EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

The Battle of Stalingrad was the Most Important Battle of WWII

8 points
13 points
Bolshevik-Bolshevik- (PRO)

As agreed upon with my opponent (in the comments section), we will only explain the importance of our battles in the first round. I explained in the rules that my opponent will have to choose a battle that he believes was more important than the battle of Stalingrad and argue his case. I would like to thank Nzlockie for accepting this debate and will now proceed to explain the importance of the battle of Stalingrad and how it effected the outcome of WWII.

  • The first and most obvious reason for why the battle of Stalingrad was important was because the Nazi defeat during this battle saved the Soviet city of Stalingrad from falling into German hands. The city of Stalingrad was the second most important city in the Soviet Union (after Moscow). There are several reasons for this. First of all, Stalingrad was a major production center in the USSR and the factories at Stalingrad contributed greatly to the Soviet war effort. The city sat on the Volga river and all oil from the Soviet oil fields in the Caucuses had to flow up the Volga. Also, Stalingrad was a major communication hub in the Soviet Union. In addition to all of this, Stalingrad was the city named after the Soviet dictator Josef Stalin. The loss of Stalingrad would have had huge political consequences for the Soviet Union since its allies beliefs that the USSR was losing the war in the east would have been confirmed. Therefore, the Western Allies would have been less eager to launch offensives against the axis and open a second front. With the loss of Stalingrad, the entire Soviet Union would have been greatly demoralized. However the battle was won causing Germany's allies, Hungary, Romania, and Italy, to begin questioning their alliances with Germany and start to look for a pretext to pull out of the war. While this did not immediately happen after the battle, Germany's allies started to send less troops to the front. The German army was demoralized and some politicians and officers began to plot against Hitler seeing that he was leading the German nation to destruction. Turkey entering the war on the axis side, which at the time was definitely a possibility, was put out of the question. [1]

  • Another reason that the German defeat at Stalingrad was important was because it saved the rich oil-fields of the Caucuses (Grozny, Baku, Maykop being the largest) which provided some 95% of Soviet oil. Had the Soviet Union been defeated at Stalingrad, the Wehrmacht could then have pushed into the Caucuses and seized these vital oil fields thus gaining them for the German war effort. If my opponent doubts that the battle of Stalingrad decided the fate of the Caucuses then he must only look at the fact that Germany committed a total of about a million soldiers to the capture of Stalingrad and much fewer to the capture of the Caucuses. General Alfred Jodl, chief of the OKW Operations Staff said that "the fate of the Caucuses would be decided at Stalingrad." [2] On top of this, German forces were forced to retreat from the Caucuses following their defeat at Stalingrad since the defeat at Stalingrad threatened to cut off Army Group A. The loss of the Caucus oil fields would have had dire consequences for the Soviet war effort. Without oil, how would Soviet tanks, bombers, fighter planes, and other aircraft and vehicles necessary to fight the war operate? The loss of the Caucus oil fields would have meant that it would only be a matter of time before the Soviet Union would be unable to continue its war effort. Unless a second front opened immediately diverting many German divisions elsewhere, the Germans would have been able to launch an offensive to capture Moscow and after that, the Soviet Union would have ceased to have much of an impact on the fighting in WWII. 

  • An importance of the battle of Stalingrad that is often overlooked is that the failure of the German summer offensive in southern Russia stopped the Reich from invading the British Empire. The German defeat at Stalingrad prevented the Wehrmacht from breaking into the Middle East which was lightly defended. From the middle east, the Germans could have reached India and Egypt and possible link up with Japan. Not only would Hitler have captured the British oil fields in the Middle East, he would have been able to threaten the entire British Empire.

  • Axis forces suffered a staggering 850,000 casualties during the battle of Stalingrad. Germany also lost 1,500 tanks, 900 aircraft, and 6,000 artillery pieces. Stalingrad was the bloodiest battle in history, the single largest German defeat in WWII and the largest turning point of the war in Europe. No other battle in WWII saw close to as many axis casualties as Stalingrad. [3][4]

  • There were three ways that American and British supplies reached the Soviet Union; 1) the Pacific Route 2) the Arctic route 3) Persian Corridor. The Persian Corridor came from the Persian Gulf, went on through Iran, and then through the Caucuses. These supplies greatly impacted the fighting in the Caucuses since allied supplies could easily reach Soviet troops under attack in the region. One documentary I watched claimed that some 42% of the tanks available to the Soviet Union in the Caucuses Front were British and American models. As I explained earlier, the defeat a Soviet defeat at Stalingrad would have resulted in the Caucuses being captured and the Germans being able to invade the middle east. Therefore, the important supply route through Iran would have been closed.

General Siegfried von Westphal said "The disaster of Stalingrad profoundly shocked the German people and armed forces alike...Never before in Germany's history had so large a body of troops come to so dreadful an end." [5] Even before Germany captured Stalingrad, Hitler had claimed that it was in German hands. Then for months afterwards, German propaganda had claimed that the city would fall in the next few days and that the Soviets were sending their last available divisions at the Germans. Therefore, it came as a great shock to all of Germany when the entire 6th army was encircled and destroyed. This was the first time many of the generals, officers, and soldiers in the Wehrmacht thought of the possibility of Germany losing the war. The Fascist defeat at Stalingrad was the beginning of the end for Nazi Germany. The Germans were in retreat on a scale never seen before following their defeat during the Battle of Stalingrad.

Amongst the cities and towns liberated by the Red Army in the winter of 1943 was the city of Kursk where the next major German defeat at Soviet hands would come. The Red Army would then proceed to launch offensives which would liberate Ukraine. In 1944, the Soviet Union launched Operation Bagration where four Soviet fronts encircled and destroy Germany's Army Group Center, a victory which would open the road to Berlin and the surrender of Nazi Germany. 

However none of these victories would have happened without the German defeat at Stalingrad.


[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/rbth/features/9942742/stalingrad-second-world-war.html

[2] http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-EF-Decision/USA-EF-Decision-17.html

[3] http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=3

[4] http://totallyhistory.com/battle-of-stalingrad/

[5] http://www.worldwar-2.net/famous-quotes/famous-quotes-index.htm

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-11 04:28:21
| Speak Round
nzlockienzlockie (CON)
I'd like to welcome the Judges and thank my opponent for setting up this debate. From a little research I understand this is a resolution which seems dear to his heart and I'm honoured to accept the first instance of it on Edeb8!

In this debate my opponent will be arguing that the Battle of Stalingrad was the most important battle of World War II. It will this side's contention that it was not. As per the rules, we will be adopting a share of the BOP by submitting one example of a battle that was MORE important.
But first, let's make sure we are on the same page. As my opponent has neglected to do so, I'll quickly lay out the definitions for this resolution.

