EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
3191

That Nagorno Karabahk Should be Reunited with Armenia

(PRO)
4 points
(CON)
WINNER!
6 points
KasmicKasmic (PRO)
  Good luck to Stag!
 
 As Pro it is my burden to show that Nargorno Karbakh should be reunited with Armenia. I will do this by affirming the following.
 
 1. Self-Determination ought to be respected
 2. The People of Nargorno Karabakh have repeatedly self-determined themselves part of Armenia
 
 If the above is true than it follows that…
 
 C. Nargorno Karabakh should be reunited with Armenia
 
 Definitions: 
 
Self Determination: The fundamental right of a nation or people of a given area to freely determine its own political status or form of government and to freely pursue its own cultural, economic, and social development without outside influence; independence.
 
 1: Self-Determination ought to be respected
 
The root value of Self-Determination is freedom. Freedom is widely accepted as a fundamental right people inherently have. To infringe on this right is tyranny. Tyranny results in suffering. i.e. the holocaust is a quintessential example of harm that occurs when peoples freedom is ignored. Thus individual freedom ought to be respected. Included in this value is the freedom as a nation or people to self-determine.
 
 A fundamental principle of international relations is Identity. Identity can be effective at binding a group of people that share a territory, language, culture, and/or customs. It can also tightly tie together groups of people that share economic, political, and/or religious history. Self-Determination exemplifies the principle of identity as a group of people collectively decide together the type of government they will establish. Identity binds a group together cohesively.
 
2: The People of Nargorno Karabakh have repeatedly self-determined themselves part of Armenia
 
 “On 13 February 1988, Karabakh Armenians began demonstrating in their capital, Stepanakert, in favour of unification with the Armenian republic. Six days later they were joined by mass marches in Yerevan. On February 20, the Soviet of People's Deputies in Karabakh voted 110 to 17 to request the transfer of the region to Armenia.” (1)
 
 “On 29 November 1989….. a joint session of the Armenian Supreme Soviet and the National Council, the legislative body of Nagorno-Karabakh, proclaimed the unification of Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia.”(1)
 
It is a historical fact that the people have elected to self-determine as part of Armenia. They share an identity. Therefore,Nargorno Karbakh should be reunited with Armenia.

 Sources:
 (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabakh
 
 
 
 
  

Return To Top | Posted:
2015-05-28 05:24:32
| Speak Round
BlackflagBlackflag (CON)
I am glad my opponent chose to venture outside of his comfort zone when he selected to do this debate. There is one clarification I would like to make before we begin . The topic says "reunited," implying that Nagorno Karabahk was once apart of modern day Armenia, which it was not, unless you include the ancient Kingdom of Armenia. 

Nagorno-Karabahk is an internationally recognized autonomous region of Azerbaijan locked between Lower Karabahk and Syunik Provinces. Unlike the majority of Azerbaijan, Nagorno Karabahk is the only region in which there are not a majority of Azeri Muslims, but rather Armenian Christians. In the late 80's during the Soviet reform period under Mikail Gorbachev, a strong Armenian secessionist movement occurred in the Nagorno-Karabahk region of the Azerbaijan SSR, followed by a brief skirmish of Armenian and Azeri SSR troop reserves across the countryside. 

Two months after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the creation of the Armenian and Azerbaijan nation states, Armenian guerrillas started a high intensity warfare campaign within Nagorno-Karabakh which led to the establishment of a temporary government known as the Republic of Artsakh, or the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. To prevent the Azerbaijan army from crushing the rebellion, the Armenian army invaded the country through the desert valley around the city of Zanrijan, where they established a heavily fortified supply route to the rebels, in which reinforcements, heavy artillery, and equipment would supplement the battered mountain militias. 

It was three years after the violence stopped with a combined Artsahk and Armenian victory, but tensions were still wide on the borders, and since 1994 many ethnic clashes and border skirmishes have occurred between Armenians and Azeri citizens. 

