The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

In the Hunger Games, President Snow is Really the Good Guy.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/21/2015 Category: Movies
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,258 times Debate No: 84185
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




This debate is impossible to accept. If you want to do it, challenge me in the comments section.

Round 1- Acceptance
Round 2- Main reasons
Round 3- Refutations
Round 4- Character Explanation and Hidden Motives Of President Snow and Katniss Everdeen.


I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you StatsAndFacts for debating this with me! I am Forever 23 and I am glad to debate with a fellow Hunger Games fan!

I am Forever 23 and I am here to bring forth the premise that the good guy in the Hunger Games trilogy is really President Snow...

My ensuing roadmap will include defining some key terms in the debate, demonstrating the BOP and then stating 3 of my own arguments.

So without further ado, lets begin:

Good Guy- any person who is on your side

President Snow- Panem's ruler

The BOP in this debate: Pro has to prove why President Snow is not a terrible person and why Katniss Everdeen is not better. Con has to show why Katniss is better and why Mr. Snow is a horrifying man.

Now onto some observations:

1. Good is a very subjective thing

The word good is very subjective. For some, it may be good to donate money to charity. For others, it may be to prevent violence.

Lets focus on the following fact:

President Snow was born in a very different society that we have today. There, what is considered immoral here, is absolutely acceptable in Snow's world. Killing children in The Hunger Games was acceptable in that society. Snow may perhaps not fit the USA as we have it now. However, his actions were considered acceptable and even beneficial to the land of Panem.

Assertion #1- President Snows Love For Family

Just like Katniss Everdeen, President Snow loved his family above all. In fact, he had a grand daughter, Celestia Snow. She was 12 years old, old enough to enter the Hunger Games. Snow however, even though he had the complete power, never entered her or the other Capitol children into the Hunger Games. Egeria, his wife, was also considered dear to him. The man really did care about his family. That makes him no different from Katniss Everdeen. In fact, as I will explain in my next assertion, an even better man.

Assertion #2- His Actions All Had A Reason To Them

The opposing side may say, "Well, he killed kids from other districts, is that okay?". No, it is not okay. Killing kids is not okay. However, when carefully reading the book, you see the real reason for the Hunger Games. To prevent even more deaths. The amount of people dying because of the rebellion, was much larger than the amount of people dying in the Hunger Games and in the district. Another common question, "He poisoned his friends, you say that's okay?". His friends were people who posed a potential threat to the society. He killed them for this reason. The man did not want Panem to fall into an even deeper hole and all of Mr. Snows actions has a reason. In fact, his actions were well thought out and done as to support the people. Katniss on the other hand, was a selfish women as I will prove in my third assertion. Lets take a glimpse at Katniss. After the revolution, she was supposed to kill Snow. The rebellion was over and yet, she spontaneously killed President Coin instead of President Snow. We know that Mr. Snow would never have done that.

Assertion #3- The utilitarianism theory

According to, "Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the best moral action is the one that maximizes utility. Utility is defined in various ways, but is usually related to the well-being of sentient entities. Originally, Jeremy Bentham, the founder of Utilitarianism, defined utility as the aggregate pleasure after deducting suffering of all involved in any action. John Stuart Mill expanded this concept of utility to include not only the quantity, but quality of pleasure, while focusing on rules, instead of individual moral actions. Others have rejected that pleasure has positive value and have advocated negative utilitarianism, which defines utility only in terms of suffering. As opposed to this hedonistic view, some define utility with relation to preference satisfaction whereas others believe that a range of values can be included in its definition." The Hunger Games is actually supported by this theory. President Snow had to keep the districts in line in order to prevent a substantial amount of deaths during the revolution. Katniss on the other hand, cared about no one but herself and her family. In the second book, right before the Hunger Games preparation, she did not want to ally, even if it could save the lives of many others. In Mockingjay, she refused to be the symbol unless given so many privilages. People went out of their way to make her happy while she... did not return anything. On the other hand, we have President Snow, he was not demanding and did things that may not have seemed to do so, but at the end helped the public.

Dear judges, clearly Mr. Snow is the one with more reason and logic. Vote pro


If you will allow me, I would like the definition of "good guy" to be changed from 'any person who is on your side' to 'a person with righteous morals and actions'. 'Any person who is on your side' would be a better definition of a protagonist, which President Snow is not, and although protagonists are generally good people, they don't have to be.

