past errors], and questioning Reform and Opening [the Chinese Communist agenda]. This is something that Putin is supporting with his support for Xi. By these standards, all citizens should be robots marching and waving a flag bearing the hammer and sickle. This is not something that should be. Each person is individual, and any attempt to make them act or be otherwise is contrary to millions of years of evolution. A final thing that Putin shows his support for is the Imperialist attitude of Xi and others. In a trial, China"s campaigns in the South China Sea were declared illegal, yet Xi and his country continue to maintain their "nine dash line". China doesn"t just want to be a global superpower, it wants to be the largest. And Putin is endorsing this. Make of that what you will.

Putin's invasions of Georgia and Ukraine are also fueled by nostalgia for the Soviet era. Let me point out that in both situations, Putin isn't trying to support the government of the country my opponent stated to be in Russian interests. Putin is supporting separatists, not the established government. His efforts to reunite the former Russia have only fractured countries. And also, Russian interests are contrary to those of the countries in question. Out of the former Soviet bloc and sphere of Soviet interest, there have been (after the Soviet era) 2 civil wars, 3 revolutions, and a total 2 armed conflicts, with many involving Russia. (G.) After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has been involved in 13 different armed conflicts, 11 of which are in the region of the former USSR. (H.)

Russia's "interests" have ended in the splitting of numerous nations, the Imperialistic conquests of the South China Sea, and the terroristic Hezbollah.

Sources:
B..https://en.wikipedia.org...
C.https://www.washingtonpost.com...
D.https://www.washingtonpost.com...
E.https://en.wikipedia.org...
F.https://en.wikipedia.org...
G. https://en.wikipedia.org...
H. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Amedexyius

Pro

Before, I continue, let me say that my opponent still did not provide solid rebuttals to my opening arguments of Round 1 regarding internal corruption, economics and politics. The economics argument, were for one, completely left alone. I will also say that, according to my opponent, my logic fallacy that he pointed out was not relevant to the holes I pointed out in his arguments. His arguments did not regard internal problems within Russia in a more specific manner. I stated his argument invalid due to it's ability to overlook two arguments.

Rebuttals and Counter Arguments

Let me state what is completely wrong with your argument regarding Yanukovych. Yanukovych does not imply rampant corruption inside Russia. What Yanukovych did inside Ukraine is questionable, to say the least, but what he did was inside Ukraine. This means your arguments is not in the confines of this debate, rendering it null. Just to entertain, let me also say, that Russia gave asylum to Yanukovych, and nothing more [1]. You seem to demonize Russia with these claims of harboring this criminal. With that logic, should the United States be considered a hive of evil because they did not let go of Bush to Interpol [2] for war crimes? As if, the new President of Ukraine, supported without question by the United States, even as appointed interim President creates his own account offshore [3]. Let me also state the hypocrisy on your statement of criticizing Putin for allowing Yanukovych to keep his wealth. Are you suggesting for Russia to institute absolute collectivism in their economics? That wouldn't make sense considering you claim the absolute need for individualism and the dysfunctional system of anything, even close, to left-wing in your later argument.

On another continent, as my opponent continues his argument, your claims are still irrelevant to the debate as it is not within Russia. Continuing, your starting argument is a lie. Russia does not support China in the South China Sea, Russia continuously abstains on the topic during multinational summits in order to preserve relations with China, their most powerful ally [4]. I find it hard to believe that you think that abstaining equals absolute undying support. As for your statement regarding "Dangerous Western Values", I recommend pulling information from commendable sources, and not from your obvious and biased libertarian values as you would state with "Each person is individual, and any attempt to make them act or be otherwise is contrary to millions of years of evolution". Individualism is a form of socio-political philosophy [5], not an act of evolution as you'd put it.

I will now start with your final argument, the closest thing you have to actual relevancy in this debate, which still shows bias and lacks foundation in the strongest claims. Each conflict that Russia played a part in, which resulted in a violation of international law, was a response to American military intervention during peace-time [6] [7], therefore marking it as protection of Russian interests. Not to say, that the United States also uses their own tactics in blatant disregard of international law, because they do [8]. Regardless, these violations still benefit American interests, like while Russia did commit these violations, they also benefited. I will leave my argument here as to not waste any more time with the evident and seeping bias of my opponent.