The Battle of Stalingrad: During WWII, a combination of Axis powers, including; Germany, Romania, Bulgaria, Italy, Hungary and Croatia launched an attack on the Russian city of Stalingrad. This attack raged from the 23rd of August, 1942 to February 2nd, 1943, just over five months - after which time the Soviets emerged the undisputed victors.  
Most: Superlative. There were NO other battles during WWII as important as this one.
Important: A few subtle variations here but the one I'm going with is, "of great significance or consequence. 
Battle: As defined here, "An encounter between opposing forces.
WWII: Literally the Second World War, starting in 1939 with the German invasion of Poland and finishing in 1945 with the surrender of Japan.

In summation then, the complete resolution is that the 1942-1943 Battle of Stalingrad was of greater significance and/or consequence than any other battle in the Second World War. My opponent has a burden to affirm this motion, while my burden is to negate it. 
It is my belief that there are several battles which meet these criteria and could be seen to have had greater significance however my opponent has requested that I only argue one of them. I'd like to point out though that as PRO, he needs to show that his battle is MORE important than mine, while I can win by showing that my battle is either MORE important or OF EQUAL importance to his. 

Enough of this! On with the debate!
As I've already mentioned there are several popular candidates for the most important battle. The Battle of Britain is an obvious one and hugely important to the British. The Battle of Midway effectively negated the Japanese Navy in the Pacific, something that was of great consequence to Pacific nations, from Australia to the USA. In Russia, it is often seen as a three-way tie between the Battle of Moscow, the Battle of Kursk and the Battle of Stalingrad. All three of these signaled a major blow to the Axis hopes of actually winning the war, and were thus hugely important to those nations. 
A case could be made for any of these, however the battle I've chosen must surely be considered the MOST important of all. It was the Battle of Westerplatte

Consider these dominoes. The Dominoes represent the battles and even the individual actions which all took place during World War II. WWII - like any war, is action and reaction. A battle won here means resources gained there. This means a better chance of winning a different battle somewhere else. A bad decision there means a loss. This places more pressure on battles being waged in a different area... it goes on like that. 
When it comes to these dominoes, they could be different sizes, facing different ways, even splitting off into multiple trails! When they start falling, one action is going to lead to another action, then another, then another action... and eventually to our final conclusion. So which is the most important?

My opponent will be arguing that the Axis loss at Stalingrad had a flow on effect. He will be adding all of the cumulative benefits that win brought to the Allies and claiming that this, coupled with the cumulative losses incurred by the Axis powers, makes THIS battle the most important of the War. 

I will be arguing that the initial domino that started all the other dominoes falling - including Stalingrad, was of far greater significance than that. 

On September 1st, 1939, Germany invaded Poland. The first battle was that of Westerplatte. Here's a map:

In and of itself, it was a fairly minor battle. If you're interested, you can read about it here, but I'll give you the quick version:
The German Battleship, Schleswig-Holstein, opened fire in an unprovoked attack on a Polish Garrison at Westerplatte. The Garrison was manned by about 182 soldiers plus a bunch of admin type people. The small Garrison actually held out very well, and the 2,600 German soldiers actually came off second best, with the Poles losing 14 men total while Germany lost an estimated 200-300 men. But numbers eventually prevailed and Germany began its invasion of Poland. Weeks later they owned the lot.

Why was it important?
In 1934, Hitler had signed a non-aggression pact with Poland. This invasion was a breach of that pact. 
In the mid 1930's, Britain and France had essentially stood by and watched while Germany rearmed herself following her significant sanctions after WW1. Under Hitler, Germany started to make some discontented rumblings about some of the land she had lost in the treaty of Versailles. When Germany eventually took back a bunch of the land she had had stripped away from her, Britain and France tried to console everybody by guaranteeing that, no matter what, Poland would be left alone. Both nations made a series of promises to Poland that if Germany were to invade, they would immediately come to her aid. 
Well, as history reveals, it wasn't exactly the immediate response that Poland was promised, but after the Battle of Westerplatte, and the subsequent invasion of Poland, Britain and France had no option but to declare war on German. Thus began the Second World War. 

The battle itself was fairly minor in the grand scheme of the things to come, however that first domino set in motion events that would eventually affect 114 countries and claim the lives of 50 -85 million people, making it the bloodiest conflict in human history. 

When it comes to importance, the battle that started it all must surely be considered more significant and more consequential than any of the battles that followed - including the Battle of Stalingrad. 

In the next round I will be expounding on this idea by questioning whether any one of half a dozen significant battles can truly be regarded as MORE important than another. How is it measured? 
With this I will also challenge my opponent's notion of importance. Important to whom? 
The resolution provides no qualifier to indicate that the importance we're discussing be limited to Europe. The Pacific theatre of WW2 accounted for a little over 50% of the total casualties of WWII and a very good case could be made that for people living in Australia, New Zealand and possibly even the USA, the battle of Stalingrad was far less important than the battles of Midway or Guadalcanal. 

I remind the judges that I'm not allowed to argue these specific battles, however, like Stalingrad, they are all a part of World War II and can therefore all be traced back to that first battle of Westerplatte - one of the few conflicts in the war that can truthfully be traced to ALL 114 countries affected.
I will be challenging my opponent to show how a soviet victory at Stalingrad was more important to the people of New Zealand than the battle which started off the entire World War and directly threatened their homeland. 

Lots of good stuff coming up, for now I leave the floor to PRO.

Vote CON - when we say we'll have your back in 15 days or less, we mean it!       


Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-11 14:50:31
| Speak Round
Bolshevik-Bolshevik- (PRO)
Con has decided to argue the definition of important and how that applies to the battles and events of WWII. Clearly both the battles of  Westerplatte and Stalingrad were important but in different ways. I will proceed to address my opponents arguments.

Con has provided a row of dominoes and argues that when the first domino falls and then the others start to do the same, the domino that falls first would be the Battle of Westerplatte. However he is incorrect for several reasons.

Here are two:

"The battle itself was fairly minor in the grand scheme of the things to come, however that first domino set in motion events that would eventually affect 114 countries and claim the lives of 50 -85 million people, making it the bloodiest conflict in human history."

