Round 2. Xtrozero v Budski: The war to end all low-intensity conflicts.

The topic for this debate is "There is likely to be a major war between two or more first world nations before 2050.".

xtrozero will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
budski will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.


A post may not be any longer than 5,500 characters, using the ATS character counter.
Closing posts may not be any longer than 3,500 characters.

This character limit includes all board code, links, etc.
Extra characters will be deleted from the end of your post. Please notice that the character counter counts backwards.

Editing is strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted. This prevents cheating. If you make an honest mistake which needs fixing, you must U2U me. I will do a limited amount of editing for good cause. Please use spell check before you post.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references. Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post.

Responses should be made within 24 hours, if people are late with their replies, they run the risk of forfeiting their reply and possibly the debate. Limited grace periods may be allowed if I am notified in advance.

Each round that a member participates in is worth 1 ranking point in the Debate Forum Challenge Ladder. Winning the final round is worth an additional 1 point.

The Member-Judging System is in effect. The total number of stars awarded to each member by readers (counted at the time of judging) will be counted to determine a winner. Each debate will have one judge. The decision of the judge is worth 5 stars.

We have ways of determining when a member has multiple accounts. Any member who attempts to use multiple accounts to influence the outcome of a debate will be barred from the debate forum in perpetuity and will face additional consequences as well, possibly including a permanent ban from ATS.

I would like to say thanks once again to Vagabond for his hard work at the start of this second round, and to wish my opponent Budski good luck.

My position will be that there will be a war between two or more first world nations before 2050. To do this I will show historical patterns that will replay sometime in the future that create the triggers of war. I will also look at the major world nations that will be major players in a future war, and explain why these countries are on an inevitable course of war.

To have war there must exist reasons that would drive two countries or at least one country to the point that it sees a major war as the best option. Of course most of the time these reasons would need to be compared with the positive and negative outcomes of war to determine if the positive would out weigh the negative, but in some cases huge negatives would not matter if the reasons to start a war have nothing to do with advancement in some way and is triggered without concern for the outcome. With that in mind, I will be able show that there is also a substantial threat that war could happen not only when it is in the best interest for many countries, but for reasons that could drive a country to war on just ideologies or religion views even if the end result was Annihilation.

War is coming and unfortunately for most of us it will be sooner than later.

Thanks again to Vagabond for setting up more very interesting topics with all the hard work this entails, and good luck to my opponent Xtrozero.

During the course of this debate, I will offer proof that a war between two or more first world nations before 2050 is, at best unlikely, and in all probability downright impossible.

The historical factors which led to previous wars are pretty much impossible to reproduce, and the advent of mutually assured destruction, amongst other factors, has made any future war between two or more first world nations virtually impossible.

I intend to prove that economics, cultural development, diplomacy and high levels of technology make a war before 2050 between two first world nations impossible.

I will also explore what it is that makes a nation a first world country, and the reasons why this makes a war or even extended conflict a thing of the past.

There are no historical comparisons for the world as it is today and as it is likely to develop over the next forty three years - there may be the odd similarity, but they are purely cosmetic, because while history may inform our thinking, it cannot predict the future, and such circumstances which have prevailed in the past cannot happen again - to assume so would be to assume that mankind does not, indeed cannot learn from its mistakes.

We are very likely to see the continuation and expansion of low intensity warfare in the fight against terrorism worldwide, but this cannot and will not lead to full scale conflict between two first world countries, because of many factors which I intend to explore during the course of this debate.

Idealogical and religious differences between first world countries are not the cause of conflict which they once were, and for this reason I do not intend to explore them except in rebuttal.
The only threat of a religious war comes from the middle east, and those countries do not and will not fall into the category of first world countries, due to ever increasing western control of the area.

Since the fall of the USSR and the eastern bloc, idealogical differences are not a factor - I also include China in this for reasons that will become clear as the debate progresses.

To sum up, my position is that war before 2050 between two first world powers is not possible. To understand this, it must first be made clear what is a first world power.
Here
are the definitions of first, second, third and forth world countries, as follows;

The term "First World" refers to so called developed, capitalist, industrial countries, roughly, a bloc of countries aligned with the United States after word war II, with more or less common political and economic interests: North America, Western Europe, Japan and Australia.

