Instigator / Pro
18
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#6033
Zelensky is one of the most effective presidents on Earth today
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 15,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
14
1500
rating
3
debates
66.67%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Pro
#1
I welcome my opponent and appreciate the challenge.
It is no secret that Zelensky, who initially advocated for peace, played a key role in shaping a new Ukrainian society. However, he faced unprecedented challenges that no previous Ukrainian president had encountered—first a pandemic, then a full-scale war.
Despite these obstacles, he has achieved remarkable successes: uniting an international coalition in support of Ukraine, launching the land market, implementing the digital platform "Diia," and preserving the country’s sovereignty against the aggression of a major power. And all of this in just two years.
I await my opponent’s response—I have nothing more to add for now.
Con
#2
thx 4 hvin me, b4 anything, it's not that i don't like him or anything, but i picked up the debate just as a challenge, so yk.
My Rebuttal: Why Zelensky Is Not One of the Most Effective Presidents
I appreciate my opponent’s perspective, but I must disagree with the claim that Zelensky is one of the most effective presidents today. While he has certainly played a significant role in Ukraine’s struggle, effectiveness is measured by results, not just efforts.
I appreciate my opponent’s perspective, but I must disagree with the claim that Zelensky is one of the most effective presidents today. While he has certainly played a significant role in Ukraine’s struggle, effectiveness is measured by results, not just efforts.
Unity Does Not Equal Effectiveness
Despite gaining international support, Ukraine is still heavily dependent on foreign aid. The survival of a nation should not rely solely on external funding and military assistance. If Zelensky were truly effective, wouldn’t Ukraine have a stronger, self-sustaining economy and military by now?
Despite gaining international support, Ukraine is still heavily dependent on foreign aid. The survival of a nation should not rely solely on external funding and military assistance. If Zelensky were truly effective, wouldn’t Ukraine have a stronger, self-sustaining economy and military by now?
Domestic Struggles & Instability
Ukraine remains in a state of war despite his leadership, with millions displaced and infrastructure destroyed. He has banned opposition parties and restricted media, raising concerns about democratic principles.
Ukraine remains in a state of war despite his leadership, with millions displaced and infrastructure destroyed. He has banned opposition parties and restricted media, raising concerns about democratic principles.
Furthermore, the frequent removal of key officials and military leaders suggests internal instability rather than strong leadership.
Achievements Are Overshadowed by War
My opponent mentioned the land market and the digital platform “Diia”, but these domestic achievements are small compared to the overwhelming challenges Ukraine faces. A truly effective leader would prioritize a strong economy, national security, and long-term stability over minor reforms.
My opponent mentioned the land market and the digital platform “Diia”, but these domestic achievements are small compared to the overwhelming challenges Ukraine faces. A truly effective leader would prioritize a strong economy, national security, and long-term stability over minor reforms.
Could Another Leader Have Done Better?
Would Ukraine have been in a better position under different leadership? Many argue that a more strategic approach to diplomacy before the war could have prevented or minimized the conflict. A truly effective leader anticipates crises and mitigates them, rather than just reacting to them.
Would Ukraine have been in a better position under different leadership? Many argue that a more strategic approach to diplomacy before the war could have prevented or minimized the conflict. A truly effective leader anticipates crises and mitigates them, rather than just reacting to them.
Conclusion
Zelensky is undoubtedly a significant leader, but effectiveness means bringing tangible, lasting stability to a nation. While he has rallied support, Ukraine remains in turmoil, dependent on foreign aid, and struggling with democratic integrity. That does not make him one of the most effective presidents today.
Zelensky is undoubtedly a significant leader, but effectiveness means bringing tangible, lasting stability to a nation. While he has rallied support, Ukraine remains in turmoil, dependent on foreign aid, and struggling with democratic integrity. That does not make him one of the most effective presidents today.
Round 2
Pro
#3
1. Efficiency is measured not only by efforts but by results
My opponent claims that Zelensky made many mistakes at the beginning of the invasion. That is true, and the president himself has admitted it. However, if we talk about results rather than initial miscalculations, Zelensky, as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, can present concrete achievements:
- The Kharkiv operation – the complete liberation of the Kharkiv region from Russian forces.
