The Instigator
untitled_entity
Con (against)
Losing
29 Points
The Contender
Lexicaholic
Pro (for)
Winning
38 Points

In a battle between Ann Coulter and Rachel Maddow, Ann Coulter would win.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 13 votes the winner is...
Lexicaholic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/5/2009 Category: News
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,955 times Debate No: 8890
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (95)
Votes (13)

 

untitled_entity

Con

I will defer to AFF for constructive.
The Rachel Maddow and Ann Coulter referred to are the T.V. news personalities.
Lexicaholic

Pro

Rachel Maddow is undeniably a bucket of awesome. Unfortunately, Ann Coulter is a ruthless attack dog by comparison. In a straight (well, half-straight) battle between the two, Coulter would win. Coulter is so extreme even Bill O'Reilly doesn't handle her. [1] How nuts do you have to be to hold that distinction? We've already seen the terrible devastation that a handful of zealots can do to the American public. I am talking, of course, about right wing conservative 'Christians.' See the videos -- look at 'em go! Anyway, the point is, Anne feels that she is 'perfected,' and not afraid to prove it. [2] Ann is clearly a zealot. Zealots are far more dangerous than sane, rational folks.

Rachel has one hope, I must admit. Anne is notoriously weak against pies. [3] Rachel is funny, and funny people like pies, so I assume she may have some on her. I'm just not sure if there are enough pies in the world to keep Ann down.

Also, she has legions of Republican neocon fans that think she is hot. [4] I believe that she breeds them in a laboratory, splicing stem cells to create new life. Ann, I'm certain, only uses unperfected stem cells, because they don't count.

Finally, it needs to be mentioned that Ann is that special type of evil that keeps rising from the dead. Like Jason. Despite losing her spot in several publications, [5] and her conservative 'credibility,' [6] Ann keeps on spewing whatever she can with that steel trap of hers. [7]

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[2] http://www.foxnews.com...
[3] http://ebonytamu.wordpress.com...
[4] http://answers.yahoo.com...
[5] http://www.google.com...
[6] http://gayrights.change.org...
[7] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 1
untitled_entity

Con

I will present my arguments first, then refute my opponent's.

Definitions
Battle - 2: a combat between two persons [1]

It can be seen anytime Ann Coulter appears on any T.V. show, commentates in any sound bite etc., she is insane. She makes not one valid, rational point. [2] Therefore, in a battle of wits she would fall helplessly victim to Rachel Maddow. To be quite frank, once Coulter's mouth is removed she has been rendered useless in any way, shape or form as most of American knows, she does indeed not have a brain. In addition to this, despite the fact that they may think she is attractive, most people do not like her. Therefore, Maddow would have mob mentality on her side. Once the world knew that the lesbian pundit who dresses like a third grader [3] was going to kick some Coulter a$$ most likely the entire country (with the exception of Sarah Palin) would be joining up to help.

In addition to the aforementioned, Ann Coulter purposefully makes ridiculous, ignorant statements just for the sake of doing so. [4,5,6] Unfortunately for Ms. Coulter, she does not realize that the world does not really care about her opinion, she is here just for our enjoyment and boy is she fun to make fun of. Now onto the actual reasons as to why Rachel Maddow would beat Coulter.

* Rachel Maddow and Coulter are roughly the same height (5'11 to 6')[7,8], therefore, any punches thrown by Maddow would land square to whichever body part she intended to hit on Coulter as Coulter is too stupid to move.

* Maddow is presumably stronger than Coulter. [9] At the age of 47, Ann Coulter, as noted in the jpg displays some pretty sizable arm flab. As we all know, or as we all should know, Rachel Maddow is a butch lesbian (now, I am just speaking for other butch lesbians) therefore she must have some sort of upper body strength and could probably beat Coulter with a couple of punches.

*Maddow is intellectually more superior than Ann Coulter. Rachel Maddow received a Rhodes Scholarship, a B.A. from Stanford, and a DPhil from Oxford. She also can defend her points with cold hard fact, and knows that Canada did indeed, not send troops to Vietnam. Therefore she would beat Coulter in the brain department.

Despite the fact that Ann Coulter is the nastiest Conservative pitbull, ever, Rachel Maddow might be the man to finally put her in her place.

Many thanks to Lexicaholic.

Sources:
[1] - http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] - http://www.anncoulter.com...
[3] - http://www.rachelmaddow.com...
[4] -
[5] -
[6] -
[7] - http://www.whosdatedwho.com...
[8] - http://www.mademan.com...
[9] - http://aviewofthec.files.wordpress.com...
Lexicaholic

Pro

I thank my U_E for her quick turnaround, but I fear that Ann may yet lay the smackdown on Maddow.