That is a short and much needed background of the current circumstances of the Republic of Artsahk. We are debating the topic on whether Artsahk should be reunited with Armenia. There are several immediate reasons I could think of that led me to believe this would be a terrible idea.
  • If the republic was annexed, the Artsakh would almost certainly be made into an autonomous province of Armenia with independent governance, which is what they already have under the Azerbaijan government 
  • There is no recognized land connection between Armenia and Artsahk, and Azeri airspace would never be granted to Armenia. Artsakh therefore would be isolated entirely from the world and Armenia, whereas they wouldn't be  as an autonomous republic under Azerbaijan, or even an independent state in which they had received political recognition from Azerbaijan
  • Due to a blockade from Turkey and Azerbaijan, Armenia only has one trade route, and that is through the port of Batumi, Georgia. The Republic of Georgia, like almost every other country in the world, recognizes Nagorno-Karabahk as an autonomous province of Azerbaijan. The annexation of the Republic of Artsakh would likely result in a reaction from Georgia and other coastal nations in which Armenian goods go to from Batumi. 
  • The current republic of Artsakh is a puppet state of Armenia. The region is a cold war frozen conflict zone. Diplomatic annexation may very well unthaw the region and lead to an all out war. Even if it were to not, giving Armenia the legitimacy to build an army in Nagorno-Karabakh wouldn't be good for anybody.
  • Azerbaijan is a state renowned for its post-soviet secular policies, and Azeri citizens under the Soviet Union had developed and invested in Nagorno-Karabakh for decades. They should have a say when it comes to a vote on secession, because they justifiably believe Nagorno-Karabakh to be apart of the Azeri Turkish homeland. As it has been shown, a vote on secession would fail if you included all Karabakh and Azerbaijan peoples. 

It is in the interests of all parties except power hungry imperialists to not support the annexation of Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia.

Return To Top | Posted:
2015-05-30 06:15:52
| Speak Round
KasmicKasmic (PRO)

Stag offers a kritik of the resolve stating “The topic says "reunited," implying that Nagorno Karabahk was once apart of modern day Armenia, which it was not…” There are two reasons not to buy this kritik.

1.  He rebuts it himself saying “, unless you include the ancient Kingdom of Armenia.”

2.  We are arguing what “should” be, thus the kritik hardly effects the outcome as it only address what the resolution implies “was.”


 My opponent than lists 5 reasons as to why he is opposed to the resolution.
 
 1. First he argues little change would occur regarding governance. The impact of this argument is nill as he has not outlined any harm.
 
 2. He argues there is no land connection. This is an especially weak argument as many nations of the world have their land split in similar ways. Firstly any nation that has an island. Perhaps the best example is Alaska being a part of the U.S. No land connection there, and no harm. My opponent claims the harm for this is Azeri airspace would never be granted. He does not provide any reasoning to back this just claims it to be true… this is what we call, hearsay.

 3. Here my opponent claims that annexation would likely result in a reaction from Georgia and other coastal nations. He does not indicate whether this result would be harmful or beneficial and thus there is no harm indicated in this argument.

4. My opponent claims this change to be the cause of a “all out war.” Oddly he does not offer any reason for this conclusion. He just claims it. Again a case of hearsay.

5.  This is perhaps my opponent’s strongest objection. He says “Azeri citizens under the Soviet Union had developed and invested in Nagorno-Karabakh for decades. They should have a say when it comes to a vote on secession.” This is outweighed by the value of self-determination. He claims that “, a vote on secession would fail if you included all Karabakh and Azerbaijan peoples.” I have provided historical examples of these people attempting to self-determine themselves part of Armenia. Clearly this is their right… and their desire.
 
 Conclusion:
 
 My opponents contentions include little to no harm, and little to no sources. He has made many claims without providing reasoning. The arguments are also outweighed by the value of freedom exemplified by self-determination.
 
 It is a historical fact that the people have elected to self-determine as part of Armenia. They share an identity. Therefore,Nargorno Karbakh should be reunited with Armenia.


Return To Top | Posted:
2015-05-30 15:13:17
| Speak Round
BlackflagBlackflag (CON)
Kudos for David's speedy reply. I'll be sure to return the favor. I am aware of the bug below this sentence and I am leaving it for admin to reference #RhymeZone 
3585 characters remaining (4000 maximum) 
  Drafts are being saved for you automatically, but keeping your own backup is still a good idea Save Draft Manually NowSave Draft Manually Now

 This scope of argumentation on this debate has been clearly outlined by the affirming position. David feels strongly in his belief that self determination trumps all, to the point where he is comfortable just rebutting my contentions for the rest of the debate. I would like to challenge this "belief." In the West, there has became a disillusioned concept that self determination should be respected to the utmost, and under any circumstances. The concept is silly in every sense of the world, and really just an appeal to Ad Populum Sophisma . The majority of people in the Republic of Artsakh may want to unify with Armenia, but that wont stop me from arguing that it wouldn't be in their best interests.