- The liberation of Kherson – a strategically important regional center.
- The withdrawal of Russian troops from the Kyiv and Chernihiv regions – a result of strong Ukrainian resistance.
These successes did not happen by chance. They are the result of strategic decisions made by Zelensky. He is not just a symbol but a key figure in Ukraine's military leadership.
2. Economy in wartime and peacetime: realistic expectations
My opponent argues that if Zelensky were truly effective, Ukraine would already have a self-sufficient economy. However, this is an oversimplified view that does not take real conditions into account.
Economy in wartime:
- Missile strikes: systematic Russian attacks destroy factories and infrastructure. Ukraine physically cannot develop its industry when key facilities are being bombed.
- Limited resources: Ukraine has to spend everything on the front lines, or the country will cease to exist.
- The need for air defense: a strong air defense system could protect enterprises, but it had to be built from scratch, which was impossible without support from allies.
Economy in peacetime:
- A corrupt system: Zelensky inherited a Ukraine where corruption had existed for decades. Two years is too short a time to completely reform the economy.
- The COVID-19 pandemic: Zelensky came to power in 2019, and by 2020, the entire world was plunged into an economic crisis caused by the pandemic.
- Thus, expecting Ukraine to achieve full economic independence under such conditions is unrealistic.
Restriction of media and opposition – a necessary measure in wartime:
My opponent believes that banning certain media and opposition parties violates democracy. However, any country at war must control its information space.
The U.S. during World War II:
- Introduced censorship on war coverage.
- Launched powerful propaganda to mobilize the population.
- Interned Japanese Americans, suspecting their loyalty to the enemy.
- The UK, France, and the USSR – all of them implemented strict control over the media and potentially dangerous political groups during wartime.
Ukraine in 2022–2024 is in similar conditions. If the country had allowed pro-Russian narratives to spread freely, it could have destabilized society and jeopardized the war effort.
Conclusion: temporary restrictions are not a sign of dictatorship but a standard wartime practice.
Con
#4
Argument Refutation: Why Zelensky's Leadership Is Still in Doubt
Military Successes: Strategy or Circumstance?
My opponent argues that Zelensky’s leadership led to key military victories like the Kharkiv operation and the liberation of Kherson. However, these successes were not solely a result of Zelensky’s strategic decisions.
Counter-Evidence:
- The Kharkiv offensive was largely successful due to Western intelligence support and Russian military miscalculations, rather than solely Zelensky’s leadership.
- At the time, there was no decisive Ukrainian counteroffensive; rather, logistical difficulties on Russia's part led to the withdrawal of Russian troops from Kyiv and Chernihiv.
- The Kherson retreat was a Russian strategic withdrawal, not a direct Ukrainian military victory.
Key Point: Military victories in war often result from a combination of factors rather than just one leader's decisions. Ukraine’s success depends on external aid, Western intelligence, and Russian mistakes—factors that cannot be attributed solely to Zelensky’s efficiency.
Economic Expectations: Leadership Still Matters in Wartime
My opponent contends that it is unrealistic to anticipate a self-sufficient economy for Ukraine during a war. However, an effective leader must still make strategic economic decisions, even in crisis situations.
Counter-Evidence:
- While Ukraine faces Russian attacks, other wartime economies have still found ways to grow.
- Example: The UK and the U.S. during World War II managed to boost industrial production and sustain economic growth despite bombings and war expenses.
- Zelensky’s anti-corruption efforts have been inconsistent, leading to multiple scandals within his government.
- Mismanagement of foreign aid has caused donor nations to question how effectively funds are being used.
Key Point: A great leader anticipates economic hardships and implements strong measures to stabilize the economy. Blaming war alone ignores mismanagement within Zelensky’s administration.
Media and Opposition Bans: A Step Toward Authoritarianism?
My opponent defends Zelensky’s censorship as a wartime necessity. However, while some restrictions can be justified in war, outright suppression of opposition parties and independent media is a different issue.
Counter-Evidence:
- Western democracies like the U.S. and UK during WWII had censorship, but they still allowed opposition parties to function.
- Zelensky’s government has banned major opposition parties entirely, not just pro-Russian ones.