I also wish to ask, are we basing answers solely on books or also from the movies? For this round, I will rely only on the books for my arguments.

Assertion #1 - President Snow shows little, if any, love for his family
It is true that President Snow has a granddaughter. Therefore, he must have at least one child and a wife, or at least a partner. (I also wish to know, where did Pro get the name of his wife? It wasn't mentioned in any of the books or movies, as far as I remember). However, his family is only mentioned once, in the third book, when Johanna Mason, a previous victor from District 7, states "Snow even has a granddaughter" (369, Mockingjay). As this is the only mention of Snow's family, and it's not even coming from the President, we can assume his family was not important enough to him to be included in the book. If Pro has found another mention of his family in the books, they are welcome to bring it to my attention.

Assertion #2 - President Snow is cruel and horrible to others.
Yes, there are certainly different standards of right and wrong in this world. But, there are different standards of right and wrong in places around even our world. That doesn't make what they do justified. Even Snow himself cannot deny that his actions are wrong. He states in Mockingjay, "We both know I'm not above killing children..." (356). To be above something means that you believe you are better than something, or you have better morals. Snow is implying in this statement that he acknowledges that killing children is heinous, but he does it anyways. He may have even himself been the one to create the Hunger Games. We know the Hunger Games are 74 years old at the beginning of the series. President Snow is a very old man who came to power very early and held on to it for a long time. This is stated in the book. He also kills his own friends and colleagues, not because they're doing something wrong, but because they stand in the way of him - that is, his rise to power. Which brings us to our next assertion.

Assertion #3 - Everything President Snow does can be traced back to a need for power.
Everything, from the first to last books, can be traced back to power. That's why he poisoned friends. And that's why he became president. It's even the reason for the Hunger Games - not to prevent more deaths. This could have been done in a better way - such as actually treating the people of the districts fairly so they don't WANT to rebel. The point of the Hunger Games is to show the Districts how much power the Capitol has over them. This is even stated in the first book - "Taking the kids from our districts, forcing them to kill one another while we watch - this is the Capitol's way of reminding us how totally we are at their mercy" (18). He repeatedly throughout the books manipulates Katniss and others to get what he wants - another way to get power. With Snow, everything always comes back to power.

This concludes my debate upon this subject. Vote Con!!!
Debate Round No. 2


Hello once again, I am Forever 23 and I am here to explain why President Snow is the good guy in the Hunger Games trilogy,

In this round, I will basically be repudiating my opponents points.

First of all, they state that President Snow shows little, if any, love for his family. In the book, there is no mention of the family. In the movie, quite the contrary! In fact, President Snow shows affection for Celestia Snow and Egeria Snow. He actually spends a lot of quality time with his wife and every morning, he spends time with his dear grand daughter. In the movie, he has great affection for his family and let me once again say, shows love.

Next, he stated how there are certain morals in our world. In OUR world. Morals that I, my opponent and so many others both on this side and outside of it uphold. Lets focus a bit on the world of Panem morals were very different. The phrase he mentioned, about killing children, well that was not considered immoral in the world of Panem. In fact, all of the Capitol citizens gladly watched the Hunger Games. They considered them to be quite entertaining actually! Now onto the world of the past. During the Roman Empire, rich men went to the Colliseum to watch humans fight to the death. Morals there are very different than morals now. They are subjective. In addition, he mentioned how different moralities do not suddenly make something justified. Well, a moral is something widely accepted in society. And majority, really makes the action justified. If majority were supporting murder, than sadly, murder would be justified. Just like in the society of Panem. Justified, by propositions definition, means to be widely accepted by the public.

In addition, while there were ways to control the public more peacefully, at the root, Snows intentions were not bad. At the heart, Snow wanted to prevent rebellion and therefore less death. The Hunger Games killed less people than both, Snow and The Hunger Games.

Their third assertion was that everything President Snow does can be traced back to power. However, absolutely untrue. If Snow really wanted power, he would never have spoiled the Capitol citizens so much. While this may seem bizarre, President Snow considered only the Capitol residents his people. That is why he has treated them so well. In his speeches addressed to the district people, he never said anything even close to "My people". He was only trying to do good for those who he cared about, The Capitol. That is why he let them into his mansion during the rebellion. The district citizens were therefore never really considered to be his people.