Thankfully the scope of the debate has been narrowed down to a handy 5 points. I'll respond to David's numerical list in sequential order.

1. The reason I established the fact that Nagorno-Karabakh would have the exact same form of government under Armenian administration was to show just how much things would improve living under an Armenian banner....... not at all, and maybe even a little worse.

2.  I suppose the affirming position is justified in asking for a bit more clarification. Armenia does not have access to Azeri airspace right now, and it is less likely that they will have access to Azeri airspace if they were to annex Nagorno-Karabakh. Right now, the Armenian Armed Forces are occupying a large strip of land full of ethnic Azeri Turks, and they don't want to be Armenian. The only connection Armenia would have to Nagorno-Karabakh is this illegal strip of land, and obviously we cannot allow that to happen because we respect the self determination of indigenous populations. 

3. Okay, I can clarify that. Georgia is heavily alligned with western NATO powers, aspiring to join themselves. The illegal annexation of a region internationally recognized to be apart of the Azerbaijan nation state would definitely see a reaction from the UN and some major NATO players. That reaction would not under any circumstances be a "good" one. It is extremely likely that Georgia may turn back Armenian traders and cut off the Armenia's pipelines with Russia if Armenia were to illegally annex Nagorno-Karabakh. Even if Georgia decides to stay neutral, you have to wonder how many other nations will choose to do the same. Would Turkey even allow Armenian traders to exit the black sea?

4. The argument is hardly hearsay. War has been fought over this region before, and judging from how militarized Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding regions are, it is more likely that Azerbaijan will resort to all out war than not. 

5. Self determination is all relative. Citizens voted in referendums saying that they wanted the creation of Azerbaijan. That area of land included Nagorno-Karabakh. To the Azeri people, Nagorno-Karabakh is one ethnic enclave in their ancestral Turkish homeland. Azeri Turks need to have a say in any policy of secession, or in a way we would be committing a major moral imperative. 




Return To Top | Posted:
2015-05-30 15:55:18
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
KasmicKasmic
Great feedback. Thanks!
Posted 2015-05-31 11:23:34
BlackflagBlackflag
They don't have to but it is worth 1/3rd of a regular judgement
Posted 2015-05-31 07:25:06
BlackflagBlackflag
They don't have to but it is worth 1/3rd of a regular judgement
Posted 2015-05-31 07:24:58
BlackflagBlackflag
They don't have to but it is worth 1/3rd of a regular judgement
Posted 2015-05-31 07:24:36
BlackflagBlackflag
They don't have to but it is worth 1/3rd of a regular judgement
Posted 2015-05-31 07:24:28
BlackflagBlackflag
They don't have to but it is worth 1/3rd of a regular judgement
Posted 2015-05-31 07:24:15
BlackflagBlackflag
They don't have to but it is worth 1/3rd of a regular judgement
Posted 2015-05-31 07:24:05
BlackflagBlackflag
They don't have to but it is worth 1/3rd of a regular judgement
Posted 2015-05-31 07:23:26
KasmicKasmic
Do the judges not have to give any kind of rfd?
Posted 2015-05-31 06:30:39
BlackflagBlackflag
Ah, judged :(
Posted 2015-05-31 04:51:48
BlackflagBlackflag
The debate will be voted on by at least 4 people. The judgements from the core users are just a bit longer and more detailed, and I know several members read the debate several times before writing a judgement.
Posted 2015-05-31 04:51:31
KasmicKasmic
Unvoted..... Auto correct
Posted 2015-05-31 02:55:46
KasmicKasmic
How often do debates go invited?
Posted 2015-05-31 02:55:17
BlackflagBlackflag
Thanks. That was a pretty good 8000 character total debate
Posted 2015-05-30 16:01:59
KasmicKasmic
Good round stag!
Posted 2015-05-30 16:00:37
BlackflagBlackflag
Thanks admin
Posted 2015-05-30 06:16:08
adminadmin
There you go @Stag
Posted 2015-05-30 06:12:25
KasmicKasmic
I am good with that.
Posted 2015-05-30 06:08:06
BlackflagBlackflag
BTW, there were bullets in there when I was listing the reasons I was going to argue next round
Posted 2015-05-30 05:39:52
BlackflagBlackflag
If it is cool with both David and @admin , can we put this argument back into my round?
Posted 2015-05-30 05:37:56
BlackflagBlackflag
So it wouldn't let me post it, probably because I just missed the deadline (I can't read the times on certain devices)
Anyways I learned from my mistakes and recovered my argument

