• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does Putin Have a Point in his Op-Ed? [W:83]

Does Putin Have a Point in his Op-Ed?

  • Yes he does

    Votes: 12 38.7%
  • He's mostly right, but not on everything

    Votes: 5 16.1%
  • Kinda...not always

    Votes: 5 16.1%
  • Not really

    Votes: 7 22.6%
  • No, stay out of our affairs!

    Votes: 2 6.5%

  • Total voters
    31
About 1% of what Putin says holds water, the other 99% is total bull****, he's a Russian dictator, fer crissakes! What do you expect?

What Putin says influences me to consider there is some truth in it as much as a Muller glass would cause damage to me upon impact. That is how much I am influenced from what Putin says!

For some brief note, the Muller glass is world's thinnest glass, almost resembling liquid yet it is glass made of 2 atoms of thickness. Was discovered by accident at Cornell University and will be declared as the Guinness Record for glass thinness in 2014.

References:

Huang, P. Y., Kurasch, S., Srivastava, A., Skakalova, V., Kotakoski, J., ... Muller, D. A. (2013). Ute Kaiser: Direct imaging of a two-dimensional silica glass on graphene. Nano Letters, 12 (2): 1081 DOI: 10.1021/nl204423x; Retrieved from: Guinness record: World’s thinnest glass is just two atoms thick .
 
About 1% of what Putin says holds water, the other 99% is total bull****, he's a Russian dictator, fer crissakes! What do you expect?

He does have a point, but as long as he keeps his hat on, no one will ever know.
At least he changed that "US will go in war, like it or not, no matter what"

He is a hypocrite, but it showed himself more diplomatic than Obama.

Lately, Kerry called the talks with Russians very constructive.
He seems like it is going toward a peace agreement. The guy who wanted an attack so much. He's more hypocrite than Russians now.

I also wonder, is Kerry who follow Obama, or Obama who follow Kerry.
 
At least he changed that "US will go in war, like it or not, no matter what"

He is a hypocrite, but it showed himself more diplomatic than Obama.

Lately, Kerry called the talks with Russians very constructive.
He seems like it is going toward a peace agreement. The guy who wanted an attack so much. He's more hypocrite than Russians now.

I also wonder, is Kerry who follow Obama, or Obama who follow Kerry.

I think it is Kerry following Obama's retreat from bombing Assad after Putin's move. Would it not be strange at this point when the peace proposal is moving ahead (and essentially leaves Assad under Putin) for Congress to vote pro war to Syria! That would be highly unexpected would it not?
 
I think it is Kerry following Obama's retreat from bombing Assad after Putin's move. Would it not be strange at this point when the peace proposal is moving ahead (and essentially leaves Assad under Putin) for Congress to vote pro war to Syria! That would be highly unexpected would it not?
Ye, it would be very unexpected.
That's why Putin takes the credit for putting Obama in such situation. He clearly play chess better than him.
 
Of course Putin has a point. Of course, he's also something of a despotic politician (I wouldn't quite call him a dictator). So what? We shouldn't commit the tu quoque fallacy here. If Adolf Hitler had made a speech in which he claimed that 2+2=4, it's not the case that, because he's Hitler, we should think the truths of basic mathematics suddenly false.

Putin is correct in pretty much everything he says. He may be saying it with a motive other than to tell the truth about the situation. We should formulate our thinking, and response, accordingly. Why in the world is this even a difficult question?
 
Of course Putin has a point. Of course, he's also something of a despotic politician (I wouldn't quite call him a dictator). So what? We shouldn't commit the tu quoque fallacy here. If Adolf Hitler had made a speech in which he claimed that 2+2=4, it's not the case that, because he's Hitler, we should think the truths of basic mathematics suddenly false.

Putin is correct in pretty much everything he says. He may be saying it with a motive other than to tell the truth about the situation. We should formulate our thinking, and response, accordingly. Why in the world is this even a difficult question?

Syria isn't so obvious as rudimentary arithmetic. I've said time and time again that we have national interests in Syria, and when these are compounded with a humanitarian case we have plenty of reason to not only topple Assad but to greatly assist the rebels in doing so.

I don't believe Putin because he has a vested interest in Assad winning the conflict. He has something to gain from us not intervening, which most likely means that we have something to lose. I wouldn't believe a financial claim by a fraudster, even if his argument seemed valid at first.
 
Exactly. Assad has added conditions that can never be met on this Planet after PUKIN caved in to Obama at the G-20.
And the Soviets are vetoing all UN resolutions over Syria SINCE their gambit
and break old resolutions by arming terrorist Nations.
I don't get what the GOP sees in Putin.
Syria isn't so obvious as rudimentary arithmetic. I've said time and time again that we have national interests in Syria, and when these are compounded with a humanitarian case we have plenty of reason to not only topple Assad but to greatly assist the rebels in doing so.