"Second World" refers to the former communist-socialist, industrial states, (formerly the Eastern bloc, the territory and sphere of influence of the Union of Soviet Socialists Republic) today: Russia, Eastern Europe (e.g., Poland) and some of the Turk States (e.g., Kazakhstan) as well as China.

"Third World" are all the other countries, today often used to roughly describe the developing countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America.
The term Third World includes as well capitalist (e.g., Venezuela) and communist (e.g., North Korea) countries as very rich (e.g., Saudi Arabia) and very poor (e.g., Mali) countries.

The term "Fourth World" first came into use in 1974 with the publication of Shuswap Chief George Manuel's: The fourth world : an Indian reality (amazon link to the book), the term refers to nations (cultural entities, ethnic groups) of indigenous peoples living within or across state boundaries (nation states).

Here is a list of first world countries.

Simply by looking at the list,we can see the impossibility of war between any of these countries before 2050, but for the purposes of this debate I will set out the reasons proving that war is not possible.

xtrozero is late and forfeits his post. budski may make his next post.

Budski has some business to attend to which will likely interfere with his attention to the debate. Since his opponent is apparently not here at the moment either, this debate will be on time out until monday. Budski will make his post on monday.

In order for there to be a conflict between two first world countries, there must exist a state in which the differences between two or more countries cannot be reconciled.
There are now no existing differences of such magnitude that a war could ensue from them.
Indeed, there is now such economic cooperation between first world countries that a war is the only major factor which could damage them.

Countries are interdependant to an extent which has not been seen in history - we are now a global community, and because of this, the likelihood of a war is next to impossible.

If we examine the wealth of nations here, we can see that the first world countries are in the top bracket of wealthy nations, as one would expect - thereby negating any economic reason for warfare, especially as imperialism and it's attendant problems are now a thing of the past.

At this time, and for the foreseeable future, there are numerous treaties in place to stop any wars between first world countries - specifically NATO and the EU, as well as ongoing trade agreements and global markets for the goods and services of the countries previously specified.

Tarrifs, quota's etc are all being minimised or reduced as the global market becomes more important, with this being one of the main reasons why war is impossible - money is now made by commerce, rather than by imperialistic means, and money has long been one of the governing factors for starting a conflict.

Over recent years, we have seen the expansion of the EU as Europe strives to become a single central economy strong enough to challenge the US for a pre-eminent position. This is likely to lead not to war, but to stronger economic ties as the free markets expand and reduce barriers to trade, thereby providing even less of an incentive for conflict, as even former eastern bloc countries join the markets - with help from the wealthier nations.

Diplomacy has also taken several steps forward, with the introduction of global organisations, most especially the United Nations which has several goals all aimed at lasting peace, including diplomacy and economic development of poorer countries.

The United Nations was formed after the second world war, replacing the league of nations, in order to facilitate conflict resolution in the future.
Sixty two years later, it can be seen to have done its job, as there has been no major conflict between major powers during that time.

The UN has done this by the use of diplomacy in regard to different area's, such as trade, peace making, economics and culture and has succeeded to the extent that nations in the first and the second world are now on terms so friendly as to be unimaginable only a century ago, and nations have taken to heart a memorable quote by Winston Churchill: "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war."

To such an extent has the United Nations been successful, that there are now very few countries in the world that are not members - and where diplomacy comes first, waris always unlikely, especially now that many countries rely on each other in economic relationships of interdependance.

I find this statement by Budski very bold indeed; “The historical factors which led to previous wars are pretty much impossible to reproduce.” Since he is willing to just make a preposterous statement like this without digging a little deeper into what causes war I think we need to look at some very basic triggers that lead to war and then relook at his statement again to see how it fits.

What causes war? That is a big question, but when we look at the root of it there are some very basic reasons that have been with us in the past, is now with us in the present and will be with us in the future. The best way to examine this is to look at some actual reasons of past wars, and WWII is a good place to start. For Germany, there was a weak government, heavy WWI repayments, land loss and restrictions, extreme economical depression, and population growth.

German was pushing outward to accommodate their population with the recovery of lost territory from WWI and the annexation of Austria and parts of Czechoslovakia with large German population in those countries. The further push into Czechoslovakia for more land drove Britain to declare war on Germany in 1939 and the start of WWII.

