EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

That Nagorno Karabahk Should be Reunited with Armenia

5 points
0 points
StickStick (PRO)

Nargorno Karabahk is a disputed region that lies between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The vast majority of residents in this region are ethnically Armenian (95%). This conflict started in 1919 (whilst the massacre of 1.5 million Armenians by Turkish forces was ending) when Azerbaijani forces, supported by the British, conquered the region, with much local resistance. When the Soviets took control of the region in 1921, though 94% of the population were Armenian, the region remained in the control of Azerbaijani authorities. In 1991, following years of tensions, Nargorno Karabahk had a referendum which indicated that the vast majority of residents still wished the region be reunited with Armenia, which sparked a war ending in a shaky 1994 ceasefire with much continued fighting. Armenia is presently in de facto control of the autonomous region.

Human Rights Watch is one of many organisations that have claimed that Afghan Mujahedeen and other Islamic extremist elements have been fighting alongside Azerbaijani forces, in their attempts to coerce the population of Nargorno Karabahk. The vast majority of Armenians are Christian, and the 5% that are not, are predominantly Kurdish. Particularly now with the threat posed to Armenians by terrorist groups in the region, such as the Islamic State, who think that everyone who does not believe in Sunni Islam should be killed: should the world not support forces that have consistently fought terrorism throughout their history, as opposed to quash them?

Historical evidence would suggest that the people of Nargorno Karabahk wish the region to be part of Armenia, which is evidenced in petitions, referenda, protests and declarations by popularly elected legislative bodies. I would be in support of holding yet another referendum, just in case there is any doubt about it.

A people’s right to self-determination is more important than a state’s sovereignty over that people. This is true principally and affirmed in international law.

States exist because the collective will of the people determines avoiding anarchy to be beneficial, and laws are instituted to reflect the collective subjective wills people have. Thus, political legitimacy exists solely because a population deems it to. If an entire region refuses to accept the legitimacy of a particular state by overwhelming majority, and rejects that states claim on a monopoly on the use of physical force within it then that state holds no legitimate claim over that region, and the only way to keep that region within the state would be brutal coercion. Thus for Nargorno Karabahk, Azerbaijan has no legitimacy in its rule.

Not only is this true in principle, but it is also widely recognised as being the case and affirmed in precedents in international law, such as in the decision by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to rule against Serbia when they complained about Kosovo’s declaration of independence. This precedent is a mere extension of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, which is an underlying principle of international law – extending the doctrine to factor in not only the direct safety and security of the population, but also the aspirations of that population, away from the strict enforcement of negative freedoms and to the enforcement of positive freedoms, indicative of modern liberalism (upon which international law is founded). Thus as Kosovo was legally justified in seceding from Serbia, so too would the Nargorno Karabahk region be justified in seceding from Azerbaijan.

If the self-determination of the people of Nargorno Karabahk would dictate that acceding to Armenia to be beneficial and in the best interests of its population, then that self-determination should be able to be realised.

Return To Top | Posted:
2015-11-24 15:57:47
| Speak Round
abbasovameabbasovame (CON)
The war  was a ethnic conflict that took place in the late 1980s to May 1994, in the enclave of Nonargo-Karabakh in southwestern Azerbaijan, between the majority ethnic Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh backed by the Republic Of Armenia, and the Republic of Azerbaijan. Basically proves that Karabakh was originally located Azerbaijan. 

First of all, lets discuss the name of the land. The word the original work is "Qarabaq" and it is known as Karabakh in english and internationally. The name Karabakh is made of two words, "kara" and "bagh" (or "bakh") which originate, respectively, from Azerbaijan. It  translated to "black garden". The prefix Nagorno- is derived from the Russian attributive adjective nagorny , which means "highland".The Azerbaijani names of the region include the similar adjectives "dağlıq" (mountainous) or "yuxarı" (upper). Such words are not used in the Armenian name.

Now lets see what happened during the war. First question, Who were living in the land Karabakh before the war?The answer is Azerbaijanis. It has been proven by all sites and books/history + the pictures. What happened in the war? Armenian soldiers supported by Russians rushed into the land and killed everybody that they came across with their tanks and guns and just anything they had in a disturbing manner. The worst part was when the killed parents in front of their kids. Until this day and until we die we will still visit those who died during that day and honor them.
       Also, in case if you are wondering why Russians helped the Armenians its because Azerbaijan fought for independence during the Soviet Union, which caused a cold relationship between Azerbaijan and Russia.
No matter what has happened to the poor people in that land, the people of Azerbaijan still wants the land back. Karabakh belongs to Azerbaijan and shall be reunited with Azerbaijan. No nation has the right to take others land rushing in and by killing everybody living there and then saying it shall belong to him. 

At the moment the land is surrounded by Armenian soldiers, if any Azerbaijani citizen enters they will be shot down. So it is basically considered as Armenia's land after the war however nobody lives in there because it is not declared. 
For all the above reason, this argument is firmly opposed.

Return To Top | Posted:
2015-12-01 04:40:04
| Speak Round
Stick: Did not the Azerbaijanis in 1919, "rush in and kill everybody there", "then saying it shall belong to him" before systematically oppressing Armenians for decades? Why should a region that from 734BC-1919AD was part of Armenia join Azerbaijan if the vast majority of people from there do not want to?
Stick: Also, why is a state's claimed sovereignty over a people more important than that people's self-determination?
Stick: What would happen to the people of Nagorno Karabahk if Armenian forces left and the people surrendered to the Azerbaijanis? Would the way Shia Muslims have recently been treated in Nardaran (Azerbaijan) not indicate that the Salafist government of Azerbaijan might not be all too accepting of Armenian Christians?

