Vladimir Putin is a Beneficial President to Russia

Before, I continue, let me say that my opponent still did not provide solid rebuttals to my opening arguments of Round 1 regarding internal corruption, economics and politics. The economics argument, were for one, completely left alone. I will also say that, according to my opponent, my logic fallacy that he pointed out was not relevant to the holes I pointed out in his arguments. His arguments did not regard internal problems within Russia in a more specific manner. I stated his argument invalid due to it's ability to overlook two arguments. Rebuttals and Counter ArgumentsLet me state what is completely wrong with your argument regarding Yanukovych. Yanukovych does not imply rampant corruption inside Russia. What Yanukovych did inside Ukraine is questionable, to say the least, but what he did was inside Ukraine. This means your arguments is not in the confines of this debate, rendering it null. Just to entertain, let me also say, that Russia gave asylum to Yanukovych, and nothing more [1]. You seem to demonize Russia with these claims of harboring this criminal. With that logic, should the United States be considered a hive of evil because they did not let go of Bush to Interpol [2] for war crimes? As if, the new President of Ukraine, supported without question by the United States, even as appointed interim President creates his own account offshore [3]. Let me also state the hypocrisy on your statement of criticizing Putin for allowing Yanukovych to keep his wealth. Are you suggesting for Russia to institute absolute collectivism in their economics? That wouldn't make sense considering you claim the absolute need for individualism and the dysfunctional system of anything, even close, to left-wing in your later argument. On another continent, as my opponent continues his argument, your claims are still irrelevant to the debate as it is not within Russia. Continuing, your starting argument is a lie. Russia does not support China in the South China Sea, Russia continuously abstains on the topic during multinational summits in order to preserve relations with China, their most powerful ally [4]. I find it hard to believe that you think that abstaining equals absolute undying support. As for your statement regarding "Dangerous Western Values", I recommend pulling information from commendable sources, and not from your obvious and biased libertarian values as you would state with "Each person is individual, and any attempt to make them act or be otherwise is contrary to millions of years of evolution". Individualism is a form of socio-political philosophy [5], not an act of evolution as you'd put it. I will now start with your final argument, the closest thing you have to actual relevancy in this debate, which still shows bias and lacks foundation in the strongest claims. Each conflict that Russia played a part in, which resulted in a violation of international law, was a response to American military intervention during peace-time [6] [7], therefore marking it as protection of Russian interests. Not to say, that the United States also uses their own tactics in blatant disregard of international law, because they do [8]. Regardless, these violations still benefit American interests, like while Russia did commit these violations, they also benefited. I will leave my argument here as to not waste any more time with the evident and seeping bias of my opponent. Sources[1] http://www.pravdareport.com...[2] http://www.esquire.com...[3] https://www.theguardian.com...[4] http://thediplomat.com...[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://www.cnn.com...[7] http://www.cnn.com...[8] http://www.counterpunch.org...