- Independent journalists have faced pressure and restrictions, even those reporting on Ukrainian military failures or corruption cases—not just pro-Russian narratives.
- Silencing all dissent under the justification of war sets a dangerous precedent for post-war democracy.
Key Point: National security does not justify banning all opposition voices. A truly effective leader upholds democratic values, even in war.
Final Conclusion
Zelensky’s leadership is not as effective as my opponent claims.
Military successes were due to a combination of external support and Russian failures, not just Zelensky’s strategy.
Economic hardships are real, but Ukraine’s economic mismanagement and corruption under his leadership remain a concern.
Media censorship and opposition bans go beyond wartime necessity and raise questions about Ukraine’s long-term democracy.
An effective leader is not just one who fights a war but one who strengthens a country’s future—and in that regard, Zelensky still falls short.
Round 3
Pro
#5
My opponent claims that Ukraine’s military successes—such as the Kharkiv operation and the liberation of Kherson—were not the result of Zelensky’s strategic decisions, but rather due to Western support, Russian miscalculations, and tactical withdrawals
I agree that Western support and the enemy’s mistakes played a role. However, as Commander-in-Chief, Zelensky personally conducted negotiations and secured that support, which demonstrates his active involvement in shaping a successful defense. Every day he held meetings with politicians and regularly communicated with the people to maintain morale and prevent panic—at the beginning of the war, he addressed citizens almost every hour, something rarely seen in other countries.
My opponent also argues that if Zelensky were truly effective, Ukraine would already have a strong, self-sufficient economy and military.
However, it is important to consider that during wartime, enormous economic barriers exist. Systematic missile strikes destroy infrastructure, resources are limited, and Ukraine is forced to import necessary materials while mass emigration further weakens both the economy and military potential. Comparisons with the economies of the United Kingdom or the United States are not valid, as their capacity to expand budgets and resources differs significantly from Ukraine’s.
Regarding the claim that Zelensky suppresses opposition parties and restricts media freedom
it is important to note that such measures were implemented under martial law to protect national security. In March, the National Security and Defense Council suspended the activities of parties with ties to Russia, and on May 3 the Verkhovna Rada passed a law banning pro-Russian parties, which the president signed on May 14. Examples of the banned parties include:
- “Opposition Bloc” (“Опоблок”) – formed on the basis of the Party of Regions, closely associated with the pro-Russian ex-president Yanukovych.
- “Socialists” – a party that included former members of the Party of Regions and advocated for economic cooperation with Russia.
- “Nashi (Our)” – established by Evgeniy Murayev, known for his pro-Russian views and denial of Russian aggression against Ukraine.
- “Derzhava” – led by Dmytro Vasylets, who actively spread narratives favorable to Russia.
- “Vladimir Saldo Bloc” – after the invasion, Saldo switched sides and became head of the occupation administration in Kherson.
- The Party of “Justice and Development” – associated with politicians who supported Ukraine’s neutrality.
- “Socialist Party of Ukraine” – which included politicians who favored cooperation with Russia; the former leader Ilya Kyva fled to Russia in 2022.
- “Left Opposition” – which promoted ideas similar to the rhetoric of communist parties, including support for “Slavic unity.”
- “Shariy Party” – headed by Anatoliy Shariy, who frequently disseminated pro-Russian narratives.
- “Opposition Platform – For Life” – the largest pro-Russian party, whose leaders had direct ties with the Kremlin (for example, Viktor Medvedchuk).
All these parties had clear links with pro-Russian structures and disseminated narratives that favored the occupiers. Under wartime conditions, their activities posed a direct threat to Ukraine’s national security.
Conclusion:
Ukraine’s military successes are the result of many factors, but Zelensky, as Commander-in-Chief, played a key role in securing Western support and mobilizing the nation. The restriction of pro-Russian parties and media is a necessary measure in wartime aimed at protecting the country’s sovereignty. The Ukrainian people chose to fight rather than surrender, and Zelensky, as the “servant of the people,” is acting in accordance with the nation’s will. Of course, an effective leader should also care for the safety of citizens and the economy, but under extreme conditions, the priority is the defense of the state. Therefore, Zelensky’s leadership can be considered effective in the current circumstances, despite some difficulties.