"I am glad my opponent chose to venture outside of his comfort zone when he selected to do this debate. There is one minor clarification I would like to make before we begin . The topic says "reunited," implying that Nagorno Karabahk was once apart of modern day Armenia, which it was not, unless you include extremely ancient Kingdom of Armenia, which is how the current Republic of Artsakh got its name.

Nagorno-Karabahk is an internationally recognized autonomous region of Azerbaijan. Unlike the majority of Azerbaijan, Nagorno Karabahk is the only region in which there are not a majority of Azeri Muslims, but rather Armenian Christians. In the late 80's during the Soviet reform period under Mikail Gorbachev, a strong Armenian secessionist movement occurred in the Nagorno-Karabahk region of the Azerbaijan SSR, followed by a brief skirmish of Armenian and Azeri SSR troop reserves across the countryside.

Two months after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the creation of the Armenian and Azerbaijan nation states, Armenian guerrillas started a high intensity warfare campaign within Nagorno-Karabakh which led to the establishment of a temporary government known as the Republic of Artsakh, or the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. To prevent the Azerbaijan army from crushing the rebellion, the Armenian army invaded the country through the desert valley around the city of Zanrijan, where they established a heavily fortified supply route to the rebels, in which reinforcements, heavy artillery, and equipment would supplement the battered mountain militias.

It was three years after the violence stopped with a combined Artsahk and Armenian victory, but tensions were still wide on the borders, and since 1994 many ethnic clashes and border skirmishes have occurred between Armenians and Azeri citizens.

That is a short and much needed background of the current circumstances of the Republic of Artsahk. We are debating the topic on whether Artsahk should be reunited with Armenia. There are several immediate reasons I could think of that led me to believe this would be a terrible idea.
If the republic was annexed, the Artsakh would almost certainly be made into an autonomous province of Armenia with independent governance, which is what they already have under the Azerbaijan government
There is no recognized land connection between Armenia and Artsahk, and Azeri airspace would never be granted to Armenia. Artsakh therefore would be isolated entirely from the world and Armenia, whereas they wouldn't be as an autonomous republic under Azerbaijan, or even an independent state in which they had received political recognition from Azerbaijan
Due to a blockade from Turkey and Azerbaijan, Armenia only has one trade route, and that is through the port of Batumi, Georgia. The Republic of Georgia, like almost every other country in the world, recognizes Nagorno-Karabahk as an autonomous province of Azerbaijan. The annexation of the Republic of Artsakh would likely result in a reaction from Georgia and other coastal nations in which Armenian goods go to from Batumi.
The current republic of Artsakh is a puppet state of Armenia. The region is a cold war frozen conflict zone. Diplomatic annexation may very well unthaw the region and lead to an all out war. Even if it were to not, giving Armenia the legitimacy to build an army in Nagorno-Karabakh wouldn't be good for anybody.
Azerbaijan is a state renowned for its post-soviet secular policies, and Azeri citizens under the Soviet Union had developed and invested in Nagorno-Karabakh for decades. They should have a say when it comes to a vote on secession, because they justifiably believe Nagorno-Karabakh to be apart of the Azeri Turkish homeland. As it has been shown, a vote on secession would fail if you included all Karabakh and Azerbaijan peoples.