For Japan it was not only land they were willing to go to war over but also resources. Being an island, Japan decided to attack mainland China to fulfill their needs for future expansion and most importantly at that time in their history the need for steel and oil that they were totally reliant on from other countries. The last ingredient both Germany and Japan had that drove their logic to use the war option was they were militarily superior over most other nations.

As we look at some basic human needs that have never changed over the course of history we can fully understand why the fundamental statement “History repeats itself” is a truism. These basic needs during WWII of land and resources is with us today, and with just a quick look around the world we see wars now and in the future that will be caused by the need or want for more land and resources of all kinds.

Let’s look at two quick scenarios with just using land and resources, though there are many others, as the triggers for future wars.

Scenario 1: Iran has UN restrictions that become a major burden on their population to push them into an aggressive attack on Israel as a reprisal and their opinion that Israel is an illegal state that should be disbanded. This pushes America and other aligned nations to defend Israel and offensively attack Iran. Both Russia and China see a shift in balance in the Middle East that is not in their favor, and being economically tied to Iran these countries quickly escalate it into a world war.

Scenario 2: China in thirty years becomes a massive First World Nation whose energy needs are exponentially increased due to their huge population becoming technologically advanced. An expansion of land grab in the directions of the Middle East and Russia to secure those needed resources would be much like Japan’s need during WWII, and finally having a superior military would make the war option very desirable.

I could continue on with many more scenarios, but my point is made in that the reasons for war are still very much alive today, tomorrow and just as they were in the past.

My opponent wanted to first suggest that war was obsolete between first world countries and they have reached the point where history can not repeat itself, and now he would like to define the list of all first world countries is a small number that cannot change. I feel this will be his major point, and so I’ll address it to clear up his view of what makes a country a First World Nation.

The terms First, Second and Third World Country originally started in the early 1950s and were used to categorize all nations during the cold war years. First, being aligned with America; second, being aligned with Russia; and third as neutral to both. Today we use these terms many different ways to categorized countries except the way that Budski has decided use them. With the end of the Cold War his definition of First and Second World countries is obsolete, but it is interesting he acknowledges that the definition of a Third World Country today is used more to describe an undeveloped country than a Cold War neutral country.

Whoever uses the term today in a variety of meanings, mostly tries to describe the top end of the evolution of countries. Nations with the most advanced economy, highest standard of living, the most advanced technology, the greates influence in the world.
The term could also mean: industrialized nations, developed countries, rich countries or the civilized world, in contrast to the poor, under-developed, un-civilized, exploited nations of the so called Third World.
www.nationsonline.org...

Since Budski recognizes that “poor, under-developed, un-civilized, exploited nations” are the Third World then he should accept today’s definition of First World too. This would actually be in his best interest since Turkey is part of the post Cold War First World nations and a small war between them and Iraq would put America against them too and totally prove my point, but I would not classify Turkey as a First World Nation using today’s classification standards and a likely war there in the near future should not count as two First World powers at war.

First I'd like to start by refuting a couple of my opponents points and ask him to provide instances and evidence to show where historical factors have been reproduced.

Factors such as the economic climate, trade wars, the personalities involved, the mindset of the time and of the politicians and peoples involved in wars and the global climates which led to wars.

I have no doubt that any similarities will be purely cosmetic, as I have already stated and that the world then was far less of a global community than it is now.

He would also like me to make his case easier by saying that a country such as Turkey is now (laughably) a first world nation, with all the wealth, gross domestic product, purchasing power parity, industrial infrastructure, education, healthcare and transport infrastructure, equal opportunities and human rights that all first world nations have.
This I will not do, as it is plainly preposterous to say that Turkey or any other country in the area of the middle east has parity regarding any of the aforementioned factors.

So far from my opponent, I have seen a lot of talk and scenarios and "what ifs" but no evidence to support his claim that a war is likely.

He seems determined to stick to the point that the world is the same as it was seventy years ago in the run up to the outbreak of hostilities which led to the second world war - and this is patently NOT the case - the factors which led to the second world war have no bearing on the world as it is today and is likely to remain.

In answer to another point, I have not defined what a first world country is - I have provided links to pages which define them, and I stand by the evidence I have provided.