Con
#6
Final Rebuttal: The Illusion of Leadership
Military Success – A Victory of Strategy or Circumstance?
My opponent insists that Zelensky played a key role in Ukraine’s military victories because he secured Western aid and maintained public morale. However, let’s break this down:
- Western aid was not given because of Zelensky’s "genius" negotiation skills—it was a strategic necessity for NATO and the West. They supported Ukraine to contain Russia, protect European stability, and avoid direct military intervention. If securing aid = great leadership, then any leader in his position would have done the same. It wasn’t unique to Zelensky.
- Ukrainian generals and soldiers exploited Russian failures to free Kherson and Kharkiv, not Zelensky's strategies. Those victories were made possible by Russia's logistical collapse, low troop morale, and terrible command decisions. — Ukraine’s military strategy was shaped by its experienced generals, trained over years of conflict—not by Zelensky, who had no military background before 2019.
Hard Truth: Zelensky is a figurehead in military matters, not a mastermind. Ukraine’s battlefield successes came from a combination of Western intelligence, Russian missteps, and the military’s independent strategic planning—not his decisions.
Economic Collapse – War or Mismanagement?
My opponent contends that the economic devastation in Ukraine is unavoidable as a result of the war. While economies are harmed by war, an effective leader prevents it from spiraling out of control.
- Economic mismanagement has exacerbated the crisis under Zelensky: Corruption continues to eat away at foreign aid, with reports of billions being misallocated or lost in non-transparent deals.
- Government inefficiency has failed to stabilize production or retain businesses, leaving Ukraine more dependent on foreign assistance instead of strengthening internal resilience.
- Infrastructure repairs remain slow, despite billions in aid—where is the accountability?
Hard Truth: Leadership isn’t about blaming circumstances—it’s about finding solutions. Instead of adapting like the UK and US did in wartime, Zelensky’s government remains reactive and dependent on external aid, with no real long-term economic strategy.
Media Censorship & Opposition Bans – Necessary or Dangerous?
- My opponent claims that suppressing opposition parties was essential for national security. Let's just call it what it is: a path down the road to authoritarian control. A leader who silences critics isn’t protecting democracy—he’s reshaping it to fit his narrative.
- Yes, some pro-Russian elements existed, but banning entire parties without individual investigations? That is political purging, not safeguarding national security. Yes, wartime restrictions are understandable, but Ukraine is silencing not just Russian sympathizers, but also independent journalists reporting on government failures.
- If this was truly about wartime security, why do even anti-corruption reporters face suppression?
Hard Truth: Democracies survive wars without silencing dissent. If Zelensky’s leadership can’t handle opposition, it raises serious concerns about post-war Ukraine.
The Conclusion: Leadership Is More Than Just Appearances My opponent portrays Zelensky as a hero during the war, but let's take a step back and consider the question: What makes a leader truly successful?
- A strong leader doesn’t just “react” to crises—they anticipate and prevent them.
- A strong leader doesn’t just “seek aid” but ensures it’s used efficiently.
- A strong leader doesn’t “ban” opposition under broad claims—he debates and defends democracy.
Zelensky may be a symbol of Ukraine’s resistance, but being a symbol doesn’t make you a great leader. His military role is overstated, his economic policies are failing, and his restrictions on political opposition raise red flags about Ukraine’s democratic future.
If we’re voting based on who is the most effective leader, we need to separate reality from emotional narratives.
The facts are clear: Zelensky's leadership continues to be questionable, reactive, and flawed. The real test of leadership is not just surviving a crisis—it’s shaping a country’s future beyond it. And thus far? That future under Zelensky looks increasingly uncertain.
I stand by my position because of this.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
https://youtu.be/W5rAppZfhOo
judgement in video
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
As debate is about Zaleski and pro try his best to tell good about him , but our con critic on the Ukraine (and its system) that goes in different direction .....
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
At the very start of the debate, CON shifts the focus to “results, not just efforts”, which gives their side an obvious advantage as Ukraine is in a state of war. Surprisingly, PRO does not contest this directly.
PRO successfully defends Ukraine’s wartime political repression as mainly anti-Russian, and they justify this by making references to past actions taken by other democracies at war.
