Grigory Rasputin was a good man.

3R1NRC: Rasputin and the Tzar The opponent makes a fatal mistake here; morality is subjective. What one may think good is is not what another may. In debunking the opponent's case, we must see here that he commits a fatal mistake; Hitler called himself the saviour of the German people, Stalin similarly thought of himself as the father of the Soviet motherland. etc. However, these people are possibly the most immoral people in the world; henceforth the opponent cannot say that Rasputin thought of himself good, henceforth he was good. However, one can agree that rape, fraud, and substance usage as a priest (not a normal person, but a religious figure) is immoral. No one doubts that. The example of Alexander Propotov was an immense one to our debate; amidst a mental breakdown, Rasputin wanted him appointed nevertheless. Firstly, when anycitizen has a mental breakdown, they would often be apartheid from community. One would bar him from holding influential positions; yet the evil of Propotov, who fought for the intent of preserving the weak, botched and oppressive Tsar, cannot be comprehended by any man, for such evils may cause tears of joy in the devil. Propotov, who was suffering from a mental breakdown, did not understand politics. One does not suppress the revolution of the masses; but yet he did so in the Februarist Revolution. Rasputin indirectly led to the deaths of thousands and perhaps millions of people. THIS is not moral; the Russian Civil War was arguably Rasputin's fault, if he had not appointed Protopotov (who saw his duty as protecting the Tsardom). Other than this, the mere thought that he represents the most weak minded and ignorant institution in the world is disgusting. The Russian Tsardom had no legitimacy over the people anymore, yet they still exercised an iron hand rule. Rasputin was the de facto ruler during World War One; when the Tsar took control of the Russian Army, he launched a series of failed offensives, like the one at Lake Naruch, which killed 122,000 men, and the Baranovichi Offensive, which killed 80,000 men. Perhaps if Rasputin was for the war, or he gave more attention to what the Russian High Command and Staff Corps was saying, like during the Brusilov Offensive, then Russia might have won World War One. Apart from this, Rasputin’s reckless behavior and opposition to the war makes him a possible German spy. His dismissal of effective government members, even when there efficiency was proven to them, was key. If he had not done this, then Brusilov would have been able to launch several more successful offensives, which would have ended the war on the Eastern Front effectively. Brusilov was deterred from doing so by Kerensky, who ordered Brusilov launch another attack when the Imperial Forces weren’t adequate. Kerensky was a supporter of Rasputin, and often thought to be under his influence. The Russian Tsardom was already immoral from the start; Rasputin only made it worst. He represented an immoral institution, and his representation of this immoral institution made the institution and himself worst in name. To represent an immoral institution is one thing; but to bring immorality to the already immoral is another. Keep in mind that at this point, Rasputin funded higher-class entertainment, and donated alms to the Orthodox Church, which enslaved the people in mythical and unlikely doctrines. He did nothing to help the Russian people; only the Russian aristocracy and the Church. This in itself is immoral. 3R2NRC: The Illegitimacy of Rasputin's Faith Healing Faith healing is completely false; fictional. It is an outdated form of witchery, yet many people follow it. Debunking Rasputin's faith healing is easy; Alexei Romanov was diagnosed with Haemophilia B, a disease common in European Royal Families. A rational-empirical explanation for this is that Haemophilia B bleeding stops, if the injury is not too serious, after one-two days. Although doctors predicted Alexei's death, they did not recognize Haemophillia as a disease yet. It was recognized in 1925. According to accounts, Rasputin "faith-healed" Alexei within a night; he was bleeding for a day before already. Henceforth, we come to a conclusion that Rasputin did nothing to stop the child from bleeding to death, but he did it to clearly get closer to the Czar. This is also due to action known as the Placebo effect, which makes one expect to get a result and actually gets it. It seems that when the body expects, there is a physiological change. So in conclusion, Haemophilia B bleeding stops in one day, and henceforth, Rasputin was lucky. 3R3NRC: Intent The opponent always states that "his intentions were good" but has yet to shown why so. Actions speak more than words; if his political decisions harmed Russia and looked as if it were helping himself only, then how could one say that he wasn't a egoistic selfish uneducated priest? Actions speak more than words; Rasputin made many mistakes that slowed down Russia and made it look like a backward hell-hole. Even his opposition to several Dumas showed that he was against progress in Russia. 3R4NRC: Sinning is necessary doesn't mean sinning is moral When an action is justified, it doesn't mean its moral. For example, when Adolf Hitler committed mass genocide, also known to the world as the “Holocaust” he justified it with the “complete destruction of the International Jewry” Even if one believed in Hitler’s doctrine, and assuming that one came from a conventional moral background, then mass genocide is not moral. The opponent is currently arguing that Christianity is a religion where sinning is necessary. If this is so, and I believe it is not so, then I believe that Christianity is not a moral force. Nevertheless, the opponent implies that the rape of countless of virgins, women with nobility and peasant-wives is moral. The verses the opponent recites assumes that people who truly feel sorry for what they have done will be forgiven. When is sinning moral? Never. “The one who lets one’s look enslave them, that one is immoral” is a common saying in Buddhism, a direct quotation from the Dhammapada. In this debate we are talking about morality. Morality is the good, whilst immorality is the bad. Firstly, the rape of women; is this moral? It is a sin, to start with. The opponent seems to be arguing that because Rasputin thought it was necessary, means its moral. But what is necessary isn’t always what is moral, for this reason, one must understand that the rape of women cannot ever be justified from a moral perspective without breaking the moral stances of one. Rape can never be moral, even if it is sometimes justified. Is it correct to enter a women’s body without their permission? That would be like entering a vault for the pleasure of getting the gold; it is not moral by any standards. To take a women’s dignity, and even life, for the lustful pleasure of oneself is selfish, and rape underpins the fundamental attributes of the continuation of society. Secondly, drinking whilst in priesthood. Drinking is already on the immoral side of the fence. However, drinking as a priest? Is this moral? Priests accordingly, can drink, but not in voluminous excessive quantities like Rasputin. In fact, Rasputin’s voluminous drinking got him killed; kharmic consequences got him to his death. He was invited to the faithful party that got him killed only because he knew that an attractive women and beer would be present, not to discuss the issues that he was supposed to. Morality is at center in this debate; this debate is not about how Rasputin’s actions could be justified, but about how it could be considered moral. Rasputin’s intention were unknown until now; his effects towards that Russian nation was detrimental, and he sinned at his leisure; sinning is never moral. Keep in mind that this debate implies that "on balance, Rasputin was a good person" Henceforth, one good act does not make up for the balance part. I rest my case, as I am in short of time (school's starting soon)Citations:All used from the last round