It is in the interests of all parties except power hungry imperialists to not support the annexation of Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia."
Posted 2015-05-30 05:36:55
KasmicKasmic
Is there a way to extend time?
Posted 2015-05-30 05:03:01
KasmicKasmic
You have twenty mins..... Are you gonna make it?
Posted 2015-05-30 05:02:19
KasmicKasmic
20 Hours
Posted 2015-05-29 09:02:35
BlackflagBlackflag
Can someone tell me the time left on this debate
Posted 2015-05-29 08:54:29
KasmicKasmic
I knew next to nothing about Nagorno Karabahk before this debate.
Posted 2015-05-28 05:27:13
nzlockienzlockie
Yes you will. 4000 characters guys! Good luck!
Posted 2015-05-28 00:39:29
KasmicKasmic
So I will have 2 days to post my argument right?
Posted 2015-05-27 10:53:15
KasmicKasmic
Fun... GL Stag
Posted 2015-05-27 10:50:23
BlackflagBlackflag
Ah, I was hoping I would have a chance to do this topic. Luckily for me I got the devils advocate position
Posted 2015-05-27 10:38:13
KasmicKasmic
I like the idea of a "secret topic" debate.
Posted 2015-05-27 06:23:02
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2015-05-31 06:04:05
RXR.Judge: RXR.
Win awarded to: Blackflag
2015-05-31 11:13:52
ButterCatxJudge: ButterCatx    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Blackflag
2015-05-31 11:18:02
nzlockieJudge: nzlockie    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Kasmic
Reasoning:
OK, I'll be honest, this was an extremely close debate. I've awarded the win to PRO primarily because of his first round argument which was clear and sourced. His point was that Self determination is good, (weak) and the Nagorno-Karabahk people formally wanted self-determination, (stronger due to the source.)
CON did address these points, but he needed to do more to outweigh the fact that the actual people involved had voted in favour of succession.
CON's five point argument dominated the debate after this. The major problem with these points, and the reason they didn't score as highly as they should have, was the fact that they were not sourced whatsoever. All of them were presented as pure speculation. That still would have counted, except that PRO called him on it.
In the end, I gave CON small victory for his 5th point, that the Azeri people were invested in that region as well, made stronger in his final round, where he expressed it far better - but ultimately, I don't find that CON did enough to overturn PRO's sourced evidence.

Feedback:
BOTH SIDES: You need to source your arguments. And from good sources - not wikipedia.
This was a limited character debate and I give you credit for that. It didn't read like one, which is a sure sign that a lot of work has gone in to formulating the argument.

That being said, I just needed some specific reference to precident or evidence to show that the assertions both sides were making actually held water.

Also, images help! I'm really surprised nobody posted up a map to help us get oriented. Typically, whoever does this first immediately subliminally establishes themselves as having the most credibility as a source of accurate information. And in a limited character debate, that kind of free publicity is invaluable.

PRO: In your second round you wasted valuable characters addressing CON's kritik of the resolution. This was not needed. It had exactly zero impact on the debate, made evident by the fact that after making it, CON continued to argue the same resolution as you.
Just because you are opposing him, doesn't mean you need to get sucked into opposing every thing he says. Choose your battles.

Secondly, your sources. Wikipedia SUCKS as a reputable source. In this instance it didn't matter too much, but I checked and you could have sourced this same information from so many other, more reputable sources. Several of them had extra information which may have been valuable to your case.

Along the same lines, when you attacked PRO's points, you rightly called him out for speculation, however your case would have been much stronger had you been able to cite examples of where and when his points had failed in similar circumstances. Alaska was a weak example of this, but along the right idea.
I accept that character limits affect this, so a simple reference and a citation would have sufficed.

Finally, your first point about freedom would have been MUCH stronger had you taken the extra step of citing that both Armenia and Azerbaijan have claimed to support these freedoms, by being part of the UN and supporting the UDHR. This is a claim pretty easily attacked by CON, but it still would have made your point stronger. You yourself stated that not everyone officially supports these freedoms, so it was important for you to show that these countries did.

CON: This was a tough loss for you. To be honest, I initially gave you the win on the strength of your final sentence alone. I think that had you spent your characters differently, the result would have been different.
My advice would be to examine PRO's winning points and make sure those are attacked thoroughly before bringing in your own ones.
His evidence that the local ethnic people of an autonomous region voted for independence needed to be addressed fully. For me, you almost defeated this in your last paragraph alone. Had you pushed this a little stronger, it would have mitigated his point fully and left me in no doubt that he hadn't made his case.
As it was, your uncited assertions didn't do enough to overcome his cited ones.

Finally, I'd advise you to be wary of making unsubstantiated assertions of what military actions will or won't take place in troubled regions of the world. War is an expensive business and there are literally thousands of examples throughout history of instances where wars were NOT started when it seemed obvious they would be. If you are going to convince me that an action will certainly have no peaceful resolution, you need to give me evidence behind your reasoning, or else convince me that you are an expert in the field and I should trust your gut.