Con claims that it was the battle of Westerplatte caused the events in the pacific theater. Was it not the Japanese bombing of Peal Harbor that caused the world war to spread to the Pacific Theater? And the events that led up to a war in the pacific, some of which can be viewed here were the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, the battle of Khalkhin Gol and Japanese expansions in China and South-East Asia. Looking at the Eastern Front, Westerplatte did not ensure that Germany would invade the Soviet Union. It was the Germany's signing of the non-aggression pact and the successful invasion of Poland and later France that caused this. As result of the German invasion of Poland, France and the British Commonwealth declared war resulting in WWII, but my opponent is claiming that 50-85 million people died in the second world war as a result of the battle of Westerplatte. Con simply assumes that since the battle of Westerplatte was the first battle of WWII, it must have triggered all the other battles in the war. I have shown otherwise. The domino effect can't be applies to all of the battles in WWII since the only thing the German invasion of Poland caused was for France and the British Commonwealth to declare war. Major powers such like the Soviet Union, the United States, Japan, and Italy were still not involved and it was not the battle of Westerplatte that caused these countries to eventually pick sides in the conflict, as I will show in the next paragraph.

"When it comes to importance, the battle that started it all must surely be considered more significant and more consequential than any of the battles that followed - including the Battle of Stalingrad."

There were events even before the German invasion of Poland and the battle of Westerplatte that set the stage for WWII. After Germany broke the Treaty of Versailles, Hitler had its military strengthened. Tanks, planes, ships, and submarines were built. The German army perfected the Blitzkrieg. More about Germany's rearmament can be viewed here but the obvious question to ask is why would Hitler have had all this done if he had not been expecting a war? Therefore, the first domino was in 1933 when Hitler broke the Treaty of Versailles. The Nazi annexation of Austria, the Rhineland, the Sudetenland and their invasion of Czechoslovakia were the next dominos. My opponent says that the German invasion of Poland was a breach in the non-aggression pact but Germany broke its non-aggression pact on April 28, 1938 months before war broke out. Then on March 21, 1939 Hitler demanded that Poland hand over Danzig. Finally, Britain and France signed a mutual assistance-pact with Poland. A few months later Germany invaded Poland causing the battle that my opponent argues is the most important of WWII since it was the first domino. However the first dominos were events before WWII, not the battle of Westerplatte.

Events before WWII also brought about the German invasion of the USSR. It is unlikely that Hitler would have invaded Poland had he not signed a non-aggression pact with the USSR. This non-agression pact included half of Poland, the three Baltic countries, and Finland becoming part of the Soviet sphere of influence. Further, the USSR could take Bessarabia from Romania. More about this pact can be read here. The non-aggression pact included the Soviet Union exporting massive amounts of food and oil to Germany. Had Hitler not managed to sign this pact ensuring that the Soviet Union would do nothing when, it is unlikely that Germany would have invaded Poland. After gaining the trust of the Soviet leadership, Hitler then backstabbed the Soviet Union and completely took the country by surprise. This would probably not have happened without the non aggression pact signed before the war began.

Now I argue that Stalingrad was the most important battle of WWII because of its effect on course of the war. When the Soviet Union won the battle, the entire war began to go in favor of the allies. Had the Nazis won the battle, I have explained how Germany would have been able to significantly weaken the war effort of the allies. The battle of Westerplatte on the other hand had no impact on the course of events in WWII. Even if Poland somehow won the battle, Germany would still have been able to successfully defeat the country.

"In the next round I will be expounding on this idea by questioning whether any one of half a dozen significant battles can truly be regarded as MORE important than another. How is it measured? Important to whom?"

Perhaps I can save Con the trouble. Clearly each battle was more or less important to different nations. What happened at Stalingrad was not as important to the nations of the Pacific as Midway as my opponent said. Similarly, what happened at Guadalcanal was not very important to the Soviet Union. So in order to determine which battle was the most important to the most people, we must look at which battle impacted the most nations and people worldwide. That battle would clearly be the battle of Stalingrad. The German defeat at Stalingrad was felt across Nazi occupied Europe and effected events in Africa where troops from around the world, including many New Zealanders and Australians were fighting and where American troops would soon have arrived. Had Germany broken into the middle east, many of these soldiers would have been brought over to fight them. Rommel would not have been driven out of Africa and therefore, the allies would have faced potential defeat on the continent and if this had happened then yes, the battle of Stalingrad was as important, if not more important, to the people of New Zealand as the battle of Guadalcanal.

I have explained why Con's domino theory doesn't work. The first dominoes were events before WWII, not the first battle of WWII. As a result of these events, it became only a matter of time before a war broke out. Hitler was determined to expand Germany's borders and he was not about to let the fact that Britain and France had promised to help Poland stop him. My opponent has failed to show how the the battle of Westerplatte caused the battles in the Pacific Theater which he claims amounted to a little over 50% of WWII's casualties.

Looking at the source provided by my opponent, the word means "Strongly affecting the course of events; significant." This is somewhat different from the definition of important that Con gave, but it is no less correct. As I have shown, the battle of Westerplatte was not the most important battle of WWII. Westerplatte was not the first domino as Con claims. Events before the war even began set the stage for the war starting. Therefore, Westerplatte was perhaps one of the least important battles of the war. Events at Stalingrad determined the course and eventual outcome of WWII. Therefore, this battle was obviously more important than any other battle of WWII.

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-15 02:19:12
| Speak Round
nzlockienzlockie (CON)
I thank my opponent for his round. I'll address his points in reverse order before continuing to build my case.

The Battle of Westerplatte was not the first domino: 
PRO spends a bit of time on this point so it needs to be dealt with. In my round I clearly stated that the dominoes represented Battles rather than events. The context of the resolution further requires that these Battles be considered a part of World War II. The Battle of Westerplatte is almost universally regarded as being THE first battle of World War II. Here are a list of sources to back this claim up: 
My claim was never that Westerplatte was the ultimate cause of World War II. My claim was that, as far as battles go, this first one was the one that elevated a conflict between two nations into a conflict that ultimately involved 114 nations. Westerplatte COULD have been one of any number of other battles that signaled the start of the German invasion of Poland. I chose it because the bulk of history agrees that it was the FIRST.

This is an important point so I'm making it in a different colour. When it comes to hindsight, we must be very careful not to play the "what-if" game. The resolution requires us to examine what happened. Not to guess at what COULD have happened. Had Stalingrad fallen, regardless of how unlikely it may look to us now, it is entirely possible that the war could have finished with the same result. Postulating about this in this debate is a wasted exercise. 
I make this point to preempt any claims that Westerplatte was not important because had it not happened, the overall result, (Poland being taken) would have remained unchanged. 