My opponent contends three points:
(1)Rachel Maddow is Ann Coulter's intellectual superior,
(2)Rachel Maddow is Ann Coulter's physical superior,
(3)Ann Coulter is severely unloved.

Contention 1: Maddow is the Brain, Coulter is Pinky
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Maddow is indeed very smart. Surprisingly, Coulter is *also* very smart. [1] She is an honors graduate of Cornell University and the University of Michigan law school. Both are very impressive accomplishments. It is clear that Coulter does not get a pass for being actually stupid. Hers is an obfuscating stupidity, beneath which dark and terrible plots churn, like butter in an old time butter-churning thing. Coulter says whatever she wants not because she doesn't think, but because she doesn't care. Whatever trouble she gets herself in, she knows she can get herself out of.

Contention 2: Maddow is Clara Kent, Coulter is Leslie Luthor
----------------------------------------------------------------
My opponent argues that Rachel Maddow is very strong. Maddow has admitted to having been a jock and a loner, a strong combination for a punk street fighter. [2] I could see her pulling some nasty tricks in an out and out brawl. She also kind of has that bobbing and weaving motion that lets you know that she knows how to prepare for and roll with hits as they come. See Vid 1. None-the-less, Coulter is not completely out of her element here.

For one thing, Coulter did dodge the pie. That's speaks well for her agility. Also, she has an iron jaw (knowing Ann she probably kept it). No uppercuts. She is also tough enough to go man to woman against John McCain, and while she didn't win, he did need to drop a ton of bombs on her. See Vid 2.

Contention 3: Nobody loves her … that just makes her more dangerous
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many individuals have had major career changes due to the power of the anger and hatred residing in them. Coulter is strong with the dark side. Really strong. You can tell because the dark side warps your face and gives you deep pitted eye sockets, and Ann has those in spades. Also, while no one born naturally may love her, I have already submitted that she has a clone army. Basically, Ann Coulter is the emperor. [3] That's a level of insidiousness I don't think Rachel can take out with just a punch or two.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]Put a black hood on Ann and compare: http://www.hecklerspray.com... vs http://charlespaolino.files.wordpress.com...
Debate Round No. 2
untitled_entity

Con

To reaffirm my points
(1) Maddow is smarter than Coulter
I do understand that Ann Coulter is smart, I do understand that she went through a lot of schooling. However, Rachel Maddow has a sense of coherency about her when she speaks, and most of what she says makes sense. Don't get me wrong, I love them both for separate reasons, I just believe Maddow makes more sense when she opens her mouth. Coulter is smart, if she wasn't she wouldn't make incredibly outlandish statements just to fight with Bill Maher. Not to mention Ann Coulter got slapped down by Joy Behar and Whoppi Goldberg on the View, if you can't handle either of them you probably can't handle Rachel Maddow. [1]

(2) Rachel Maddow would undeniably beat Ann Coulter.
Though Coulter dodged a pie, she saw it coming. If Rachel Maddow laid an intense beating down onto Ann Coulter, Maddow would be victorious. Rachel Maddow has already beat and infuriated Coulter, this occurred when Coulter was bumped from the "Today Show" and ultimately replaced by Maddow. [2] Finally, I believe Maddow would lay the beat down on Coulter because she is younger, stronger and gayer. (Coulter's just bitter since their breakup)

(3) Nobody Loves Ann Coulter
I agree that sometimes hate makes people better but I doubt that is the case with Ann Coulter. The hate becomes a patronizing hate and it just leads to a vicious cycle of angry. Rachel Maddow is on the dark side too, she's gay... Didn't you know there's a listserv?

In summation, Rachel Maddow is superior to Ann Coulter in most arenas. Rachel Maddow would beat Ann Coulter to a pulp due to her physical finesse and strong - arm brute force. This is also something people would want to watch --> See Economic Recession.

I thank Lexicaholic for a fun and amusing debate. Vote CON.

Source:
[1] - http://answers.yahoo.com... [[Just for fun]]
[2] - http://newsbusters.org...
Lexicaholic

Pro

I offer my thanks to my opponent for her strong response, and my apologies for my own delay. However, I will assure you that I have spent this time well in meditation upon the evil that is Ann, and remain assured that she would be victorious over Rachel.

