The Instigator
KingDebater
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
Walrus101
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II should become a graffiti artist.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 4 votes the winner is...
Walrus101
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/27/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,361 times Debate No: 34225
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

KingDebater

Pro

Drinking cups of tea and wearing smart and colourful hats is all well and good, but what has her majesty done to appeal to the younger (and more chavvy) generations? Unfortunately, the answer is nothing. I'll be arguing that her majesty should consider becomig a graffiti artist.

i) She'd be good at staying anonymous
She'd be like a ninja banksy. Nobody suspects the Queen of anything.

ii) Even if she were caught, she wouldn't get in any trouble
The Queen controls the courts, so even if she were caught, she'd just tell 'em to bog off and she'd get away scot-free. "Lucky Git!" I hear you cry.

iii) The Queen has a good sense of humour
The Queen has a good sense of humour [1], so the whole idea of becoming a graffiti artist would really appeal to her.

iv) She'd have a gang to help her
The Queen has something like 800 servants [2], which means that she could spend as much time as she likes doing a detailed piece and the pig force wouldn't get her.

v) Lots of room to hide her inventory
Buckingham palace has something like 725 rooms, so hiding her spray paint, caps and markers would be easy. What pig is going to do a search of 725 rooms?

vi) Potential for a big inventory
You can fit a lot of things in 725 rooms, meaning lots of paint of all different sorts of colours, making Liz's pieces be worth seeing.

I thank you.

The new banksy

Sources
[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...;
[2] http://wiki.answers.com...
Walrus101

Con

To Begin:
I would like to begin by giving thanks to my opponent for the debate since I hadn't been in a debate for quite some time.
Also, I recognize that I will be arguing that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II should not become a graffiti artist.

No practical purpose:
I see no practical purpose of Queen Elizabeth II of becoming a graffiti artist. The only real reason I would see her becoming a graffiti artist would have to be entertainment. The world has enough entertainment, leaving little to no need for the Queen to be in the entertainment industry.

Keeping Dignity:
It is doubtful that the Queen would engage in such activities. The Royal Family has been known to conduct themselves with dignity, discouraging anyone from the thought of her becoming a graffiti artist. Graffiti is a disrespectful act, and is not for anyone with any kind of self-respect. Since she is told to have respect, she should not become a graffiti artist.

A Figurehead:
Saying that the Queen is incapable of getting in trouble is completely wrong. The Queen is simply a figurehead in the British government, so she does not control any decisions. All government activity is conducted by the Parliament. So if indeed Queen Elizabeth II did become a graffiti artist, she would not be above laws.

Humor you say?:
The next statement I am addressing is in the matter of the Queen having a good sense of humor. This statement is purely biased, and is not valid. Debates should use known facts, not speculations by few who think alike.

Gang? I think not:
You cannot call free human beings servants. I know for a fact that anyone who works for her is indeed free, since slavery is no longer legal in civil countries. I also find the reference to Officers of the Law being pigs very offensive.

What ownership can be claimed?:
You can't claim that the Queen has reign over the Palace. She does not own the Palace, therefore she can't deface the Palace with cans of spray paint. Again with the "Pig" reference.

To source or not to source:
I took a look at the sources that my opponent offered for explanation. I do not find wiki answers a valid resource, or the biased article that was written by some of the few to claim the Queen has a sense of humor. I also see the clearly photoshopped image.
Debate Round No. 1
KingDebater

Pro

I thank Con for accepting this debate.

Con says: I see no practical purpose of Queen Elizabeth II of becoming a graffiti artist. The only real reason I would see her becoming a graffiti artist would have to be entertainment. The world has enough entertainment, leaving little to no need for the Queen to be in the entertainment industry.

To appeal to young whipper snappers, obviously. If she doesn't, then she will just sort of be forgotten and all the exciting and hip people (who I hate) will be remembered instead. The queen needs to be remembered to keep the old folks happy.