Westerplatte WAS the first battle in WWII. It signaled the start of the German Invasion of Poland. As a direct result of this invasion, France and the entire British Commonwealth, (countries from literally every continent) declared war on Germany. 
In the realm of "WW2 Battles", the first battle is the first domino. Westerplatte was the first battle and is therefore the first domino.
This brings us neatly to PRO's second point:

What's the connection between Westerplatte and the Pacific Theatre?
This point is pretty weak. Even if my opponent convinces you that Westerplatte can't be linked to the Pacific theatre, he concedes that neither can Stalingrad. In fact he goes as far as to say that Guadalcanal was a more important battle than Stalingrad... in the Pacific. 
Last time I checked, Guadalcanal was a WWII battle. He agrees that the Pacific theatre represented at least 50% of WWII. I may not be allowed to argue another battle being more important than Stalingrad, but I can't help it if my opponent wants to! 
Remember my opponent needs to prove that Stalingrad was the MOST important battle. Not first equal. If I were him, I'd stop pushing the importance of Guadalcanal...

Regardless, here is my connection of Westerplatte to the Pacific theatre of war, along the way we are going to link the Soviets, Italy, Japan and the USA as well.

Westerplatte connects to: Russia
This one is pretty easy. Russia had long had designs on Poland, not to mention a few other Eastern European countries. Germany's invasion of Poland, beginning at Westerplatte,  allows Russia to quietly invade as well from the East. When the invasion brings Britain and France into the conflict, Germany is able to run her attentions West as well. This is only possible thanks to the non-aggression pact signed with Russia, signed because Russia is assured half of Poland. 

Westerplatte connects to: Italy
Within a year of Westerplatte, the dominoes have led Germany to the conquest of Northern France. With France so weakened, Italy is able to join forces with the Germans and invade form the South. The German alliance also gives Italy the courage to stretch her arm against the British in North Africa.

Westerplatte connects to: Japan
To have any chance of sustaining her war effort, Germany needs to make pacts. This need ultimately stems from her initial attack at Westerplatte which has started this whole shebang.  She makes one with Russia to protect her Eastern front, she makes one with Italy to protect her Southern front. Her pact with Japan, made in 1940, allows her the opportunity to keep America out of the war. When the Japanese finally attack the USA in 1941, German U-Boats are free to prevent valuable supplies from the USA getting to Britain. 

Westerplatte connects to: USA
With Britain on her last legs, the USA steps up its support. Supplies are flowing directly into Britain, allowing her to continue the war effort. A war effort which was required because of the German attack at Westerplatte. After the Germans are frustrated at the Battle of Britain, Hitler starts looking for an excuse to take the war to America and cut off this supply. 

Westerplatte connects to: The Pacific Theatre
This one flows on from  the previous two. The European theatre, which begins with Westerplatte, has resulted in several links to the Pacific. Countries like Australia, India and New Zealand - among many others, have been sending their fighting men and women away to Europe and Africa. Even Russia, which has had a dust up with Japan fairly recently, has a Pacific border which has been weakened. Japan has been fighting an individual war with China for almost ten years now, and emboldened by the way her Allies in Europe are fairing, and the weaknesses of other Nations around it decides the time is right to bring the pain to the Pacific. It is highly doubtful that this would have happened had there been no European theatre, something which began with that first domino in Westerplatte.    
Definition of Importance
I thank my opponent for his concession that "Importance" is a relative term. A relative term which was NOT clearly defined in the resolution. 
I accept his second round definition of relevance. I quote:
" So in order to determine which battle was the most important to the most people, we must look at which battle impacted the most nations and people worldwide." 
As I mentioned in the first round, the Battle at Westerplatte brought France and the British Commonwealth into conflict with Germany and her allies. It ultimately impacted 114 countries and resulted in the death of almost 3% of the total world population. 
In the same way that my opponent claims resulting impacts from the German loss at Stalingrad demonstrate its importance, I claim these resulting impacts from Westerplatte. 
In short, as the catalyst for entire World War, Westerplatte beats Stalingrad in any numbers game.   

The problem with PRO's resolution is that World War II simply can't be traced to any single MOST important battle. During the course of the entire war there are several battles which all historians can agree were critical battles. Had the result of these battles been any different, the result of the war would have been completely changed. Many of these have already been mentioned and yes, Stalingrad is one of them. 
My primary approach to this debate has been to convince you that Westerplatte,  the domino which committed the world to war in the first place had a greater impact than one of several that dictated its result. However that is not the only way this debate gets decided.
During the course of WWII there were several battles that impacted incalculable millions of people as well as dozens of Nations. Ranking them is impossible, but is what PRO needs to do if he wants to win.

Vote CON! 


Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-15 10:27:22
| Speak Round
Bolshevik-Bolshevik- (PRO)
At this point, I clearly cannot win this debate and therefore there is no point in me posting. The previous times I have done this debate I used my own definition of "important" and therefore didn't even think of adding to the rules that this was a debate about which battle had the most effect on the outcome of WWII. Anyway, I congratulate my opponent on his victory.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-15 12:19:18
| Speak Round
nzlockienzlockie (CON)
I thank my opponent for the concession - however I don't accept it. 
I haven't contested his 2nd round definition of "Important" although I'll agree that the resolution didn't link that term with the outcome of the war, thus freeing me to argue the case I have done.

I don't think that this changes anything. My opponent has run a convincing case for Stalingrad being a more important battle than Westerplatte... in my opinion, not as convincing as my case which argues the opposite but then, I'm hardly the least biased person to ask!
This has been an entertaining on the field, albeit at times frustrating off the field, debate and I feel happy enough letting this go through for judgement.

Out of respect for my opponent who has forfeited his opportunity to sum up his side of the case, I will also forfeit my final round and leave this in the hands of the judges. 

Thank you Judges and again, I thank my opponent!
*bows bows bows*

Vote CON - we were so close to total character count last round we didn't even a a chance to do a snappy sign off!