I don't believe Putin because he has a vested interest in Assad winning the conflict. He has something to gain from us not intervening, which most likely means that we have something to lose. I wouldn't believe a financial claim by a fraudster, even if his argument seemed valid at first.
 
Last edited:
MadLib said:
Syria isn't so obvious as rudimentary arithmetic. I've said time and time again that we have national interests in Syria, and when these are compounded with a humanitarian case we have plenty of reason to not only topple Assad but to greatly assist the rebels in doing so.

I don't believe Putin because he has a vested interest in Assad winning the conflict. He has something to gain from us not intervening, which most likely means that we have something to lose. I wouldn't believe a financial claim by a fraudster, even if his argument seemed valid at first.

The problem I see is that arguments don't merely seem valid or invalid. They are either valid or invalid (I think you're probably using the term "valid" to mean what a logician would call "sound"). And it's possible for someone with some experience evaluating arguments to tell the difference.

That Putin has a point doesn't mean that counter-points can't be made or do not exist. But the notion that he's not saying something important because he's <fill in the blank>, is a kind of fallacy. Who he is isn't important when it comes to evaluating his argument. And what he said is worth considering...though, note: I do not say he's necessarily correct. Merely that he's making a reasonable point.
 
The problem I see is that arguments don't merely seem valid or invalid. They are either valid or invalid (I think you're probably using the term "valid" to mean what a logician would call "sound"). And it's possible for someone with some experience evaluating arguments to tell the difference.

That Putin has a point doesn't mean that counter-points can't be made or do not exist. But the notion that he's not saying something important because he's <fill in the blank>, is a kind of fallacy. Who he is isn't important when it comes to evaluating his argument. And what he said is worth considering...though, note: I do not say he's necessarily correct. Merely that he's making a reasonable point.

I disagree with what he says, but that's not the point. Who is making the argument is relevant to the argument itself. Putin's a liar, and he has specific interests in an Assad victory. His arguments look appealing at face value, but keep in mind there are goals he can achieve by manipulating you and that it isn't beneath him to deceive in order to promote his own interests. What he's saying isn't necessarily wrong, but the only reason it would be right is because it fell into alignment with what he wanted. If his points are actually good, then it's likely that a more objective observer has made them already. Please don't take it from him.
 
Madlib said:
I disagree with what he says, but that's not the point. Who is making the argument is relevant to the argument itself. Putin's a liar, and he has specific interests in an Assad victory. His arguments look appealing at face value, but keep in mind there are goals he can achieve by manipulating you and that it isn't beneath him to deceive in order to promote his own interests. What he's saying isn't necessarily wrong, but the only reason it would be right is because it fell into alignment with what he wanted. If his points are actually good, then it's likely that a more objective observer has made them already. Please don't take it from him.

I will never be convinced to accept that there's a valid use of the tu quoque. If there's something wrong with his argument, we can see it without reference to who is making it. That strikes me as one of those rare clear and distinct ideas that, once understood, is absolutely understood to be true.
 
I will never be convinced to accept that there's a valid use of the tu quoque. If there's something wrong with his argument, we can see it without reference to who is making it. That strikes me as one of those rare clear and distinct ideas that, once understood, is absolutely understood to be true.

When assessing points made by politicians, there's never just the argument at play. Realpolitik and the art of manipulating are far more important to most world leaders than making an honest argument. If you design an argument in the right way, it can seem appealing but really can be harmful to those who follow it.

As I said, Putin's dishonesty and hypocrisy don't make his argument illogical, but they should at least encourage you not to take what they say at face value.
 
Madlib said:
When assessing points made by politicians, there's never just the argument at play. Realpolitik and the art of manipulating are far more important to most world leaders than making an honest argument. If you design an argument in the right way, it can seem appealing but really can be harmful to those who follow it.

As I said, Putin's dishonesty and hypocrisy don't make his argument illogical, but they should at least encourage you not to take what they say at face value.

Well, I'm encouraged by my training in logic not to take it at face value anyway. I agree it's all too easy to manipulate people. The only defense is to stick as rigorously as possible to the proper evaluation of arguments. One pillar of such evaluation is that we should avoid fallacious replies. Putin may or may not have a good argument. We can figure out whether he does without reference to who he is. Plenty of people have had to learn this lesson the hard way.

What you seem to have in mind is something like this: just because he says it, we shouldn't accept that it's factual. I agree. Questioning whether a premise is factual or not is part of the proper evaluation of an argument. Given what's at stake, the usual considerations about how to take testimony apply in scads here. But again, this is all just a matter of course as far as I'm concerned. It has nothing to do with who Putin is (consider, for example, that if Putin had argued that it's good for people to have fun once in a while, or something else relatively uncontroversial, we could pass over it without much comment).
 
Back
Top Bottom