The Ukrainian Government is massacring civilians and needs to be stopped

I will address the arguments presented in R4 and then review the debate with a view to why a Con ballot is merited. Thanks to anyone who has taken the time to read this debate and to Russian for instigating it and participating in it with me. REBUTTALS P1: Preemptive Warning Pro says that I haven't proven that the warning came before the conflict. I said, and the article clearly states, that a warning was provided BEFORE armed troops moved in to a specific area. Thus, the warnings came prior to the onslaught. P2: Human Shields + Prolonged Conflict Pro does not deny that the separatists are using people as human shields. So, again, Ukraine should not be held responsible for the deaths of those civilians. Instead, he says, "As mentioned, bombing an entire civilian-filled city that may have separatists there is a terrible method as it causes very much unnecessary destruction." Let's look at the example of Israel and Gaza--rockets come out of largely civilian areas in Gaza. Israel has two options: (1) let itself be bombarded without retaliating, or (2) defend itself by targeting areas even if civilian causalities may occur. Obviously, (1) isn't a viable option because Ukraine has a duty to protect itself and its citizens from attack, which leaves it with (2). My opponent concedes that all land held by the separatists is legally part of Ukraine. Thus, Kiev is justified in defending it against forces who would make it their own. As for my source, simply because it is printed in the U.S., that does not make it biased. It is a highly respected and widely circulated newspaper [2] and is unlikely to report untruths as that would jeopardize its reputation as a credible news source. By acknowledging that Donetsk and Luhansk belong to Ukraine, which Pro does, then we must assume that Donetsk and Luhansk are not legally separate nations--they are integral components of Ukraine engaged in an illegal insurgent movement against the government of that country. The fact that these insurgents are advancing shows that they are taking the fight to Ukraine [1] and they cannot justify their actions by claiming to be defending two "republics" which don't lawfully even exist. Pro agrees that his source does not say that Kiev is responsible for most civilian death. Pro says he claim to that conclusion because the separatists lack heavy artillery and an airforce. Frankly, the former is just not true--there is reason to suspect that the separatists have access to such weaponry. [3] So, again, Pro cannot blame Kiev for the majority of these deaths. As for the investigation, since Grad rockets were in the possession of the separatists (I cited a source to this effect earlier), and since we are unaware of whether to investigators knew that at the time of the report, the report's conclusions are also suspect. Pro offers no evidence to back up his claim that the rebels are facilitating civilian evacuations. The map proves nothing, frankly. As a matter of fact, Kiev has reported that rebels fired on innocent civilians attempting to fee the war zone [4]; amidst these competing claims, it is hard, if not impossible, to discern what is true. Without knowing for certain that the rebels are helping people flee, Pro cannot present this assertion as fact. P3: Sources I have given myriad sources that underscore Russian interference in Ukraine's internal affairs. There are reports surfacing now that Russia as deployed troops to the effected regions. [5] Pro DROPS that the rebels have access to Grad rockets. Pro also DROPS that his source (which claims Poroshenko massacred civilians) is unreliable. Extend both of these points, please. VOTING ISSUES Firstly, I would like to note that Pro must show each and every one of these things to be true. If he has failed to win just one of these arguments (if he loses or ties just one) I have won the debate. He has conceded my interpretation of the BOP, so this analysis was extended. 1 - Corruption: A morally degenerate government would not have given prior warning to individuals who were about to be assaulted by ground forces. 2 - Evil: A government that is fulfilling its social contract responsibility to defend itself against attack and rebellion is not evil; esp. when many of the civilian causalities can be attributed to the other side's use of human shields. Kiev should not be held responsible for those death; in fact, Pro cannot even show that Kiev is responsible for most civilian deaths. 3 - Fascism: All of Pro's arguments here were new, which is typically illicit in the final round. As such, they should be disregarded. Once they are dismissed, Con has no evidence to support this point. Moreover, showing that right-wing extremists hung a banner somewhere does not mean that the whole government of Ukraine is fascist; nor does the fact that some members of Ukraine's government may be Neo-Nazis. 4 - Massacring Civilians: Again, Con cannot show that Kiev is responsible for the majority of those deaths. Also, his main source supporting this has been thoroughly discredited. 5 - Should be Stopped: Ukraine has a right to defend itself against attack and ensure its territorial integrity in the face of an illegal rebellion. To do this, it needs to take the fight to the separatists, and that is what Kiev has done. It shouldn't be stopped, because then its right to self-defense would be violated. Conclusion - Ultimately, Pro has the sole BOP and he has failed to meet it. Thank you. Please VOTE CON! SOURCES 1 - http://www.businessweek.com... 2 - http://en.wikipedia.org... 3 - http://www.nytimes.com... 4 - http://www.telegraph.co.uk... 5 - http://www.thedailybeast.com...