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-15 12:34:19
| Speak Round

View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
This debate was disappointing for me to watch. The affirming position should of won in a landslide. I respect the other judges decisions. I do strongly disagree with them though. At least everyone seemed to learn something from this debate, and for that I am actually pretty happy.
Posted 2015-01-11 12:18:16
Figured, just thought I'd play along with the current order :P
Posted 2014-10-25 17:37:36
(the aforementioned "third vote" was removed)
Posted 2014-10-25 16:36:34
I know, right? That guy sucks at judging.
Posted 2014-10-25 16:10:33
That third vote is outrageous. Reported.
Posted 2014-10-22 09:24:48
Oh I know it! Youre my white whale! I'll get you yet!
Posted 2014-10-17 20:40:05
Don't worry nzlockie, we're the closing half of that 4-way. If there's somebody you can count on not to win against by forfeit it's probably me. :)
Posted 2014-10-17 20:33:11
Oh I don't think you can win, I'm just sick of winning by forfeits and concessions. You definitely have a case so I could legitimately lose. I'm good with that. I don't feel I argued this case as strongly as I could have. I'll admit that I was kind of counting on you to go a different way in round two. That was probably an error on my part which has left my case a little weaker than it should be.
Posted 2014-10-17 19:54:48
Shrug, you had your domino theory proved and there were no more arguments I could have made against it. I'm not sure why you decided I could have still somehow won but thanks anyway.
Posted 2014-10-16 01:08:58
Well THAT finished quickly!
Posted 2014-10-15 12:35:58
oh ok sorry
Posted 2014-10-12 10:57:53
omg I'm so over this.
Posted 2014-10-12 10:54:38
"I'd like to welcome the Judges and thank my opponent for setting up this debate. From a little research I understand this is a resolution which seems dear to his heart and I'm honoured to accept the first instance of it on Edeb8!"

Correction: this resolution isn't dear to my heart, I just happen to know a lot about WWII and am interested in it. And also, considering the fact that on another debate site, people have succeeded in arguing that the battles of Moscow and Kursk were more important (and beat me in those debates). Therefore, I don't understand why you felt that I was trying to make this debate rigged and give me all the advantages. Anyway, I will be posting my round soon.
Posted 2014-10-12 08:38:14
I'm getting some bad vibes. Let's keep it calm.
I wont proceed to give anymore of my thoughts, on any ongoing debates, until I feel confident in the conclusion reached in this thread.
Posted 2014-10-11 18:28:44
You've started a thread on this and I'm continuing this there.
Posted 2014-10-11 18:22:09
I simply can't fathom why you would be opposed to me stating facts that a debater may actually decide to use. If something incorrect is said, like any good debater, it would be fact checked. The truth is just closer, and in debate, the idea is to reach a common truth. If you feel truth must be kept private so one side can win, based on the other side not having proper information, then there is an integrity gap.

Why do you think it's unfair for me to give correct information here, when at the same time you could possibly get away with an incorrect argument? IMHO, the integrity of the debate is more at stake when one side wins based on fallacious, but un-refuted evidence.
Posted 2014-10-11 18:16:42
So if I were to make a forum regarding the Most Important Battle of WW2, would it be acceptable for debaters to look there rather than here? If what I'm saying is true, then I'm putting the information in an accessible place. If the information isn't good, then no one has to use it. I'm not favoring one side, and if I were, that would be more understandable.

Any advantage you feel I may be giving to one side, is a hidden opportunity to the other. If I refute an incorrect comment on the breaking of a non existent "non-aggression" pact, that still has no impact on the debate, and that still must be refuted by the other debater. So I'm not sure what kind of edge you think I've given STALIN, but if anything, it was a strong indication that you will need to defend that argument next round.

Posted 2014-10-11 18:12:01
Mate the point is that this kind of "educational advice" can be given AFTER the debate has finished. That way it is still helpful but without actually influencing. This debate is supposed to be me vs Stalin. Now it's me vs Stalin vs You. Except we're the only two who actually get judged.
Please just keep these kinds of comments to yourself until after the debate has finished.
They wouldn't be acceptable if yelled by an audience member during a live debate and there's no difference here.
Posted 2014-10-11 18:04:26
I wish wrichriw were here. He explains it better than I can. Commentary on debate's shouldn't be limited or restricted. Nothing said here is indicative of what's being said in the debate. If I give away an argument to either side, they are free to use it. Just as they are free to use any other reference or information on the internet to research their topic.

Saying debate's shouldn't be discussed, is asking whether or not debates need to even happen in the first place. Understanding the topic and reaching legitimate conclusions is the reason debates even exist. I just don't get why what I say must be censored, because one side could actually learn something from it and apply it?

Can't remember the philosophical theorem this is called, but anything that can be an advantage to one side is an advantage to the other. If you think what I say puts a debater at a disadvantage, that's not my fault, but the mindset of the debater in question.
Posted 2014-10-11 17:55:44
I'm big on fair debates, so I'm just going to say this now. Csareo you need to stop giving feedback/advice/information in the comment sections of debates you're not competing in.
Posted 2014-10-11 17:48:11
Good plan
Posted 2014-10-11 17:46:17
Nothing I say here is relevant on what's said in the debate btw. I judge based on what the opponent says, not what I do.
I feel I might of given away an argument, so I'm going to stop commenting on this debate for awhile.
Posted 2014-10-11 17:45:05
I'm big on historical accuracy, so I'm just going to say this now. Germany dissolved its non agression pact with poland months before the invasion. Technically westerplatte didn't belong to Poland, but a league of nations mandate known as the "Free City of Danzig", roughly the size of modern day Connecticut. The Danzig Nazi Party took control of the legislature and dissolved its independence, which by modern UN standards, made Danzig legally part of Germany.

Poland sent in a militia of 80 men to protect it from an actual occupation. The Nazi Ships stationed in the local harbor fired on the garrison.
In all fairness, Westerplatte coincided with several other offensives, the first being the "Battle of the Border". To prove Westerplatte was most important in a historical sense, you would need to prove that the Battle of the Border was a domino off of Westerplatte.
Posted 2014-10-11 17:43:22
Yep. I'm not allowed to argue more than one battle.
Posted 2014-10-11 17:41:24
Okay, it looks like I misread your final couple paragraphs. You are arguing that the Pacific Front had been a result of Westerplatte.
Posted 2014-10-11 17:29:53
@NZlockie - I did read your argument. You're pushing a domino effect, which I think is smart. The problem is that you only have to provide one battle more important than Stalingrad, so if you think the Pacific Front was more significant, then why are you choosing to focus energy on two battles?
Posted 2014-10-11 17:27:11
Just my thoughts on the topic in general, I don't believe actions taken in Western Front or campaigns in the extreme Eastern Front were significant. The idea of Germany having a prolonged invasion of French and Russian lands was out of the question, especially since the Free French Army was constantly growing in strength.

I could foresee Germany controlling The Netherlands, Baltic States, Romania, and Ukraine for a long time, maybe even to present day. Many people confuse the third reich's territorial expansion as a land grab, but that's another huge misconception. Hitler's plan was to knock France and Britain out of the war, and then turn against Stalin to control the Ural Plateau/Baltic Peninsula.

