Leon Trotsky would've done more good than harm had he succeeded Lenin.

WW2:This point is completely relevant to the debate, Stalin or not. While it is true that Stalin didn't stop Hitler from rising among other things, this has no relation to the question of whether or not Trotsky would. Just because Stalin allowed Hitler to do something, doesn't mean it doesn't matter if Trotsky wouldn't. Again, if you completely remove Russia from the equation, its quite evident that WW2 would've been unwinnable for the allies. If you pretend Stalin doesn't even exist, Trotsky's benefit in WW2 would be his contributions to the prevention or easy win of the war, which is irrelevant to Stalin. This is an action taken by Trotsky himself, not a prevention of what Stalin did. I don't see how you're going to use this argument as en example of contradictions.2: Anti-FascismIt does not directly contradict my argument. "Trotsky would've acted boldly to prevent the spread of Fascist sentiments in Europe and the world. We can assume he would go out of his way to quell the fascist side of any revolution and support the Communists. " This is true. He would most likely support the Communist revolutionaries, but whether or not he would actually invade a country that was turning fascist before Russia's economy boomed is unknowable, but I doubt any invasion or the support of Communist revolutionaries against Fascists would legitimately start WW2. "He would not start too many Communist revolutions too quickly let alone start invading". These two sentences are under no means "at odds" with each other because 1) Trotsky only believed a Communist revolution could be started from within, in a time of extreme anti-capitalism where many were poor when the time to stage a revolution against the bourgieosie was ripe. 2) This directly means he wouldn't "start" Communist revolutions, only that he would support them and try to maybe speed them up by again providing revolutionaries with supplies and giving them Marxist theories, etc. Trotsky didn't, however, instigate the war against the Polish, he simply commanded his troops in order to defend his homeland. Like you said, none of the Bolsheviks doubted the necessity of "forcing the Polish bridge", but that doesn't mean they were going to all out invade Poland unless it was self defense before their economy reached a sufficient point where they actually could invade or they knew they could without creating global conflict. You could also say that the invasion of a country thats turning fascist is a completely different matter from a country that could turn Communist. You'd think the defeat of fascism would have a better short term net benefit over the rise of Communism, therefore I'm not sure his defeat of fascist countries would be looked down upon as the world remembers what Mussolini and Hitler became. This isn't going against his net benefit, if anything the defeat of fascist countries is a net benefit and in no way would've been looked down upon by the rest of the world. I didn't contradict myself in this argument. 3) DemocracyEvidence of Trotsy's legitimate hope for an eventually democratic Soviet Union lies in the fact that he originally was a Mensheviki. As you probably know, seeing as it seems you're fairly educated on early Soviet history, the mensheviks split from the Russian Social Democratic Party at the same time as the Bolsheviks, simply because they believed Lenin was too exclusive in what made a party member. Being a menshevik, Trotsky made it clear what his opinion on bureacracy and totalitarianism was - he wanted a large range of views when making decisions. Trotsky's actions do not denote an opposition of his to democracy. As you stated in your original argument, Trotsky himself would only do conscription if volunteers were not sufficient. Trotsky believed short term conscription was necessary in order to maintain the possibility of an eventual Soviet Democracy. Trotsky believed a citizen has a duty to defend his country because citizenship in a democracy requires sharing burdens as well as benefits, and because freedom from foreign or oppressive rule like burearcracy and the victory of the Whites was important to society as a whole. Trotsky supported the Russian Revolution, but on the condition, which existed, of general anti-feudal autocratic feelings in the hearts of almost all Russians. The people of Russia were starving, and Trotsky believed he had the solution to a problem they all saw and wished to fight. That is democracy, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks at first represented the ideas all the Russians had against Russian monarchy and its supporters, the undemocratic whites. He simply helped lead a struggle for the rights of the average russian. The particular uprising in general you are referring to is the October revolution, which was a revolution to free the people of Russia from the tyranny of the Tsar. If anything, this is a fight for democracy. The support of a failed revolution doesn't mean he's undemocratic, the failure of the revolutionaries to free themselves from tyranny isn't the fault of Trotsky and if anything their revolution was premature if it failed. Again, revolutions of this type are strictly for democracy. Your sources do not say that Trotsky supports executions and violence against people that don't want communism. In fact, the only executions and violence he ever committed were against the supporters of the Russian monarchy who are to blame for the stiflings of democracy. None of the sources (3,4,5) actually say Leon Trotsky's name once. 4) Command EconomyDid not contradict. The "need" for the USSR to absorb other countries economies or at least convert them to a command economy model does not mean that he would have forced Communism on them until Capitalism had reached its decline and they had a revolution of their own, which he would've supported through means of the spread of marxist thoughts and supplies. Trotsky and almost all orthodox marxists in the left opposition unaminously agree that a revolution against capitalism should only be staged at the time in which Capitalism has finally declined to a level where the worker is living in complete poverty while the bourgieousie has accumulated all the wealth. The need for the USSR to absorb others will be cured through the non forced conversion of countries to the command economy model but through the support of Communist revolutionaries in other countries. In addition, as I've already stated, Trotsky was against bureacracy and undemocratic ideas, which was proven when he supported the left opposition to Stalin. A democratic command economy model is what he supported, which negates your opinion on Trotsky's management of a command economy. To summarize my arguments:Leon Trotsky, the Russian Revolutionary, would've have an overall net benefit on society and the world because of these unrefuted reasons:1) He would have prevented the rise of Hitler and possibly WW2, if not would've ended it swiftly saving perhaps near 100 million.2) He would've enforced a strong anti-fascist sentiment in Europe preventing many tragedies resulting from the horrid system.3) Would've led the Russians to a form of democratic Marxism and perhaps soon the whole world.4) Finally, he would've attained a higher state of living for his people and perhaps the world by creating a perfect Command Economy model fueled by permanent revolution and a democratic control of the means of production. All of my opponents refutations to these advantages have been defeated. Aff wins. I don't have enough characters to list all of my sources, but here are the few new ones I used for this round. Good debate. . http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk...http://en.wikipedia.org... The Communist Manifesto