The Instigator
Adam2
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Romanii
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

George I and II (of the Ku Klux Klan; OK I'm kidding) being celebrated

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/6/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 648 times Debate No: 41829
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Adam2

Con

I will argue that good-hearted English should not celebrate these two evil excuses for human beings. First round goes for acceptance. Evil monarchs
Romanii

Pro

I will debate you on this topic.
My stance is that George I and George II were not much more evil or good than any other British monarch.
I'm rather confused as to why you are so riled up at them in particular...
Debate Round No. 1
Adam2

Con

OK George I and II were two evil kings for the following reasons
http://en.wikipedia.org...;(which happened under one of the two). The English citizens of New York (note this did not happen under a Dutch government, but an Anglo-Saxon, and especially Lutheran religion) lied that black slaves were going to start a revolt. I believe there might have been a rumor that blacks were going to sexually assault and rape white ladies.
Under King George I, England regressed into a very puritan society. Hatred of tomboys who preferred guy friends and hatred of autistic people spiked. Mind you, while Victoria was indeed an Anglican, I'm sure that her Lutheran husband (one of the princes of both Prussia and England) planted those evil ideas into her head.
The modern conflict in India started under George II. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Basically it was an excuse to build a brutal empire. They claimed the Spanish who had made small settlements in India were a threat to the English Protestant power.
As a matter of fact, the English Empire started under George I and II. For the most part in between the time of the first English/Scottish settlements in North America and George I, relations between England, and both the English settlers and the Native peoples were pretty peaceful (with the exception of Cromwell). It's only when George I (and especially the second with the French-Indian War) became king that the Viking-style atrocities against the Amerindian people began.
Romanii

Pro

There are many, many British monarchs who have committed more atrocious acts than this (e.g. Henry VIII, James II, George III). I am still clueless as to why you hate these particular monarchs so much, rather some of the other kings in English history.

I don't know if I can prove that the kings were virtuous, since they didn't do anything that was spectacularly good, so I guess I will just disprove all your assertions on why they are "evil".
I will say, however, that as a former German prince, King George I barely knew any English when he was put on the throne, and he left pretty much all his government tasks to Parliament, which isn't really good or bad in any way...
Now, on with the rebuttals.

"The English citizens of New York (note this did not happen under a Dutch government, but an Anglo-Saxon, and especially Lutheran religion) lied that black slaves were going to start a revolt. I believe there might have been a rumor that blacks were going to sexually assault and rape white ladies."
What does the New York Conspiracy of 1741 have to do with King George's rule!? It was a completely colonial affair with virtually no involvement of the government!

"Under George I, England regressed into a very puritan society"
Actually Puritanism reached the height of its power during Oliver Cromwell's dictatorial rule over England, and after he left, there was a kingdom-wide rejection on Puritanism, so I'm not sure where you are getting your information from. Additionally, you seem to think that "Lutheran" and "Puritan" mean the same thing, and they don't; Puritan Christianity is much stricter than Lutheran Christianity. And what does Queen Victoria have anything to do with this???

"The modern conflict in India started under George II."
Just because it happened UNDER him doesn't mean anything! 9/11 also happened during the presidency of George Bush. That doesn't mean he caused it! (Unless you're one of those conspiracy-theory idiots). The real people at fault for the Carnatic Wars were the French governor of Pondicherry, Joseph-Fran'2;ois Dupleix, and the British governor of Bengal, Robert Clive.

"As a matter of fact, the English Empire started under George I and II."
No. England started colonizing in the early 17th century under the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I. And the empire got its bad connotation during the 19th century when Parliament (which had gained more power than the monarch by that time) started enforcing policies of mercantilism and imperialism.

"It's only when George I (and especially the second with the French-Indian War) became king that the Viking-style atrocities against the Amerindian people began."
Actually, the English and Dutch had been fighting with and using various Native American tribes for a long time before that, particularly in the mid-1600s. Only the French had ever had peaceful relations with the natives.
The French-Indian War was completely the work of British Prime Minister William Pitt.

George I and George II didn't do anything that was out of the ordinary for a British monarch to do. They are not "evil" and deserve commemoration by the British people just as much as any other monarch.

Sources:
(1) http://www.britannica.com...
(2) https://www.christianhistoryinstitute.org...
(3) http://www.britroyals.com...
(4) http://www.britannica.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Adam2