I guarantee you if Axis won the war, the boundaries of Europe would look closer to what they did in 1917, rather than an entirely Nazi controlled Europe. Germany's military leaders simply didn't have the time or found the necessity of building puppet governments like they did in the first world war. Turkey would probably have a stake in the Baltic, and Germany would have a expanded border from saars to konisberg.

The reason why the Pacific Front was more significant, was that there wasn't any establishment of nation-states like in Europe. Japan could of conquered much of present day South Asia and easily assimilated it into their empire. Even if some ethnic tension resulted in a couple newly independent puppet states, long term military occupation of Asia was far more realistic with Japan than Germany.
Posted 2014-10-11 17:25:58
Did you even read my argument?
Posted 2014-10-11 17:20:45
Okay, originally I was kinda iffy on NZlockie's proposal. If you think the pacific theater was more significant than the European theater (to which I agree), then how come you're debating Westerplatte and not Guadacanal?
Posted 2014-10-11 17:10:41
I'm not trying to make this debate more difficult for you. Sorry if it might have appeared that way.
Posted 2014-10-10 08:56:25
Well I said in the rules that you could only pick one battle to argue. Anyway, I think what we agreed upon is fine. I'm not sure how any of this makes your position look bad but w/e.

Anyway, we came to an agreement. Enough said. Good luck in the debate.
Posted 2014-10-10 08:54:35
@Stalin, sorry, we were obviously posting at the same time and mine was longer than yours.
I hope you understand where I was coming from. I don't actually think you are trying to craft a debate that is impossible to win, it's just that this is already a tough case for con without removing all extra advantages they have.
I look forward to your first round.
Posted 2014-10-10 08:53:25
Why? Honestly, what difference would it make? He is arguing that Stalingrad was the most important battle in WW2. It shouldn't matter which other battle I choose because his has to be more important than ALL of them.
Stalingrad was a massively important battle. Many historians agree that it signaled the turning point in the war. He wrote both the resolution AND the rules. He gets to present first, which is usually an advantage, especially when he is forcing me to adopt part of the BOP. I've agreed to use my first round only for constructive, something I was under no obligation to do and which loses me the only advantage in going second.
I even acquiesced to his rule-after-the-fact that I could only submit one alternative battle, which I thought showed very good grace on my part.

In my opinion, allowing me the chance to present my case without any chance of contamination from his first round is the very least he can do. He surely knows the most likely candidates, there aren't that many. If Stalingrad was more important than all of them, why does it matter.

As always, I intend to argue the resolution. If he wants to craft a debate so tightly as to remove all possibility of a loss, then he should do so. I appreciated the fact that he has left some opportunity for CON in the way he's done this one so I accepted it, even though I don't normally enjoy war debates.
To be honest all this posturing before the first round is even posted is really making my side look bad, when I think I have bent over backwards to accommodate him.
Posted 2014-10-10 08:49:53
@Csareo: was original plan but this works too. Thanks for your input though:)
Posted 2014-10-10 08:35:52
OK so first round is for explaining the importance of each of our battles (no arguments/rebuttals). Sounds good.
Posted 2014-10-10 08:28:38
NZlockie, Stalin and me had a long conversation about how he would know his opponent's battle. I think you should tell him your choice now.
Posted 2014-10-10 08:22:03
And yes, I'll pick just ONE of my battles.
Posted 2014-10-10 07:26:26
There's no conflict. Your rules say I need to communicate my choice to you, which I intend to do... In round one. I don't feel that's unfair at all. It would have been simple to attach a timing qualifier to your rules, its not unreasonable for me to assume that the fact you didn't do so indicated that it wouldn't matter to you.
I'm happy to use my first round as constructive only.
Posted 2014-10-10 07:25:05
So to summarize everything that I'v said, the only way for you to prove that Stalingrad was NOT the most important battle of WWII, you must prove that there was a battle during WWII that was MORE important. From what I understand, you have two or three battles that you wish to argue. It would be easier for both of us and we would probably have a more organized debate if you picked only ONE of those battles (maybe the battle that you believe will give you the strongest position). If you wish to cancel this debate, then I suppose I could contact admin and ask him to remove it.

Its all up to you but I feel that there is nothing wrong with what I am proposing.
Posted 2014-10-10 07:07:29
I apologize if my resolution and rules conflict.
Posted 2014-10-10 06:35:55
I specifically said that you needed to communicate to me the battle you believe was more important. However if you insist, then the first round for both of us can be simply telling about why our battles are important and reserve the second and third rounds for explaining why each of our battles were MORE important. In this way, you don't need to tell me your battle but you can only use the first round to explain the importance of your battle. Is this what you wish to do?
Posted 2014-10-10 06:35:03
No, there are three rounds. This way your first round will be constructive only. Don't worry, you'll get plenty of time to rebut my battle in the next two rounds.
The resolution YOU wrote is not that Stalingrad was a MORE important battle, it was that it was the MOST important battle. It doesn't matter what my battle is, because you are arguing that your was more important than any of them.
All my job is, is to show that there was at least one other battle more important than yours.

By holding back my battle til it's my turn to post, I ensure that the first impression the judges get of it is a favourable one. Allowing you to rebut it before I've even introduced it is just incredibly weak.
I have my battle now. Go ahead and post your first round and it'll come soon enough.
I'm sorry if this annoys you, but you should know I never would have agreed to this debate if you'd made the terms that I needed to tell you my battle before we started.
Posted 2014-10-10 06:06:13
But I need to argue why Stalingrad was more important than whichever battle you choose. Therefore I need to know before I can post round one. If you need a few more days then that's fine since I have a week to post.
Posted 2014-10-10 01:17:57
I haven't 100% decided on my battle yet. Obviously there are a few to choose from. Make your case and I'll decide before it's my turn. It'll be a fun surprise for you to look forward to...
Posted 2014-10-09 15:57:32
Posted 2014-10-09 11:10:05
Darth VitiosusDarth Vitiosus
I am not suggesting anything :)
Posted 2014-10-09 11:09:11
I don't know. And there are several battles that one might argue were more important than WWII (if your suggesting Con has little to no chance in this debate).
Posted 2014-10-09 11:08:23
Darth VitiosusDarth Vitiosus
@Stalin,I have seen it on DDO a while back and I think I voted on it.....and we both know how this turns out; don't we?
Posted 2014-10-09 11:06:07
Which battle have you chosen?
Posted 2014-10-09 11:04:47
@stalin, understood. Battle it is then. Roll on!
Posted 2014-10-09 11:04:10
@csareo, his rules don't say anything about me commiting to a battle in the comments. I WILL communicate my choice to him, as they state, but I'd rather do it in round as it gives me a strategic advantage.
Personally I think Stalingrad is a solid choice and there are some very good arguments for it. f like to grab every advantage I can
Posted 2014-10-09 11:02:41
"My opponent must choose a WWII battle that he/she believes was more important than Stalingrad and argue why."