Sources
[1] http://www.pravdareport.com...
[2] http://www.esquire.com...
[3] https://www.theguardian.com...
[4] http://thediplomat.com...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://www.cnn.com...
[7] http://www.cnn.com...
[8] http://www.counterpunch.org...

ArgueRon

Con

Nothing I say will change your opinion. You can go jump in a river. You claim I show bias and lack of support by making comparisons between leaders, however you clearly do so. And no, the US did not interfere in the skirmishes referenced. Maybe you should join Russia's brainwash*ehr*propaganda team. You seem good at making arguments defending charlatans and criminals.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Amedexyius 4 months ago
Amedexyius
@Ragnar It seems kind of a bait and trap. There is little question that, to Russia, Vladimir Putin has been helpful. This is the third time I had this debate, though.
Posted by Ragnar 4 months ago
Ragnar
That was quite the landslide. ... I suggest reopening this to try to get a better opponent.
Posted by ThinkBig 4 months ago
ThinkBig
You're more than welcome!
Posted by Amedexyius 4 months ago
Amedexyius
@ThinkBig Thank you for taking the time to provide your RFD, I appreciate it!
Posted by ThinkBig 4 months ago
ThinkBig
The next point that pro brings up is corruption. The west often views Putin as being corrupt and close to a dictator. However, pro points out that Putin, in fact, has campaigned for anti-corruption legislation and that there is minimal evidence to support allegations that he is corrupt. Con replies by pointing out that Putin supported dictators and people that were not good, supported the terrorist organization Hezbollah, and supported China in the recent territorial controversies.

Pro correctly points out that con failed to provide solid foundation and rebuttals for his reply.

Con concedes all of these points with his horrendous closing remarks.

This vote has been brought to you by ThinkBig. If you have any questions, please PM me or comment on my profile.
Posted by ThinkBig 4 months ago
ThinkBig
Arguments -

The debate is about whether or not Putin has been a net benefit as President of Russia. Pro argues that Putin has helped the economy by increasing the GDP by more than 800%, establishing free trade zones, and seized multiple energy corporations that were rampant with corruption. The last point goes into pro's next contention - that Putin has helped Russia combat corruption and that there is minimal evidence to support contentions that Putin has been corrupted.

Con responds by arguing that Putin did not, in fact, improve Russia's economy or politics. Con points to rising oil prices and food prices as evidence; however, as pro pointed out, con failed to provide a solidified foundation for his claims. This point goes to Pro.
Posted by ThinkBig 4 months ago
ThinkBig
RFD will be posted later tonight. Please PM if I do not post within 2 hours.
Posted by Amedexyius 4 months ago
Amedexyius
Beneficial as a whole. As in, he brought up Russian HDI, economic stability, Ruble reserves, stimuli and free trade agreements, etc.

You'd expect my opponent to make an argument along the lines of Putin being responsible for the current sanctions on Russia and it will bring Russia down in the long run.
Posted by Tokamak 4 months ago
Tokamak
Beneficial in comparison to what?
Posted by iamfromdebatewars 4 months ago
iamfromdebatewars
I want a president like putin in my country India
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 months ago
Ragnar
AmedexyiusArgueRonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for con's entire final round (highlighted by "Maybe you should join Russia's brainwash*ehr*propaganda team. You seem good at making arguments defending charlatans and criminals."), which in no way attempted to advance his arguments, but rather dropped all of pro's. Arguments... put simply, pro did something called staying on topic, whereas con made appeals to how much he dislikes Stalin (who was not shown to be the same person as Putin). As pro called out, the closest con did to advancing anything, was a complaint about international laws, which pro very easily showed while rude was to their benefit . Pro clearly showed improved economy and decreased corruption. Sources: This was overwhelmingly in pro's favor, but to use an example con offered a detailed look at approval ratings saying it was GDP, plus information about Stalin... Pro offered a 21 year review on Russia's GDP with Putin's control periods highlighted, plus details on the oil price drop and their response etc etc.
Vote Placed by ThinkBig 4 months ago
ThinkBig
AmedexyiusArgueRonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - I found con's final statements to be quite deplorable. "You can go jump into a river," and "You seem good at making arguments defending charlatans and criminals," is poor conduct and an ad hominem towards your opponent. Arguments - Con essentially drops all of pro's contentions and rebuttals in the last round with his non-answers and ad hominem. I'll analyze the arguments further in the comment section.