If my opponent thinks that the impoverished former eastern bloc with their crumbling economies and infrastructures can be considered to be on a par with the industrialized, highly sophisticated economies of the first world, then I would like to see his evidence to prove this point as well.

China can still be considered at the most a second world country, as the gross domestic product and purchasing power parity to name but two, are nowhere near the level of first world nations and there remains a huge "peasant" population living at or below subsistence level.
Even by 2050, China will not have reached the level that took western first power countries over two hundred years to reach, nor will they have been able to match the technological levels of the first world nations, so China can be discounted as a first world country until we approach the latter half of the century.

Let's also be clear on a couple of other things - land grabs are a political exercise and are not a "basic human need" and the fact is that the political climate has changed out of all recognition in the last twenty years, let alone since the end of world war two.
In short, the world, our attitude to war, politics, diplomacy, economics have changed drastically and permanently.

War is impossible between two or more first world nations for another reason as well - that of technology.
Weapons today are vastly more powerful, and I need not go into individual weapons, but as a for instance, here
is the basic weaponry employed by the British army - and this is before we look at aircraft and naval resources and before nuclear deterrent is even considered.

Todays first world forces work together, train together and have similar battle plans and tactics as well as similar nuclear arsenals, and this results in just one scenario - peace.

There is so much interdependence between first world nations, that a war between two or more would cripple nearly all first world nation economies, and for this and the reasons already stated, war is not possible.

The name of the game now is not as it was seventy years ago, expansionism, imperialism and power are no longer goals in the modern first world, it is now about co-operation, ensuring that citizens have a better quality of life and plenty of cash for all.
For two first world powers to war on each other there would need to be many breakdowns on many levels, such as the EU coming apart, and this will not happen.

My opponent missed one of my factors that leads to using the war option over all others, and that being militarily superior over another first world nation. He also didn’t address the situation of two or more first world powers fighting through a second world power(s).

But first we need to address a very confusing issue for my opponent that I hope to help him on so we can get on to other parts of this debate. Budski stated that China will not be one in the next 50 years with…

Budski
China can still be considered at the most a second world country, as the gross domestic product and purchasing power parity to name but two, are nowhere near the level of first world nations and there remains a huge "peasant" population living at or below subsistence level.

My opponent is a crafty one for he not only flips as what he first viewed as a first world country, and now he really doesn’t want to define it in the least, but then points out that China cannot not be one in 50 years, so let’s compare China with the US from www.cia.gov... world-fact book.

US China
GDP 13.06 trillion (1st) 10.21 Trillion (2nd)
GDP growth rate 2.9% 11.1%
Pop below pov line 12% 10%
Unemployment 4.8% 4.2%
Inflation rate 3.2% 1.7%
Reserves 65.89 billion 1.073 trillion

I’m rather confused here with China's NO.2 GDP in the world and with a purchasing power of one trillion dollars to America’s 66 billion. I hated to waste so much space on this, but China is already there.

My opponent laughs at the thought of Turkey being a first word nation, but just as confusing as his China quote it was he that suggested in his opening statement that Turkey was a first world nation. All I did was take this information off HIS link here to show that his original view of a first, second or third world nation was obsolete, and if we did go with HIS original view then Turkey would be considered a first world nation which I agree that it is not. I feel it is just best to move on for my opponent seems to be very confused about just what is a first world nation, and we could waste a lot more bandwidth and still not get anywhere.

I agree with my opponent that the world is not the same as seventy years ago, but the last time I looked we still need food, fuel, clean water, land etc. just as they did seventy years ago, and the world’s population is not getting smaller and neither is the need for energy. The world’s economical, political, and religious environments are also getting much more complex than they were seventy years ago. If his views about the world being to interdependant that war is obsolete then why are militaries around the world continuing to grow in size and technology (as my opponent has stated). Superior technology actually creates a reason for war in that a quick win is best, and a very near future event will most likely unfold due to technology that was not feasible in the past.

Prior to 1999 China has been decades behind in technology and quality, but since then they have completely reshaped their military industries to soon compete with the rest of the world. One of their major areas of focus has been their Navy. Since 2000 China has been building their navy on a pace that will rival the US Navy by 2016. here There is really only two reasons for this. The first and foremost is Taiwan’s reunification with the mainland and this will be with military force. This can only be done with the ability to interdict US naval intervention. This will be the next war between first world nations.

