I think the way this question is posed you won't get many people to argue for the motion. I think I could potentially argue relatively recently that there was some minor attempts by people in the Trump campaign to get some aid from Russia, or at the very least condone help, but I don't think that a) amounted to much and b) that Russia is the reason that Trump won. I think I could also try to argue that Trump and people around him tried to interfere with the investigation into whether he did "collude" with Russia. But the way it is posed is not-defensible, imo.
Also, debates are garbage, we should try to have fruitful discussions that broaden our understanding instead.