Return To Top | Speak Round
StickStick (PRO)
Firstly, I would like to point out that my opponent did not engage in cross-examination, and I would still like all three of my questions posed there responded to. Con made some outrageous points in her first round, and completely ignored all of the points that I made in my first round. 

Human rights watch asserts "Azerbaijan's government has escalated repression against its critics, marking a dramatic deterioration in an already poor rights record." In my first round I already wrote of salafism in Azerbaijan's government, and in my cross-examination questions I wrote about how it is not only Armenians that are targeted by Azerbaijani racism. Given the fact that it is rather undisputed that well over 90% of people in Nagorno Karabakh are Armenian, what is stopping yet another genocide of Armenian Christians occurring is Azerbaijan is re-given the territory? Surely anything other than returning the region to Armenia would result in genocide. Cons claim that 'nobody' lives there now, when there are 146000 people that call the region home today, is a chilling omen of the genocide that awaits the people if it is 'returned' to Azerbaijan. 

As all of the points I made in round 1 still stand, I will spend the rest of this round rebutting. 

Con made the claim that Nagorno Karabakh was "originally" in Azerbaijan, because that is where it was widely accepted to be located in the early 1980's. The 1980's were only 30 years ago. If we say liken this to a house: just because someone was the occupier of the house 30 years ago does not mean they ever owned it or do today, and it would be therefore misleading to claim that they "originally" owned it. Then the claim was made that the people living in the region were Azerbaijanis. To the government of Azerbaijan perhaps this is correct. But to the local people, it is not. The most generous estimate I have seen puts the number of self-professed 'Azerbaijani's' at a peak of 26%. The point however of showing how the percentage of Armenians living in Nagorno Karabakh just after the Azeri invasion in 1919, and the percentage that live there today, was to show that the figure is largely unchanged. Both sides killed people.  But at the end of the day the wishes of the people in the middle of all of this, the people of Nagorno Karabakh, need to be accepted. 

Con seems well versed in the region's history (or just a good reader of wikipedia), but seemingly conveniently forgets a few points. Take the Sumgait massacre in which Azeri (another word for Azerbaijani's, will use henceforth) mobs massacred countless Armenians in the town of Sumgait for example. Or the government sponsored killings and mass deportations in Baku and Kirovabad in the 1980's. Or the Azeri blockade of 1989 where government forces surrounded Nagorno Karabakh and shot any non-Azeri entering or exiting causing starvation and disease, due to lack of supplies, among the Armenian population. While the Russians helped the Armenians, jihadist Mujahedeen helped the Azeri. Azerbaijan's government had repressed the majority Armenian population since 1919.

I do not want to engage in an etymological debate because I feel it is irrelevant to he debate, but will add that the phrasing con used to describe some of the words is misleading, and that the word 'Karabakh' did not originate in Azerbaijan. This whole section that con wrote was copied and pasted from Wikipedia with some key words changed. 

Con also made the claim that 'Azerbaijan wants its land back'. What can possibly be gained from this other than bloodshed? Why is sovereignty more important than self determination/why is con more right than international law and common sense?

Lastly I call on Con to please link this 'proof', as I did in my first round. I didn't bother in this round as I think by now it is abundantly clear which argument reputable sources would support. 

Return To Top | Posted:
2015-12-08 13:17:56
| Speak Round

View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
True Capitalist AcolyteTrue Capitalist Acolyte
Posted 2015-12-23 07:03:55
True Capitalist AcolyteTrue Capitalist Acolyte
Finish the denate? They didn't even start. It is a common practice round these parts.
Posted 2015-12-23 06:58:56
Historically it's the Azerbaijanis that have stolen land, not the other way around. If say Mexico suddenly decided to conquer California, should the Californians that want to be part of the U.S. Be forced to move? Would the U.S. military be 'unjustified' in conquering it back?

I mean at the end of the day, if over 90% of people genuinely want something, that should be more important than what 'their government' wants.
Posted 2015-11-30 06:11:17
Dassault PapillonDassault Papillon
The ethnic Armenians of Azerbaijan should move to Armenia if to be Armenian in nationality is what they want, but what the residents of Nagorno-Karabakh are doing is little more than Armenia trying to steal land from Azerbaijan and I don't condone it.
Posted 2015-11-30 03:26:05
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2015-12-30 15:06:07
Anthony TaiJudge: Anthony Tai
Win awarded to: Stick
The forfeiture of the Con position greatly reduced her credibility in this debate. Her arguments, however effective they could have been, were reduced by her forfeiting. That is one of the reasons that she did not receive my vote. She also did not address the cross-examination, which means that she was either unable to answer these questions or was simply unaware that the debate was continuing. Either way, cross-examinations (both of them) go to her opponent, Stick. For this reason, I believe that Pro won.

I believe that both of you are very good debaters. However, there are a few things that you could work on. Stick (pro) was very good. I could see little flaw in his arguments. You could improve on a few things, but I don't know what they are. Con, on the other hand, focuses mainly on the emotional aspect of things. She could work on her rebuttal, and could address the other opponent's points. If you did try to argue against them, then try to make it more direct, and restate why they are wrong. Stick, however, uses a lot of good facts. That's good, but you need some more balance with the pathos. You are credible and logical, and you did use some emotion in your speech, but a little more could make it more easy for the audience to relate to.
Con used mostly emotion, and opinions. That's also good, but some more facts could solidify your speech.
1 user rated this judgement as biased
0 comments on this judgement
2015-12-31 13:56:11
PinkieJudge: Pinkie    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Stick

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 3 rounds
  • 4000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • Uses cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 1 week
  • Time to vote: 3 days
  • Time to prepare: None
This is a random challenge. See the general rules for random challenges at http://www.edeb8.com/resources/General+rules+for+random+debates+%28version+2%29