The second is their national security objectives to dominate the East China seas. If this was not based on offensive objectives there would be no reason for their massive naval build up. China has always been known to have the world’s largest manned army and now technology that is fueled by their entrance as a first world nation will allow them to become a world wide offensive threat.

As we look around the world today we see even smaller countries like Brazil become equal and then surpassing the countries of Europe in just about every category. As we approach 2050 more and more of the world will enter the realms of a first world nation. Russia continues to be aggravated by the US aggressive military objectives, and at some point they will also view the balance of power in the Middle East shift not in their favor and will then militarily support their own objectives. This does not mean every war between two first world countries ends in the nuclear option, and that is one area we will not see since it is basically suicidal and a war does not need to be on their home lands. This is why multi first world nations at war through the support of second world nations with vast resources will happen. The world is a long way from evolving into a society that makes war obsolete. War today is as likely as it every was and in the near future there will be more players with the capabilities through better technology to use the war option to their advantage.

My opponent, having no answers of his own, has again tried to cloud the issue by stating that china has the 2nd largest GDP in the world, along with his unfortunate argument about two or more first world powers fighting by proxy through secong world powers.
I note as well that he has failed to address any of the points I raised, in another attempt to throw readers off the track of what the debate is really about.

I think that my opponent may need lessons in economics, as well as how to post a link to the correct page.

For his benefit, GDP per capita is the measurement used in my first link, which lists china in 82nd place in the world, purchasing power parity rates china 82nd in the world as well. China is currently underusing its population and its growth potential and has neither the industrial nor transport infrastructure necessary.
Unfortunately for china, this means that they will have to spend massive amounts bringing both of these up to date, not to mention education, before she can truly expand, and thanks to their one child policy, the population is dropping, meaning an ageing workforce and less industrial and military capability.

Turkey meanwhile, rated as a first world country simply by its membership of NATO, and this is correct in one form, but in economic terms is preposterous, as turkey rates only 71st by any real measurement, but this is besides the point, as turkey has neither the armed forces or the industrial base to challenge a true first world power.

I'd like to remind my opponent, in response to his ill advised "fight by proxy" theory that the title of the debate is "There is likely to be a major war between two or more first world nations before 2050."

With this in mind, Im curious to know how fighting a war by proxy fits into the definition of this debate.

The cultural development of nearly all nations has meant an end to centuries of wars fought because of differences in culture - whether these differences are only cultural or whether religion is also involved.

Todays world is vastly different and travel is more widespread than ever before, with this leading to greater awareness and understanding of other peoples, and because of this, a greater measureof tolerance.
No longer do we see crowds baying for the blood of the hated foreigner - now we are more likely to embrace and welcome.

My opponent would also like to convince that wars are likely for food, clean water, power etc, conveniently forgetting, that without these very basic needs, no nation would be able to GO to war.

He would also like readers to believe that real third world countries are ready to or have already surpassed the western nations in economic terms, and this is clearly not the case.

I've already covered some of the technological and military issues, but in opening this back up, I have one question for my opponent - the question of mutually assured destruction.
There is no longer a place in the world for the madness of the cold war, and leaders all over the planet recognise this and use it accordingly when seeking diplomatic solutions to any issue which arises.
This combined with the interdependance of nations and the advent of the UN means that war is no longer the possibility it once was.

Xtrozero is late posting because I have not been online to answer a question that was critical to his ability to proceed. I have just taken care of that, and Xtrozero has 24 hours from the time of this post to make his closing.

First, my opponent has come up with only two mediocre reasons that will prevent war, the UN and technology. In the case of the UN we have seen 148 wars around the world from the end of WWII to 1998 here, and so this shows the world cares very little for the UN since it has no teeth. The US has been in a five year war and is now ready to push Iran into the next war, and all of this has been done and will be done without UN approval. In these 148 wars we have not seen two first world countries go head to head, but this is not because of the UN as much as the balance of power that keeps them at bay, and Budski’s second reason as to why war will not happen totally contradicts this balance.