Con says: It is doubtful that the Queen would engage in such activities. The Royal Family has been known to conduct themselves with dignity, discouraging anyone from the thought of her becoming a graffiti artist. Graffiti is a disrespectful act, and is not for anyone with any kind of self-respect. Since she is told to have respect, she should not become a graffiti artist.

Yes, but the gangsters like danger. Also, graffiti artists are cool and London is one of the most pro-graffiti cities in the world [15]. There are even websites where these chavs hang out. I have an account on a graffiti forum called 'bombingscience' [16].

Con says: Saying that the Queen is incapable of getting in trouble is completely wrong. The Queen is simply a figurehead in the British government, so she does not control any decisions. All government activity is conducted by the Parliament. So if indeed Queen Elizabeth II did become a graffiti artist, she would not be above laws.

Con appears to be a bit of an ignoramus when it comes to life in Britain. Ask any English debater (Ed) and they'll tell you that the queen can do whatever she likes.

Con says: The next statement I am addressing is in the matter of the Queen having a good sense of humor. This statement is purely biased, and is not valid. Debates should use known facts, not speculations by few who think alike.

Nope [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8].

Con says: You cannot call free human beings servants. I know for a fact that anyone who works for her is indeed free, since slavery is no longer legal in civil countries. I also find the reference to Officers of the Law being pigs very offensive.

The Queen is different though, she is above the law.

Con says: You can't claim that the Queen has reign over the Palace. She does not own the Palace, therefore she can't deface the Palace with cans of spray paint. Again with the "Pig" reference.

The Queen is special like that. She can do all sorts of neat tricks, like get a ton of people to turn up at her anniversary [9] [10]. Also, it wouldn't be defacing. A room is not defaced if you simply keep your inventory in it.

Also, the Queen is above the law [11] [12] [13] [14].

I thank you.

Sources
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...
[2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
[3] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
[4] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
[5] http://www.channel4.com...
[6] http://www.people.com...
[7] http://www.independent.co.uk...
[8] http://www.malaysiakini.com...
[9] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
[10] ;(the video)
[11] http://uk.answers.yahoo.com...;
[12] http://www.royalwarrant.org...
[13] http://www.law4u.com.au...
[14] http://abovethelaw.com...
[15] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[16] http://www.bombingscience.com...
Walrus101

Con

In remembrance:
It is likely that this Queen will be remembered, giving that she will likely be the last. Monarchies are most unheard of now, so still having a Queen is likely be remembered no matter what the achievements. Most people have to do something great to be remembered, but she can simply be remembered by existing.

Point taken.....Lightly:
The next point given is all but relevant. What does Queen Elizabeth II have to do with gangsters? Also, social media is not part of this debate.

Oh, The Brit:
Thank you for the complement, my good sir. The Queen may be thought of as to be able to do whatever she wants, but the fact of it is that if she tried she would be stopped. The fact of the matter is the Queen is unable to do what most think she can, as is still purely a figurehead.

Above the law you say?:
Again, the Queen is not above the law. Speculations matter not. I see you agree with the Pig reference being offensive.

Sources:
https://www.gov.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Napoleon_Dynamite_915 3 years ago
Napoleon_Dynamite_915
KingDebaterWalrus101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G and arguments to Con because the Queen really is a figurehead, and if she is above the law then there is some serious corruption going on in England. Also conduct to Con because Pro posted that badly Photoshopped picture of the queen.
Vote Placed by Darong 3 years ago
Darong
KingDebaterWalrus101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had way more sources. Con had better conduct because Pro called him a name or two, Con also made a more convincing argument in my opinion.
Vote Placed by Anon_Y_Mous 3 years ago
Anon_Y_Mous
KingDebaterWalrus101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter Frank_Blascovic Votebomb.
Vote Placed by Frank_Blascovic 3 years ago
Frank_Blascovic
KingDebaterWalrus101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I can't stand completely retarded debates like this