Con

REFUTAL
"There are many, many British monarchs who have committed more atrocious acts than this (e.g. Henry VIII, James II, George III). I am still clueless as to why you hate these particular monarchs so much, rather some of the other kings in English history."
Name one atrocitious act committed by any of those kings. George III doesn't count because his main war was during the American Revolutionary War. I have read the entire article of George III. Not a single bad thing about him (unless you're one of those Patriotic conspiracist type who are saying that becuase America won the Revolutionary War which was made by lalala land historians in the 19th century, who think George III was horrible). His treatment of wartime was rather humane. It was under his reign that corruption was fought.
(http://en.wikipedia.org...).
Under George I, there were quite a few Scottish uprising (quite understandable, given the disgusting and cruel oppression the hands of the Anglo-Saxons)
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
"What does the New York Conspiracy of 1741 have to do with King George's rule!? It was a completely colonial affair with virtually no involvement of the government!"
I would agree if you were talking about the colonies that were not directly Crown colonies. But New York became a royal colony before that happened. Part of the reason this vicious and disgusting suppression occured was because the KING's chapel was burned down, and the king-loving citizens wanted to kill blacks in revenge. And you can actually make the case that George II was trying to bring back absolute monarchy to England. Historians have a war named after him (King George's War) which implies that he did indeed have a say in that war.
"Actually Puritanism reached the height of its power during Oliver Cromwell's dictatorial rule over England, and after he left, there was a kingdom-wide rejection on Puritanism, so I'm not sure where you are getting your information from. Additionally, you seem to think that "Lutheran" and "Puritan" mean the same thing, and they don't; Puritan Christianity is much stricter than Lutheran Christianity. And what does Queen Victoria have anything to do with this???"
Right, if you consider being greedy and living a lavish life less strict. George II was a greedy and tyranical king, and his father was a womanizer who cheated on his wife, all while believing in God. He was a stubborn man as well. So much for the righteous Lutherans. And BTW, I bring up Victoria, because while was an Anglican, it was her Lutheran prince husband who planted those bigoted ideas Victoria had in her. As for the Puritans (who are very underrated), public education was invented. It was not the arrogant type of religion often portrayed by the media. Some of the most heinous atrocities occured by Lutheran countries. Danish rule in Greenland was cruel as f--k.
"Just because it happened UNDER him doesn't mean anything! 9/11 also happened during the presidency of George Bush. That doesn't mean he caused it! (Unless you're one of those conspiracy-theory idiots). The real people at fault for the Carnatic Wars were the French governor of Pondicherry, Joseph-Fran'2;ois Dupleix, and the British governor of Bengal, Robert Clive."
OK, you seemed to have misunderstood it. The French had a trading relationship with the Indian tribes. Similar to the Native American relations. The English wanted a piece of the pie and would do at any means necessary, so technically the English did start that war.
"No. England started colonizing in the early 17th century under the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I. And the empire got its bad connotation during the 19th century when Parliament (which had gained more power than the monarch by that time) started enforcing policies of mercantilism and imperialism."
Actually you can blame the atrocities on the colonists. John Smith was a cruel bastard. England didn't have royal colonies yet.
"Actually, the English and Dutch had been fighting with and using various Native American tribes for a long time before that, particularly in the mid-1600s. Only the French had ever had peaceful relations with the natives.
The French-Indian War was completely the work of British Prime Minister William Pitt."
Yes, true, but the Royal colonies came with George I. And then, the blame can go on George I and II. Actually, like I said before, George II did technically try to bring back absolute rule, because he instigated some wars. Why was there a war called George's War? Doesn't sound like a constitutional monarch to me. So technically George II especially had some power, and it was his policies that led to the Revolutionary War.
Romanii

Pro

"Name one atrocitious act committed by any of those kings"
Henry VIII- how about... GOING THROUGH 6 WIVES AND DIVORCING/EXECUTING EACH ONE SIMPLY FOR NOT HAVING A SON?
James II- his people hated him so much that they replaced him... what does that say about him?

"Under George I, there were quite a few Scottish uprising"
You gave the Jacobite Rising of 1715 as an example of a Scottish uprising under George I. However, you fail to mention that the 1715 rebellion was just one of many Jacobite risings lasting from 1688 (when the last Stuart monarch was expelled).
In addition, there were also a lot of uprisings during Elizabeth I's reign. So many, in fact, that she EXECUTED the Queen of Scotland!

"Part of the reason this vicious and disgusting suppression occured was because the KING's chapel was burned down, and the king-loving citizens wanted to kill blacks in revenge".
You don't even understand the cause of the conspiracy. It was caused purely by economic tensions between whites and blacks. Even the Wikipedia articles you keep using say that! The burning of the king's chapel was very minimal cause of the conflict, and the entire affair was handled completely by the local government of New York.

"it was her Lutheran prince husband who planted those bigoted ideas Victoria had in her. As for the Puritans (who are very underrated), public education was invented. It was not the arrogant type of religion often portrayed by the media. Some of the most heinous atrocities occured by Lutheran countries. Danish rule in Greenland was cruel as f--k."
Are you even noticing how contradictory you arguments are? In round 2, you said that one of the reasons George I is "evil" is because England got MORE Puritan. Now you are bashing on Lutheranism and supporting Puritanism. What!?

"The English wanted a piece of the pie and would do at any means necessary, so technically the English did start that war."
So, what does that have to do with George II being evil? By the time George II came to power, Parliament was making pretty much all the major overseas decisions...

"...the blame can go on George I and II. Actually, like I said before, George II did technically try to bring back absolute rule"
First of all, he made no significant attempts at taking back power. And even if he did, why does that make him evil? If wanting power makes you THAT evil, then pretty much every king who has ever existed is evil to the core.

I'm getting the feeling that you just picked two random monarchs and are trying to find excuses to hate them...
Also, I'm doubting that you have any sort of knowledge on British history...

SOUCES:
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) http://law2.umkc.edu...
(3) http://www.royal.gov.uk...
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
That was a pretty petty debate...
And we finished it in like 2 hours...
Posted by Adam2 3 years ago
Adam2
We'll see
Posted by Multi-Wargasm 3 years ago
Multi-Wargasm
Con has no idea what they're talking about. Evil monarchy? who allowed you to gauge the evilness of something? And in a historical debate? You lost your argument before you started it. Silly salacious nonsense.
No votes have been placed for this debate.