In my opinion, CON does not focus enough on the “Could Another Leader Have Done Better” part.
CON blames Zelensky for not getting rid of corruption within his government, and yet CON also blames him for destabilizing Ukraine by firing corrupt officials. If PRO had called CON out on this mismatch, it would have been pretty bad.
Here’s what sealed the deal for me:
PRO says: Look at Zelensky’s strategic victories.
CON says: Those strategic victories were the result western aid, and Russian miscalculation.
PRO says: That is a testament to Zelensky’s diplomatic success.
CON says: No, those things would have happened regardless.
I understand you, thank you for the correction)
you are an American, you know your history better with Japan in WW II.
And thank you for making the video review. The Ukrainian app "Diya" is the world’s first electronic mobile passport. This technology has already started being adopted by other Western countries, taking inspiration from Ukraine.
I also heard in the video that your son wants to watch the Minecraft movie — it’s a fun film, I enjoyed it)
I also didn't mention it but it feels like a shared BOP.
I am not 100% sure I got this one right so if you guys could place a vote it would be nice. Short debate not many contentions to analyze but there is some fuzziness with the resolution and both sides seem to be arguing something that is not quite the resolution. I tried to stay true to what it felt like they were debating in favor of but it was close either way
This didn't happen automatically but after Pearl harbor there was some Japanese people who were American citizens and one of the Japanese pilots crash landed on a Hawaii island and the Japanese citizens of that island helped the pilot essentially take over the island.
A few other incidents. Happened where it was proven many Japanese had dual loyalty so necessary precautions were taken
Americans didn't actually intern Japanese Americans. It's a myth we like to promote here because the left thinks it proves America is racist and the right uses it as an example of how evil liberals are because Roosevelt did it.
What really happened is Japanese citizens were forced to move away from areas where sensitive military operations were happening and governors from states not around those sensitive areas didn't like the Japanese coming in. So what happened was the federal government put up shelters for the Japanese and there were curfews if you wanted to stay there but you could essentially come and go as you please and if you left you didn't have to come back just not go near airports or military bases etc.
We have a few myths that both sides use so nobody wants to admit it's bullshit .
if i earn thanks for voting , then that's the only thing i like to do ,
and u find my biased vote on every spot , haha its a lie
well yeah, thx for votin ppl.
ଘ(੭ˊᵕˋ)੭* ੈ✩‧˚
Fine, I'll vote anyway.
Well, go ahead. You have the right to express your opinion
whatcha mean by unjust / well idk the other debater is also supposed to say so uh well i can't say anything bout the UNJUST VOTE
meow
dear debaters , i like to cast my unjust vote on it ,
if u like it without any discrimination
I will vote on this one if somebody else votes on my debate:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/6009-christianity-has-had-more-positive-impact-than-any-other-religion
no offense, no hard feelings, ok ppl, i just took the debate as a challenge, there's nothing personal.
meow
∧,,,∧
( ̳• · • ̳)
/ づ
uh, well is this debate that important, like really?
used my credits to push this to the top o hopefully it gets the recognition it deserves
definitely want to vote on this at some point
You could make the title of this debate more airtight by changing the title to "Zelensky is one of the { insert number here } most effective presidents on Earth today".
They don't want kyev. They want the dumb ass region.
I mean yeah
Ukraine is fighting a war of attrition that is unsustainable long term, peace is needed
The Russian Invasion into Ukraine is very stupid too, if they got into Kiev in like ~2 weeks it would be worth it
Effective at shutting down churches, censoring media and dragging out a war so he loses hundreds of thousands of extra lives to defend Russian speaking regions who prefer to be a part of Russia and let's be honest. Russian and Ukraine are both shitholes and there is no discernable difference living in either one. If you went to sleep in Ukraine and woke up in Russia you literally wouldn't notice
Define effective
good idea, already changed the terms of the debate to "Zelensky is one of the most effective presidents in the world today" :)
It's fair . I don't have time for this shit but I think his predecessor was better so maybe I could be persuaded.
He's the only one most people have heard of, so there might not be a challenger. If not, try changing the resolution to world leader (to which I'd say he needs to be in the top five).