Zelensky is one of the most effective presidents on Earth today
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
No information
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- “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).
- 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.
- 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?
- 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?
- 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.
PRO has the burden of proof by affirming the resolution. CON does have the burden of proof by trying to demonstrate the opposing resolution: "My Rebuttal: Why Zelensky Is Not One of the Most Effective Presidents."
As 7000series mentioned, CON has moved the goalpost to the point that it is virtually unprovable. At the very least, PRO had to show Zelensky is an overwhelmingly efficient president. However, when CON changed that into Zelensky having to achieve overwhelmingly good results, it became unprovable, especially in hardship.
Zelensky being behaviorally perfect would still make the claim unprovable because a flawless person cannot achieve any result. While helpful, it is not a direct relationship since reality constrains people. So, they should have focused on whether Zelensky is doing their best despite adversity as a president as much as a human can, which PRO does for the most part.
That said, to preface the debate's framing and be clear, anytime I say "argument," I mean an example that reasonably implies an efficient president. This debate is essentially flinging examples of ineffectuality or not.
Argumentation -
PRO's uncontested argument is the preservation of the country's sovereignty against the aggression of a power.
CON's uncontested arguments are that Ukraine is still at war and key officials' frequent removals demonstrate unstable leadership
CON's leadership argument alone is more substantial, as doing something negative will always be a mark against his efficiency. Furthermore, preserving a country is a bare minimum—not to say it is not hard.
CON's contested arguments are that Ukraine is not self-reliant economically or militarily - and they violated democratic principles. Regarding the former contention, PRO argues there are excessive constraints on Zelensky for self-reliance. CON counterargues that Zelensky exacerbated these constraints while giving examples. Regarding the latter contention, PRO argues that these violations are necessary for wartime. However, CON argues that these violations are excessive even during wartime. When getting into the details, it seems like CON was able to point out numerous examples where Zelensky's actions were excessive for any justification, so their argument is more decisive than PRO's. These examples were also unanswered.
PRO argued that the land market and "Diia" were good things that Zelensky had done. However, CON argued that these are merely examples of prioritizing tiny improvements when they could have focused on more significant things. CON's argument is not very good compared to PRO's, as it is a typical fallacious thought pattern: the fallacy of relative privation; people can do both consequential and less consequential things.
PRO argued that the Kharkiv operation, the withdrawal of Russian troops from the Kyiv and Chernihiv regions, and the liberation of Kherson are examples of Zelensky as an effective president. CON argued that these are not due to Zelensky's efficiency but Russia's incompetence or withdrawal. PRO argued that these are due to the president's ability to get aid and maintain morale. CON is not refuting what PRO is saying; an efficient president, regardless of whether the enemy allows them to take advantage, is still an example of them being efficient. PRO's argument here is slightly better.
PRO argued that Zelensky established unity in Ukraine. CON argued that establishing unity does not mean a president is effective, and to support that, they bring up how Zelensky has not made Ukraine self-sustaining. The claim is unsubstantiated, so PRO's point still seems reasonable. Honestly, I do not even see how uniting a nation is not a quality of an efficient president.
The arguments left were that Zelensky established unity, effectively took advantage of Russia's incompetence or withdrawals, and made diminutive improvements. However, Zelensky excessively violated democratic principles, exasperated a lesser ability for self-sufficiency, and destabilized leadership.
While PRO has established acts that imply an effective leader, CON's established acts qualitatively dwarves PRO's examples. Therefore, CON's arguments or examples were more persuasive.
Sourcing -
The two sides do not offer comparable source utilization.
Legibility -
Only minor illegibility present: "thx 4 hvin me, b4 anything..." is the only instance of obvious illegibility unrelated to any argument.
Conduct -
Misbehavior is not present or too minor for a reasonable person to be significantly distracted from the topic.
https://youtu.be/W5rAppZfhOo
judgement in video
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.
ଘ(੭ˊᵕˋ)੭*
Congrats on your win. Well earned
thx for ur vote, sorry i didn't earlier.
meow
∧,,,∧
( ̳• · • ̳)
/ づ
>Vote: AnonYmous_Icon // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to Pro (Arguments, Conduct)
>Reason for Decision:
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 .....
Reason for Removal: The voter explains neither point allocation clearly. To award argument points, the voter must explain why one side's argument was more successful than the other, but all I see here is a brief overview of the general strategies of each side, not what made either successful or unsuccessful. The voter does not explain why they chose to award conduct.
**************************************************
Please take everything Wylted says with a massive grain of salt.
Yes taking him Saturday morning. McDonald's has like a Minecraft happy meal also so may just make it a thing. Good luck.
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).