I said this in the rules. I don't think there is much left for me to say. You can pick any other battle of WWII that you believe was more important and had a greater impact on the outcome of WWII.
Posted 2014-10-09 10:59:16
Well your resume says the "most" important. This means that only one battle needs be more important before you lose.
I'll pick one then. So does it have to be a battle or can it be a smaller individual conflict? My contention is that often the smallest decisions end up being the most influential. It might be a harder case, but I'd rather argue that. It won't be anything to do with Stalingrad though.
Posted 2014-10-09 10:55:19
Where have you seen this debate before? And how does it turn out?
Posted 2014-10-09 10:53:50
Darth VitiosusDarth Vitiosus
I have seen this debate before.......I know how this turns out too.
Posted 2014-10-09 10:51:16
So if you picked two battles and only proved that one was more important while I also proved one was more important I would lose? That would be unfair. Fine, you can only pick one battle to argue.
Posted 2014-10-09 10:51:09
Actually according to your res, either one battle would be sufficient to defeat your side...
Posted 2014-10-09 10:49:06
I suppose you can have as many as you want but you will have to prove that ALL of them impacted the outcome of WWII more than the battle of Stalingrad.
Posted 2014-10-09 10:48:19
Also, can I submit a single smaller conflict rather than a whole battle? If so, I have three. I don't want to argue three though, I'll select two or one, depending on what you say.
Posted 2014-10-09 10:46:26
You would need to prove that both of those battles were more important in their effect on the outcome of WWII than Stalingrad was. Do you wish to do this?
Posted 2014-10-09 10:43:58
I was going to do Fort Cazzuco just for the hell of it
Posted 2014-10-09 10:43:18
You're supposed to give your argument in the comments
Posted 2014-10-09 10:42:53
Challenge accepted. I have two battles in mind, do I need to select one or can I argue for both?
Posted 2014-10-09 10:39:40
As I explained in the rules section, my opponent will have to pick a WWII battle that he/she believes was more important than Stalingrad and argue.
Posted 2014-10-09 09:05:28
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2014-10-17 05:45:35
9spacekingJudge: 9spaceking
Win awarded to: nzlockie
stalin concedes. Nzlockie made a much better case with the domino effect with many, MANY countries involved, much more than Stalingrad anyways.
1 user rated this judgement as biased
4 users rated this judgement as good
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
0 comments on this judgement
2014-10-21 20:30:46
adminJudge: admin    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: nzlockie
This was close.

The forfeit was the major factor. I was also particularly appreciative of nzlockie's good conduct and sportsmanship in refusing to accept the forfeit.

Also important, however, was con's ability to control the narrative of the debate. Pro's substantive arguments weren't really refuted, but they were lost in the weight of analysis both sides paid to con's arguments. Pro didn't introduce more analysis in later rounds, nor extend his initial case. Indeed most of the analysis seemed focused on nzlockie's dominoes.

That being said, I felt like pro put forward a very strong case, at least initially. This could have easily swung the other way if pro had pushed that harder right to the end.

Stalin - if somebody squirrels your topic, don't be afraid to call them out on it! You don't need to forfeit to make this claim. Better to say argue a rule was implied than to give up because you thought it existed. Your substantive case was great but not nearly pushed hard enough - I wanted to see more about Stalingrad and less about con's case. Your best point was in the paragraph that began "Stalingrad was the most important battle of WWII because of its effect on course of the war", which was exactly the kind of analysis with rebuttal integrated this kind of debate should have more of.

As a minor style point, I also found nzlockie's font choice significantly easier to read.

Nzlockie - I felt that in general your domino analogy wasn't that strong. Sure, you do need the first domino before the rest can fall, but you also need the second. The third. Etc. That's how a row of dominoes works. To illustrate the principle one could merely remove the second domino from a row and topple over the first one. So it was an effective image, but probably not the analogy you were looking for. I think the argument would have been just fine without it.

Most importantly, I feel like that should not have been your only line of attack. Rather than talk so much about things like the battle itself, I wanted to see some rebuttal and counter-analysis to pro's material as well, to moot his points about the importance of Stalingrad. Your best point was the bit about the "what if" game for this reason. You should have had more paragraphs like this directly attacking pro's case.
1 user rated this judgement as good
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
2 users rated this judgement as constructive
1 comment on this judgement
Thanks for your feedback. I will know more about what to do in future debates.
Posted 2016-12-03 05:41:48
2014-10-25 05:15:11
whiteflameJudge: whiteflame    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: nzlockie
What happened here is very simple: Pro presented a case based in proving that a single battle directed the course of WWII going forward, and Con presented a case based on proving that the first battle in the war led to all the others, thereby directing the course of WWII going forward from that. Both cases were focused on what happened after they occurred, essentially focusing on the realities of how these battles played out in the larger context of the war. Given that focus, Con chose the earlier battle and therefore best managed to link his battle to the larger impact.

Simple as this was, it was not the only way it could have played out. If Pro had refocused his case in R2, shifting entirely to a discussion of the impact of that particular battle, and stipulating that the domino case is always going to be in question, whereas the deaths and damage caused by a given battle are always going to be the only certainties, then I probably would have bought that. Con talked about how we shouldn't focus on what could have happened, yet he still wanted to extrapolate from a given battle far into the future, claiming what did happen was the result of that initial domino falling with still tenuous links, especially as compared with the links to the actual harms of these battles by themselves. It was a missed opportunity, unfortunately.

STALIN: Don't give up. Find the argument you're winning and harp on it. Con's interpretation of the resolution and how it should be addressed is not the only one that matters. You made a lot of the points you could have used in R1, you just needed to focus on weighing them in the debate.

nzlockie: An interesting tack, no doubt. I like how you handled it, you've just got to be ready to defend your views solidly if those attacks come.
1 user rated this judgement as a vote bomb
2 users rated this judgement as exceptional
3 users rated this judgement as constructive
2 comments on this judgement
Legion Legion
I get why this vote would be excellent. Not why it would be constructive. There's not as much feedback as I would want, and it seems that the 400 characters needed to make the extra point only consisted of the message to "not give up" and to "be ready to defend your arguments"
Posted 2014-10-25 16:41:00
I'd say much of the feedback I wanted to give was in the reasoning, since I provided alternate routes of argumentation, but I can respect that.
Posted 2014-10-26 06:54:14
2014-10-25 09:47:25
BlackflagJudge: Blackflag
Win awarded to: Bolshevik-
(Vote Change)
Been thinking about this one for awhile. Pro made extremely strong points in the beginning on why Stalingrad was the most important battle. Con all but dropped these points, choosing to engage in a domino effect argument. The domino effect argument as pointed out by other debaters, largely shifted the BOP at the same time being fallacious. Do to these reasons, I was way more convinced by the end of the debate that Stalin had won. There wasn't anything to strong or motivating about con's arguments. I agree that he easily controlled the narrative of the debate, but it just wasn't enough to account for him dropping pro's awesome contentions. If con had tried to be less clever and picked a normal battle, he could of won my vote.

