The Nabisco-Russia Conspiracy is True

The motives behind this deal are slightly complex, so it's understandable that my opponent is confused by them. "But what is Putin or Nabisco gaining through Putin's anti-smoking campaign? If he wants to support Nabisco, there's no point in trying to eradicate smoking. That's like -1 for Nabisco, and then +1 for him advertising Nabisco's other products (evidence of which has not been shown). Wouldn't it be better to be neutral on smoking (+1 for Nabisco) AND advertise the other products? (another +1). By putting up an anti-smoking campaign, Putin is hitting on a huge section of Nabisco's revenue (as my opponent showed in Round 1)." - Veldemir Putin wants to decrease (or ideally, eradicate) smoking in Russia. This is obviously because smoking is unhealthy. - As I have shown and my opponent has acknowledged, this would present a problem for Nabisco, economically. - If Putin were to be neutral on smoking AND advertise the other projects, yes that would be great for Nabisco. But it would be terrible for Putin, because he wants to decrease smoking. - The issue in question here is not Putin's position on tobacco. The conspiracy formed because of it. - Because of that "-1" created for Nabisco by Putin's efforts to decrease smoking, Nabisco needs to increase revenue in Russia. - Now, Nabisco is an enormous company. It's not unrealistic that it could have provided funding to Russia, especially if it was essentially an investment for Nabisco (and an important one at that). - So basically, in exchange for advertisement in Russia, Nabisco is providing funding for the Russian military. - The "-1" of that lost tobacco revenue is counteracted with the "+1" of the other products being advertised. - The "-1" of economic problems affecting Russia's military funding is counteracted with the "+1" of funding from Nabisco. My opponent commented that evidence has not been shown for Putin advertising Nabisco's other products. The concept of him advertising Nabisco's products is the theory here. I'm trying to prove it. As I have explained in a previous argument, it would be impossible to simply "prove" the theory directly, so I am compiling and presenting the evidence that supports it. "My opponent has yet to show that the increase in Russian military spending and increase in price of Nabisco's stocks have anything to do with each other. So far, it seems that it's nothing more than coincidence, as there is little evidence of cooperation between the Russian government and Nabisco." I have definitely shown that the increase in Russian military funding and the increase in price of Nabisco's stocks are related. - I have explained why, and provided evidence that supports everything I've said. -In the same way that the burden of proof lies on the person defending a theory and a theory itself is impossible to directly prove, it is impossible to 100%, conclusively validate such a claim. Otherwise, it would be a fact, not a theory. - However, if sufficient evidence is provided, a theory can be "proven" as extensively as possible. I have definitely provided sufficient evidence. In summary (with evidence): - I claimed that losing tobacco sales in Russia would deal a major blow to Nabisco. ("RJR [Nabisco], while also known for such food brands as Ritz crackers and Oreo cookies, derives about two-thirds of its profits from tobacco. Its cigarette sales in Russia and the rest of the former Soviet Union had been running at an impressive rate in the first half of the year, close to 20 percent of international profits, said Emanuel Goldman, a tobacco and beverage analyst with Paine Webber in San Francisco. Last year, the company's sales there accounted for 15 percent of international profits and represented 42 percent of international volume.") - I claimed that Russian Chancellor Veldemir Putin is working to decrease smoking in Russia. ("The report was published in a bid to outline the government's achievements in fulfilling President Vladimir Putin's so-called "May Orders," a series of campaign promises " including ones related to improved health in Russian society"), ("President Putin has approved the bill that will gradually outlaw smoking in most of Russia"s public places, ban tobacco advertising and impose restrictions on the sale of cigarettes.") - I claimed that Russia had been having military problems, due to economic problems. (""Keep Putin in perspective; don't play to the cult of personality", Freedman warned. "Russia is less powerful in many respects than the UK", he added. It does have larger armed forces and more nukes, but its economy is in deep trouble... Freedman was speaking the other day at a conference on "Global Trends and Implications for British Security" at the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi). Russia may be a "Great Power" by virtue of its nuclear arsenal and permanent seat on the UN security council, but being a "Great Power" was highly overrated, he suggested. It may have started to rebuild its armed forces, but they are no match for Nato's. Russia's GDP is close to that of Italy, and its per capita GDP is less than Poland's. Oil and gas prices have fallen and Russia is having trouble attracting inward investment.") ("A senior Ukrainian official has told AFP that both the leaders of Belarus and Kazakhstan are trying to distance themselves from the Kremlin as they seek alliances in Europe. The unnamed official said both leaders said Mr Putin "is weak." Russian political analysts agree with the view as top Russian allies may be afraid that siding with Russia might involve them in its economic crisis.") - I claimed that Russia's military is now increasing in strength. ("Many analysts have called Russia militarily weak, with some pointing specifically to its shortcomings in air and naval forces in Syria. But based on Russia"s battlefield performance so far, this assessment seems off: To the contrary, Russia has shown that it has the capability and capacity (not to mention willingness) to employ its conventional forces to achieve limited political objectives.") ("Russia's new Armata super-tank's designers are claiming to have made what is the world's first invisible tank. The T-14 war machine is loaded with high tech equipment that will screen it from enemy radar and infra-red heat-seeking target finders, claimed developers UralVagonZavod in an interview with Moscow news radio. ... Loaded with the battlefield's most powerful gun, armed with a remote control turret, and equipped with armour that explodes on impact to stop shells reaching the crew, Russia claims the tanks is 20 years ahead of the West.") - Veldemir Putin is a man of great influence to the people of Russia. Regardless of whether or not it paints him in a positive light, content on the Internet that involves him attracts much attention. As with all other sources of great interest on the Internet, this popularity lends itself to advertising. Nowadays, we see advertising everywhere. Product placement has become increasingly common in film and television, but it can even be found in unexpected places. A common example of this is "celebrity seeding," in which a celebrity indirectly promotes a product. This has become very common on social media, where some accounts with the most followers are actually paid to post pictures including a specific product. This works in the same way product placement would in a film or television episode. ("These days, some of the most effective audience influencers rarely appear in celebrity magazines, but have the highest followers and fans on social media channels such as Twitter, YouTube and Facebook. And because of Twitter, the journey time between gifting and endorsement is much quicker and generates image and video content which brands can use through their own social media networks.") I mention this trend because I understand that, mainly as a result of the impossibility of providing direct evidence that the pictures are advertisements, this is the most difficult part of the theory to believe. But I truly believe I have proven to the best of my ability that there is a reason for this conspiracy to have taken place, that the expected effects have actually occurred, and that the idea is far from being as absurd as it initially sounds. A picture of Putin on a Ritz cracker, the most well-known example, would gain popularity among those who dislike him, or find him humorous. Such a ridiculous image would be humorous to people with that opinion, and as a result, would become very popular among them. Similarly to how, say, Dove Soap might pay DJ Khaled to feature one of their products in an Instagram post, Nabisco is exercising product placement with Russia on the Internet (and I have already proven the significance of the Internet in Russia in a previous argument). Overall, there is an abundance of evidence to support the idea that the Nabisco-Russia Conspiracy is true.