(1) Coulter is as smart as Maddow, just more evil

Ann is as intelligent as Rachel. Her mind is simply turned towards social order at the expense of other people's suffering. Rachel's apparent coherency comes from the fact that she considers how her statements impact others, and that she tries to avoid causing suffering. [1] Ann, on the other, desires suffering the way a pig does mud, and makes a point of bringing it to others. [2]

(2) Ann Coulter would annihilate Rachel Maddow

My opponent has agreed that Ann has the hatred, and the clone army. Maddow, on the other hand, is merely unobtrusive and likes to wear dark colors. [3] At best, Maddow is qualified to be a ninja. While ninjas do have great capability [4], there is no debate as to whether or not a ninja could take a dark Jedi. Coulter is clearly such a being, or, at the very least, a witch. [5] Witches beat ninjas too. [6]

Ann also must have mind control powers of some sort, [7] so it stands to reason that Rachel would be too hypnotized by Ann to attack. I would have argued something about Rachel being too smitten by Ann to attack, but Ann's figure is likely too boyish to register. [8]

Actually, that brings up another point. While Maddow may be, as my opponent has stated "man-ish," there is a very high likelihood that Ann Coulter actually *is* a man. [9] Don't tell me that she's a post-operation transsexual. It's clear that Ann must have balls (in a manner of speaking)[10], and that she is not on a hormone replacement regimen. [11]

(3) Being Gay Just Isn't Evil Enough

My opponent has argued that "Rachel Maddow is on the dark side too, she's gay." Being gay just doesn't cut it anymore. [12] Not even for members of the Roman Catholic Church, which is saying something. [13] [14] Not much, considering recent church pronouncements, but something. [15] Evil is most simply determined as that which is not socially acceptable. Clearly, any special abilities Rachel acquired by liking women must have been lost in the wave of social acceptance that has penetrated all but rural Texas and those few God-forsaken plots of land in the middle of America that people would only visit if they needed to rent a cheap horror movie set. [16]

Ann, on the other hand, has cruelty on her side, [17] and the Big Book of Evil says that is always in style. [18] Ann dishes out hate and vitriol carefully veiled in innuendo and precise word choice. [19] That's the type of cleverness we would expect from a real evil overlord.

While I agree with my opponent that more people would (or should) like to see Maddow smack down Coulter, that is simply a testament to how diabolically evil Ann is. I would imagine that even most puritanical Christians would prefer victory for the lesbian over the witch if it came down to a fight between the two. After all, the historical treatment for witches was *fire.* [20] Gays got off *light* with electricity and emasculation. [21] [22] Assuming the punishments were designed to fit the crime, this further illustrates that homosexuality is just not nor has ever been considered as evil as, well, *actual* evil.

I thank untitled_entity for her participation in this debate, but, taking my cue from Ann, I must warn you that she is part of a leftist plot to destroy America. [23] The only way you can stop her is by voting Pro!

Also, see the comments for an illustration of how the Ann-Rachel fight would turn out. [24] Clearly, Maddow has met her match!

My apologies to any witches who may have been offended by comparison to Coulter. Please see the comments section for cites. There were just too many for the character count.
Debate Round No. 3
95 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lexicaholic 5 years ago
Lexicaholic
'k!
Posted by untitled_entity 5 years ago
untitled_entity
Lexicaholic, I do have some of those ideas in the works, I just want to finish up my other debate before I issue another challenge.
Posted by Lexicaholic 5 years ago
Lexicaholic
Er ... uh ... nvm?

O.o

I need to ask for votes in the comment section more often it appears. :/

Hey, U_E, any other talking heads you would like to see clash? O'Reilly vs. Olbermann? Hitchens v. Sharpton? Limbaugh v. Al Franken? An ultimate battle contest including teams of such individuals? :)
Posted by Lexicaholic 5 years ago
Lexicaholic
Now, the real worry here is that U_E is winning 29-24, and there's one hour left to vote ... so if you conservative type commentators actually want to win, you have little time to do so. :P I'm just kidding, fun debate all around and, having had a few beers with friends over this weekend, I congratulate U_E on the win (assuming it stays the same). Ninjas > Sith. XD
Posted by alto2osu 5 years ago
alto2osu
As for the generality only being valid in the context of this debate...only if the liberals who you are trying to argue are "uniformly condescending" are the Pro & Con :) And, even that can be debated. But, as it stands, generalities on topics such as these (by these I mean political) are useless full stop...not just on an "issues" debate.
Posted by alto2osu 5 years ago
alto2osu
Despite appearances, that's not true at all. Lex gave a couple of examples in video form which showed the very pundits you mentioned being the opposite of their so-called "nature" to be or not to be condescending, and I gave motive for the condescending attitude of *all* pundits (not just the liberal ones) in my first post (drawing in media ratings is a highly bankable skill). My original argument, though I will admit it has become somewhat altered as the comments continue to build, is that the politically popular don't really represent much of anything other than selling an image that is marketable. Stephen Colbert is a fabulous example, if not a little bit extreme. Politicians have more to do with party lines, since they are aiming for votes, but both conservatives and liberals watch highly jerk-ish political pundits because the smug attitudes all around entertain. Maddow found her selling "personality," just like any other pundit, and ran with it. That isn't the core of liberalism.