Technology is the one thing that can create a situation where the need for war is created or becomes the best option. As example if the US has in place its missile defense then that technology allows the US to challenge anyone without the fear of reprisals that they could not handle. Russia has already stated responses such as Putin’s remarks at the G8 summit here This is one first world nation talking to another about war without the UN anywhere near and with technology to blame, so I think Budski better find some better reasons quickly for these two were not very good.

After basically failing to show that nations will not go to war my opponent decided the next best course of action was to limit the number of first world nations. He first tried to do this by using one of his few links to a webpage that showed only US allied countries during the cold war. This was done to limit war between first world nations to just a handful. When I pointed out that Turkey was on that list he thought it was laughable to suggest it was first world, and adopted the more modern definition of a first world nation of economics to determine a countries’ status. When I suggest that China is one he responded that its GDP, poverty line and spending reserves are keeping it a second world nation. I then showed that it is NO 2 in the world for GDP and has better numbers than the US for both poverty line and reserves along many other economic factors.

His only recourse was to ignore it just as he decided to deny my example that Brazil was equal to France but with an extremely faster growth rate to show that by 2050 there will be many new first world nations added to the list. With 150 wars in the last 50 years the odds are in favor that two first world nations will be at war in the next 150 wars by 2050.

My opponent is also confused as to how two first world nations could go to war without mutual destruction and without attacking either homeland. I gave a number of scenarios such as China reclaiming Taiwan with the US fighting China in defense of Taiwan, and with facts that show China anticipates this with its huge Navy buildup to will equal the US Navy by 2016. Also if anyone has not noticed, the US is allied with Israel while China and Russia is allied with Iran, and any changes to that balance could easily spawn many scenarios of first world nations going to war to defend their allies.

War is not only inevitable but with the list of first world nations growing yearly it is also inevitable that two or more will be at war by 2050.



Budski,

Thanks for the fun my friend.

Thanks to my opponent for an interesting and lively debate.

The topic of this debate, "There is likely to be a major war between two or more first world nations before 2050.", has been shown to be impossible for a variety of reasons, not least of which are the economic reasons which my opponent has been unable to rebutt.
He has made an attempt, but in doing so has shown a lack of understanding about the economic reality of the world today, and the way that countries across the globe are interdependant on each other for economic survival.

He has attempted to equate minor skirmishes which have taken place since the end of world war two with wars between two or more first world powers, in an attempt to engender the idea that the world is constantly on the brink of conflict, when in reality, the world is in the midst of the most prosperous and profitable part of its history.

In refusing to answer perfectly valid questions about his claims, myopponent has further weakened his argument, and became desperate to such an extent that he attempted to argue that two second world powers fighting in place of first world powers a valid position, when clearly it was not.

We have seen from my opponent several Tom Clancy type "scenarios" in another futile attempt to prove that fiction is fact.

We have also seen a lot of supposition, "maybes" and "ifs" and in reply to this I quote an old Irish saying; "If my aunt had nuts she'd be my uncle".
This is to say that there have been no facts presented.
Instead there have been attempts to compare the world now as it was seventy years ago.

The world today is no longer about imperialism and expansionism, it is about money and economics, and using these to make a country better educated, better able to remain competetive, and to include the population in the advancement of a nation.

I have presented evidence that shows the world as it is, and will remain - a global community, with each part dependant on the other for survival.
Given this mix, there is no possibility for war. After all, why antagonize a trading partner? And the key word here is partner - we are all now partners in the business of mass global markets, and for this reason, war is not possible.

At 10:20PM on 11/4/07 the star count is 12-9 Budski.
The judge finds in favor of xtrozero and awards 5 stars to xtrozero.

The final score is 14-12 Xtrozero.

Budski started out very aggressively but never really nailed the debate down and spent too much time arguing over which country qualifies as a 1st world power and not enough on the debate itself.

Budski started out very aggressively but never really nailed the debate down.

Xtrozero initially fell behind by missing an all important early post but his approach was more complete and convincing overall. Even though he went off topic a number of times, Xtrozero managed to return on topic at each posting.

Xtrozero’s closing was more complete but could have been better if he would have stayed on the debate and left the argument over 1st world countries alone.

Both debaters need to concentrate on not being pulled off topic. At times I had to refresh my memory of just what the debate was over as both spent so much time on that 1st world country issue.

In the end though, I feel Xtrozero won the day."