Stalin: I gave you as much advice as I could, but you really didn't listen. The error in NZlockie's case was that he was arguing a domino effect. His entire argument relied on "Westerplatte" being the start of WW2. All you really have to do to win a debate where the oppositional case makes a domino effect, is to prove it wasn't the first domino.

You messaged me for advice, and I told you the key way you could win this debate was to argue that while Westerplatte was the first battle in the war, the events that set the war into motion were occuring far before Westerplatte. This would of at least forced NZlockie to pick a second reason why Westerplatte was the best battle.

NZlockie: Same advice I gave Stalin. Domino Effect arguments are terrible. In reality, Westerplatte coincided with the Battle of The Border, and the real start of the war came long before Westerplatte, even if Westerplatte was the most violent engagement.

Stalin didn't follow using my advice, and that's why you're taking home the trophy.
Never use domino theory unless you're absolutely certain you're arguing the first domino.
4 users rated this judgement as good
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
3 comments on this judgement
Ye I really feel like I could have won this debate had I made more arguments in the last round instead of forfeiting.
Posted 2016-12-03 05:41:48
You can still win if someone votes for you in the next 30 days
Posted 2015-11-03 14:14:56
Well.... I guess someone has to vote for you with feedback now
Posted 2015-11-03 14:14:56
2014-11-01 03:21:16
gree0232Judge: gree0232
Win awarded to: Bolshevik-
Although Stalin's argument lack clarity in some points, it is consistent with the a wide body of academic literature. Stalingrad is the turning point of WWII on the Eastern Front where a full 80% of the German Army was engaged at the height of the war. The effects of blocking and turning this around cannot be overstated. Con's argument is almost nonsensical and based entirely on semantics, singularly dismissing other major battles which had strategic outcomes on the effects of the war. Midway effected Japanese naval forces, but, given the focus on Alaskan Islands by the Japanese, there was never any serious threat of a Japanese invasion of the US - even with four aircraft carriers. The Battle of Britain simply kept Britain in the war, it was however, the involvement of the US and its economic might that made this failure significant. The battle of Kursk might itself be a candidate, but, after Stalingrad, Kursk - though massive in size - would have had little overall effect. The Germans failed in their offensive, and the 1944 Summer offensive by the Soviets took advantage of the cumulative loses of German forces and smashed the German lines. Kursk, if won, would only have pushed that starting point further east.

Finally, the decision to invade Poland brought France and Great Britain into the War - not the Soviet Union. Had Hitler stayed in his agreement with Stalin ... France fell almost immediately, Norway after that, and Britain was alone. That strategic calculus is changed by the decision to invade the USSR, not by the decision to invade Poland. The further strategic blunder of declaring war on the USA only made the strategic idiocy of Hitler that much worse. One battle in Poland did not cause that, it was a series of horrifically bad decisions by the German leader that caused it.

Simply put, cons position is based on semantics and an attempt to be clever, I understand Stalin's frustration completely.
4 users rated this judgement as a vote bomb
1 user rated this judgement as biased
1 user rated this judgement as good
4 comments on this judgement
Forward note, a judge can't refute arguments that one side didn't make themselves. Your arguing why NZlockie is wrong. Only Stalin can do that.
Posted 2015-11-03 14:14:56
Interesting views of the debate. Thanks for the vote gree0232.
Posted 2016-12-03 05:41:48
All your reasoning for why "NZlockie" lost was made by you, not Stalin. That isn't really how debate judging works.
Posted 2015-11-03 14:14:56
Lol, hate to be that guy, but *you're
Posted 2015-11-03 14:14:56
2014-12-09 05:14:29
sea_shellJudge: sea_shell
Win awarded to: nzlockie
2014-12-13 13:20:02
MikeMightyJudge: MikeMighty
Win awarded to: nzlockie
2014-12-17 03:53:46
S.H.Judge: S.H.
Win awarded to: Bolshevik-

I have been given the opportunity to judge these debaters and decide which I think has tone the debate, and fro this I must be very specific. While both teams provided extensive arguments and evidence, I believe that the pro ad stronger economic evidences and a more appealing approach to the subject. The con was also very good at speaking, but I felt that their arguments failed to provide the same amount of evidence. When the evidences are weighed, I feel that the pro wins this debate, but I advise both debate teams to have a stronger balance between pathos ethos and logos, great debate guys!
1 user rated this judgement as a vote bomb
3 users rated this judgement as biased
3 users rated this judgement as good
0 comments on this judgement
2014-12-24 18:53:03
1-upJudge: 1-up
Win awarded to: nzlockie

Both debaters concede their last round, so it should not be a relevant factor in deciding who won. Forfeits and concessions are just saunters away from eachother, but the rub is Nzlockie did not accept it so I shan't either.

Stalin started off on a strong foot in his opening, but ultimately lacked direction and clarity in his later rounds. Started making concessions about which battles were important, and how importance was subjective.

If you are not arguing your position is a maxim or absolute truth why bother. Another error in judgement is not arguing about lives lost in determining importance, or how important it is to end a war vs why it's important to establish blame on which event caused a formal declaration of war. I liked the political aspect of The Battle of Stalingards' importance one that Nzlockie neglected to refute. Also liked your stating how there were other events prior to the battle of westerplatte.

To me this debate hinged on Nzlockie saying a potentially false claim and Stalin not pointing out that a battle is an event in wwII and does have political, emotional, and tactical impact. Nzlockie's case was fairly weak imo, but he just kept coming back to westerplatte started it all a hurdle
Stalin couldn't jump.
2 users rated this judgement as good
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
0 comments on this judgement
2015-01-03 11:09:22
PinkieJudge: Pinkie    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: nzlockie

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 3 rounds
  • 8000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds means forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 1 week
  • Time to vote: 3 months
  • Time to prepare: 3 hours
My opponent must choose a WWII battle that he/she believes was more important than Stalingrad and argue why. Please communicate to me which battle you chose.