I think that, in the case of this debate, there was more "condescension," as it were, b/c both debaters seem to dislike Ann Coulter, but you are still taking this debate and extrapolating it to mean that *all* liberals are the same way.

I compare Ann Coulter, on the other hand, to Michael Moore in some respects. Though clearly you have a certain respect for her ability to be candid, I see them both as exploiting a particular demographic. And, it works. Yea for capitalism, and by all means go to it. At the same time, I refuse to ascribe all of Ann's beliefs to you just because you seem to align yourself positively with her, just like I take Michael Moore with a political grain of salt. I'm guessing that you, as an identifying conservative, don't share 100% of this pundit's beliefs. That's my argument. And even if you do, a large body of conservatives do not. They've said so. A lot.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
alto, Most debates are about issues, so generalities about what liberals or conservatives are like in general are irrelevant. The debate might be argued by someone contrary to a valid generalization. No one should care, I agree.

The subject of this particular debate, however, has to do with the fun involved in being condescending to Ann Coulter. This particular debate starts from the premise that Coulter is stupid or evil or both, and that it it is great fun for Liberals to repeat this claim. So in this context it is relevant to point out that Liberals, particularly Liberal pundits like Maddow, are generally condescending. It seems that no one is willing to assert that this generality is not true. The claims, including yours, go no further than saying that generalization ought not be spoken, even though it is true, and with respect to this debate, relevant.

In this thread, no one has denied the generality based upon the facts. It is difficult to think of a prominent liberal who isn't condescending. It is the norm. I agree that with respect to most issues in isn't relevant, but with respect belittling Coulter, and to related topics, it is.
Posted by alto2osu 5 years ago
alto2osu
Wow...I go river swimming one afternoon and the comments explode :D

I agree with the direction that Lex & U_E have taken this from where I left off.

The reason I choose not to make arguments about my personal experience with people who associate with political parties, Roy, because that isn't what I'm arguing, and it won't get my point across in any way, shape, or form. As Lex is pointing out, perhaps I actually object to the rationale behind making false generalizations, rather than with the subject of those generalizations. I am making an abstract argument on purpose because I find most generalizations to be inaccurate at best, polarizing at worst.

Generalizations can be useful when they are appropriate. Ducks flying south for the winter is hardly comparable to calling a political group condescending...those ducks flying south don't directly affect our ability to function in the political arena :) Not only that, but ducks either fly south, or they don't. There's not really a lot of grey area. However, even the definition of what "condescending" looks like can affect our ability to collect observable data or come to any quantifiable answer about who is or is not condescending.
Posted by Lexicaholic 5 years ago
Lexicaholic
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

I would never say that the Irish uniformly wear green on St.Patrick's Day. Personally, I don't even say "The Irish wear green on St.Patrick's Day." I prefer to say "The color green is associated with St.Patrick's day, and that is why some people wear it during the holiday." That's how I explained the Christmas color scheme of red and green to my four year old nephew anyway.
Posted by untitled_entity 5 years ago
untitled_entity
Weren't we just talking about how I couldn't make lesbian generalizations....even though I am one. Yet you can make them about liberals when you aren't one?

Paradoxes.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by alto2osu 5 years ago
alto2osu
untitled_entityLexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Vote Placed by LadyHavok13 5 years ago
LadyHavok13
untitled_entityLexicaholicTied
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 
Vote Placed by seeley.linda 5 years ago
seeley.linda
untitled_entityLexicaholicTied
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 
Vote Placed by methodicalmadness00 5 years ago
methodicalmadness00
untitled_entityLexicaholicTied
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 
Vote Placed by LipstickandLightplay 5 years ago
LipstickandLightplay
untitled_entityLexicaholicTied
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 
Vote Placed by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
untitled_entityLexicaholicTied
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 
Vote Placed by SKEPTICISM 5 years ago
SKEPTICISM
untitled_entityLexicaholicTied
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 
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 5 years ago
Lexicaholic
untitled_entityLexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
untitled_entityLexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Volkov 5 years ago
Volkov
untitled_entityLexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05