Kudos for another good debate! You deserve to get a close decision here.

1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
2 users rated this judgement as constructive
14 comments on this judgement
KasmicKasmic
Great feedback, tbh Wikipedia as a source was me being lazy. Though, I think wiki gets a worse rep than it deserves there are certainly better sources I could have used.
Posted 2017-06-22 06:51:58
nzlockienzlockie
Yeah I know what you mean - as time goes by, Wiki gets better and better, but you only need to use it to research a subject you know intimately to see how full of holes it actually still is.
Check this source out - and imagine how stronger case you could have made off the back of this one!
http://www.anca.org/assets/pdf/FactSheet_Artsakh.pdf

That's not to say this source wasn't incorrect either - only that it looks far better than a wikipedia article written by Jaywubba1887.
Posted 2015-08-25 21:59:37
KasmicKasmic
Wow! That source would have done my job for me haha.
Posted 2017-06-22 06:51:58
BlackflagBlackflag
It often comes out as conceited when you judge your own quality in a debate, but I am certain I won this, but I wouldn't care as much if you gave me some good reasons to believe I didn't like you usually do.

I can't be that disappointed considering you do make high quality judgements, even if I highly disagree with your logical thought processes
Posted 2015-11-03 14:14:56
nzlockienzlockie
@Stag - I get that. Like I said, I am genuinely torn on this one. I'll reread it and give you some better feedback. Given the character count, both of you did an impressive job.
Posted 2015-08-25 21:59:37
BlackflagBlackflag
Well thanks, I enjoyed the quick debate
Posted 2015-11-03 14:14:56
nzlockienzlockie
@Stag OK, so here we go.
First round: Your background information was good, favoured your position and gave you some credibility as knowing what was going on in the region. This is important because you are about to make a whole bunch of speculative statements, so I need to know I can trust you.
Your first point uses the words, "almost certainly". Instant doubt. Considering you're not sourcing any of this, why not just say, "will"? It makes your case so much stronger.
This point is weak anyway. From YOUR perspective, there is no point becoming Armenia because it's the same, but based on PRO's sourced material, the people still want the change! If it doesn't matter one way or the other, but the people want it one way, then I'm going to let them have it at this point.
I must admit, I really struggled with your second point. There's no land connection. So What?! I was praying that PRO would point out that Azerbaijan already has their own completely isolated autonomous territory on the other side of Armenia, but even if they didn't, there are HEAPS of examples of isolated territories in the world. This is not a harm. Unfortunately I couldn't discount this point until PRO did. His use of Alaska as an example wasn't great but it was enough.
Incidentally, I wondered at the time whether this might have been the reason you didn't post a map, like you normally do. If so, that was a smart move.
Third point - this one is better. Still nothing but speculation and not from a recognised expert though. The problem with this is that you stop short of giving me the actual harm. Spell it out. Am I to believe that Armenia will cease to exist as a country? Should I believe it will lead to more war? Will they have to deal with Iran now, which I'm not allowed to know also shares a border with Armenia?
Your fourth point has nothing constructive in it. It's just a gloomy summation of the current situation. Right now it's bad. It MIGHT get worse if we change anything, but even if it didn't get worse, it'll still be bad. Again, despite this, the locals still voted for change, so why should this convince me otherwise?
Fifth point - NO evidence! And this one was even worse because you say, "as it has been shown..." - where? Where has it been shown? The only evidence I've seen on this subject was from PRO and it showed the ethnic minority identifying with Armenia.

In conclusion, your first round left me with only half points. Honestly, had you taken even just one of those points and devoted your whole round to that, it would have hit home. You just set the points up - and they were all good points - but you didn't finish them, so for me, they didn't count for enough.

