Stalin was the most influential leader of the 20th century (meaning he effected the world the most).

I. ThesisA. Although Joseph Stalin was an undoubtedly influential figure in the history of the 20th Century, Pro overstates Stalin's influence by placing him at the top of the list of influential leaders. I contend that some leaders' legacies are more global and more enduring than Stalin's and so disprove Pro's argument. II. Defining InfluenceA. Merriam-Webster's defines influence as : the power to change or affect someone or something : the power to cause changes without directly forcing them to happen [1]1. If we accept this definition, Stalin must be considered at a disadvantaged position relative to leaders who relied on methods of persuasion beyond brute force. So much of Stalin's legacy is comprised of acts of naked aggression and oppression that by this definition Stalin is barely worth mentioning. B. OED defines influence as : the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself [2]1. By this definition, Stalin is definitely in the running for influence on the history of the USSR, the propagation of Communism, and the outcome of WWII. C. I'd be willing to consider other definitions offered by Pro in Round 2. III. Defining LeaderA. Merriam-Webster's offers this definition of leader : a first or principal performer of a group [3]1. By this definition, Stalin definitely drops down the list of influence. I think the case can be made, for example, that Freud had a more tangible impact on the everyday lives of people in the 20th Century than did Stalin. Time Magazine, in fact, placed Einstein at the top of their list of the 100 most influential people of the 20th Century. [4]B. It is possible that Pro wishes to confine his argument to political leadership. By this definition, Stalin climbs the rankings, although he still has to contend with figures like Gandhi and John Paul II, particularly if we are employing the non-force definition of influence. C. It is possible that Pro wishes to confine his argument to heads of state. By this definition, I think the non-force definition is pretty much excluded and Stalin is almost certainly in the top ten, although I still would not place him at the top of list of influential 20th Century head of state. Even confined to Russia, a good argument can be made that Lenin was a more charismatic influence on the Russian Revolution or that Gorbachev achieved more good for the Russian people by reversing the dictatorial model brought about by Stalin. IV. More influential leaderA. I wish to emphasize that the burden of proof will be on Pro to supply evidence that Stalin was the most influential leader. By asking for another name, Pro may be trying share this burden by forcing Con to defend one individual reputation in contrast to Stalin. My job is only to refute Stalin as number one, not to endorse a single candidate. Nevertheless, the argument is made far less abstract on both sides by contrasting real personalities against Stalin. If we are going with a non-force argument, then I might nominate Freud or Gandhi as more influential than Stalin. But a more cogent debate might be had by simply offering Stalin's peer and rival, Winston Churchill. When one considers global influence and long-standing impact on the 20th Century, Churchill is undoubtedly a more significant figure than Stalin. [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[3] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[4] . http://content.time.com...