Round 2: Point one has already been addressed. Nothing new here.
Point two is more speculation, but crucially, you've ignored the fact that many countries have territory which is cut off from the mainland. They function perfectly well. If you're suggesting that Armenia not having access to Azeri airspace is a problem that will disappear should the status quo be maintained, (something that seems to go against your summation of the situation in Round 1: Point 4) then you would have been better to say that. That would be a benefit from them staying separated. Much more powerful.
Point 3: PRO does every thing he can to give you this point. He invites you to elaborate on your previous point and deliver a harm. This is still speculation with nothing for me to give it credence except for your personal opinion, but there it is. And PRO can't contest it, because this is the last round.
On rereading, I'll admit, that this should have counted as a solid point for you. In my initial judgement, I think I was so sick of the unsubstantiated speculation that I was just waiting for something solid from you.
Round 2: Point 4 - nothing new here.
Round 2: Point 5 - Citizens voted in a referendum to create Azerbaijan that you haven't mentioned before and that you haven't cited now. PRO has no chance to refute this claim, and I'm just not given anything to convince me it's true.
Despite this, this is the closest you come to directly attacking PRO single point with any substance. Given that I can't use my own knowledge, I have to give you this point.

In the end, on a recount, I'd probably reverse my initial decision and give the win to you by a hair.
I really think your best strategy though, given the low character count available, would have been to choose one or maybe two of these points and really hammer them home. Make them solid.
Posted 2015-08-25 21:59:37
BlackflagBlackflag
I uprated ;)
Posted 2015-11-03 14:14:56
BlackflagBlackflag
Although with point two on land connections, you ignored the part about how Armenia doesn't actually have any route to Artsakh, whereas Azerbaijan and other countries with enclaves do. Azerbaijani citizens travel through Iran to Nanchivkan, but Armenians cannot travel through Azerbaijan to get to Nagorno-Karabakh.

The only other country in the world with this unique political situation is a large village north of the Ethiopian-Eritrean border, so I don't see it as comparable at all. Especially with Alaska, which is connected to the North American coastline.
Posted 2015-11-03 14:14:56
nzlockienzlockie
On point 2, I did ignore it, largely because the impact is minor. It's true that Azer has a route to one enclave through Iran, but they have no route to (to use one of half a dozen examples) Artsvashen except to go through Armenia.
There are numerous other examples where countries who are traditional enemies share scenarios like this. Somehow they make it work.
Posted 2015-08-25 21:59:37
BlackflagBlackflag
Lol, now I am sure you don't know what you are talking about. Artsvashen was an Armenian enclave within Azerbaijans borders that was seized during the 1994 war.

You claim there are plenty of examples, but I can't think of one. Literally.
Posted 2015-11-03 14:14:56
BlackflagBlackflag
In case that above post wasn't clear, Azerbaijan can get to Artshaven
Posted 2015-11-03 14:14:56
BlackflagBlackflag


See, they can clearly get to Artvashen through their own borders without having to go through Armenia. Probably because it is WITHIN their own borders
Posted 2015-11-03 14:14:56
BlackflagBlackflag
So I did go and look it up. All the enclaves in this situation were like I thought, contained to Azerbaijan-Armenia and Ethiopia-Eritrea. The situation is unique because the nations are in a cold war.

Strips of land in each country are occupied by their neighboring military, except Azerbaijan isn't making claims on the towns it has taken inside Armenians main borders.
Posted 2015-11-03 14:14:56
2015-06-01 17:54:19
adminJudge: admin    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Blackflag
Reasoning:
This was a fair debate from both sides that I enjoyed judging.

Pro opened with a simple explanation of the importance of self-determination as a principle (no tranny, lack of holocausts). He further argued that this was best realized by providing Nargorno Karabakh with the self-determination they apparently desire. There was some minor point about identity, but pro never linked it properly - specifically, he never showed why a unified identity in IR is a good thing, and why the reuniting of Nargorno Karabakh would realize this (in any detail, anyway).

Con began his round by providing some context for the debate - he was correct when he said it was much needed! He focused his efforts on basically two less principled lines of argumentation - first, that reunification would cripple the region, and second, that it could upset the local power balance in different ways causing more reactions or possibly even conflicts. These points were not well developed, but they were well justified with plenty of context, spinning a believable narrative.

What con needed to do, but didn't, was provide an immediate attack on pro's (weak) case. That essentially allowed pro to regroup, and he focused his efforts on rebuttal, copying con's structure for some reason. The rest of the debate more or less followed on from that, except for a brief moment where con described pro's case as "very silly" without explaining why (sorry, that's really not enough!). As such in my judging I had to accept the reality of ignoring self-determination leading to a holocaust, however weird that may be.

There was a basic problem I had with con's answer to the referendum (signposted in the debate as point #5) - on the one hand, con was clear to hate imperialists and side with peoples making independant decisions at a number of points. On the other hand, when it came to this referendum, he was unable to accept an independant decision and said it should be dependant on the views of third party groups, whose opinions he couldn't source and didn't do much of a job justifying. Even if I did accept, however, that the referendum wasn't sufficiently comprehensive enough (and ultimately I did), pro still held on to the principle of self determination being on his side, and being a good thing.

This being said, although self-determination was an important principle (and pro clearly won it), the key narrative of this debate focused more on the local geopolitical implications. Con clearly spun the better narrative for what's happening. This involved setting the context and applying it to all his arguments. Pro's key objection was to bemoan a lack of sources, but pro didn't provide any alternative counter-narrative to most of con's constructive material.

I give pro credit in refuting the fact most of con's material had no causal link to the resolution, specifically with regards to harms caused being entirely based on nothing but conjecture at best. I was happy to grant that, but con at least made his conjecture sound believable, unlike pro. Con put a lot of effort into describing the situation and providing a reasonable explanation for his views (not a lot of detail, but then the debate was short on detail generally).

Weak evidence was a key feature of the arguments on both sides. Pro had a principle, and a single source, and while these were a slight edge for pro in this debate, I felt the weight of con's narrative more than cancelled this out. From the moment he made his points, despite all this mistakes, con controlled the debate. He set the agenda and the talking points, because he presented such a believable story about what's going on that it became difficult to ignore. This is why con edges out the debate - pro's points faded away in the course of the debate, while con's remained more relevant and, ultimately, pro just invited con to expand on them more and more. In the end this was more of a strategic error by pro than any brilliance by con, but it was a close but clear win anyway.

Feedback:
PRO
In a short debate, it's generally considered poor strategy to copy your opponent's structure. Re-label, paraphrase. Otherwise you are literally inviting them to respond and flesh out their own points. For example, a lot of your responses were just "so what's the harm"? Rather than signposting 5 points, it would have been better to do thematic responses like "no harm" because then that reframes con's issues around your narrative, not theirs.

If con makes a kritik that's really dumb, ignore it. Judges will pick up on it well enough in almost every case.

In terms of your arguments, you had the right idea, but you need to be very tight and solid, especially along the lines of identity. If you'd talked about the poor people forcibly removed from their own cultural identity, that's harder to refute than some vague reference to identity being important in international relations.

Further, if your opponent doesn't respond to your arguments well - extend them. If they ignore you, you can ignore them, especially when you're pro because you have the BoP and win by default if they don't refute you enough. You had a lot of scope to be really aggressive.

CON
Your arguments needed a source. It's true.

A little like pro, I just felt your arguments were plain poorly structured. Label, reason, impact. Your impacts were hard to follow, and often not even there. Your reasons you framed in so conjectural a fashion I almost didn't give you the win. It was like you were hypothesizing what might happen, not telling me what definitely will happen.

Although you set the debate right in terms of state actors, it would have been helpful to frame it on a more human level. For example when you were talking about a blockade - what does that mean for your average person from the region? Lack of food? Income? I wasn't necessarily sure.

BOTH:
IR debates are generally a clash of sympathies. Even if you're literally defending the most jerk-ish position, you want to appear like you really care for the region deeply, and only want what's best for all the local people. Pro's self-determination argument came sorta close to this, but nowhere near what it should have. Evoke my empathy for the plight of these people. As such, as much as this came down to a clash of narratives, I ultimately felt BOTH sides kinda missed something important in this debate.

Well done especially to pro on a solid effort, and to con for the win.
3 users rated this judgement as constructive
2 comments on this judgement
KasmicKasmic
Excellent feedback! I never considered that If I focus on my opponents arguments it gives them the floor and the control of the debate. I will try and apply that in the future. Thanks for reading and voting Admin.
Posted 2017-06-22 06:51:58
BlackflagBlackflag
I second what David said. Best feedback I have gotten on a judgement from you.
You didn't take into context the character count in your feedback though. I was struggling to keep my arguments within 4000 characters
Posted 2015-11-03 14:14:56

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 2 rounds
  • 4000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 2 days
  • Time to vote: 3 days
  • Time to prepare: 1 hour
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