Finally, I would like to point out that con never fulfills his Burden Of Proof. The debater never pointed out how Katniss is different from President Snow. She is a master manipulator. When being with Squad 451, she wanted to desert her team. At the end, she practicly forced them to go with her. That caused them to lose their lives. She voted to send the Capitol children to the games, when she was against district people being in the games. Her rebellion against Snow was sheer bombast when in her heart, she was a master manipulator.

Thank you, Vote pro.


I can only assume, from my opponent's arguments, that we are using parts of the movies as well as the books in our arguments. I will be repudiating arguments from my opponent in this round. (And by the way, I'm a she, not a he).

My opponent states that although President Snow doesn't mention his family in his books, he is quite obviously very attached to them in the movies. This is true. However, this doesn't necessarily make him a 'good guy'. Many people in our society or in other books love their family but are still considered 'bad people' - the shooter in San Bernardino for one. Having love for one's family only shows that a person is capable of human feeling. If my opponent is trying to argue that Katniss is the bad person in the Hunger Games, this can hardly be considered a strong argument, seeing as Katniss volunteered to take her sister's place in the Hunger Games, despite being certain that she herself would die.

My opponent's next argument is that there are different morals in Panem, making President Snow's actions justifiable. And there are certainly some questionable morals in the Capitol and in Districts 1, 2, and 4 regarding the killing of children. But the other districts are keenly aware of how wrong it is to kill children for sport. And remember, the Hunger Games are only 74 years old, and President Snow is a very old man. He may have even started the Hunger Games himself, but he certainly rose to power soon after their establishment. Therefore, one could argue that Snow himself is responsible for the degradation of morality in Panem. He himself may have been raised in a world where this would have been considered unacceptable, but then taught the people of the Capitol that this was okay.

The next argument made by my opponent was that the Hunger Games were simply a measure to prevent rebellion. This is very much not true. If anything, the Hunger Games were the very thing to excite another rebellion. The point of the Hunger Games was always about power - showing the districts how easily the Capitol could control them. And even if it was the prevent a rebellion, this was a very cruel way of doing it.

My opponent then refutes my claim that everything Snow does can be traced back to a need for power. They state that Snow only considers the Capitol people his citizens. This is ridiculous. That would be tantamount to allowing Donald Trump to ban all Muslims from our country because he doesn't consider them 'his citizens'. And even if he did, that isn't the point. You can't mistreat the people of France because they aren't your citizens. They are still people, and what's more, it is Snow's duty to protect them as their president - a duty he fails at miserably. My opponent also says Snow was protecting the people of the Capitol by allowing them into his mansion. However, the book makes it very clear that he was creating a human shield, in order to protect himself from the rebels.

My opponent's final assertion is that I never fulfilled my Burden of Proof - proving Katniss is the good one. I first wish to point out I was never made aware that this was part of my obligation - I assumed we were only talking about Snow and his morality.

Katniss can be annoying - especially in the third book, I grant you that. However, while she is good at manipulating, she never wants to become that person. Her intentions are, for the most part, good. She makes mistakes, but who doesn't? And she certainly makes less than President Snow. My opponent states that Katniss 'practically forced them [her team] to go with her [to kill Snow]'. This is untrue. If you read the book, the characters state that they knew what they were getting into following Katniss, and they chose to anyways. Finally, I wish to state that, according to my opponent, there are different morals in Panem, so doesn't that make everything Katniss does okay?

Thank you for your time.
Debate Round No. 3


Hello once again, my name is Forever 23 and I will be arguing that President Snow is really a good guy in The Hunger Games.

I would like to take my turn for counter rebuttles, proceed with attacking my opponents counter rebuttles and finally pointing out the hidden motives of each character in the debate.

So let me begin.

They refuted by assertion about President Snow loving his family by giving an example with the shooter in San Bernadino. The point they pointed out was that it just shows how capable he is of human feelings. My opponent goes on to say how much Katniss loves her own family by saying how she volunteered to take Primrose's place in the reaping. Perhaps, but lets look at the broad range of things. Near the end of Mockingjay, Prim was killed by the District 13 bomb. Katniss could have made sure Prim was out of the way. Instead, she just ended up screaming her name. Does that show caring for family? No. Next, lets examine the very end of Mockingjay. Mrs Everdeen was in District 4, studying medicine etc. Did Katniss ever call or make sure that her mother is well? No. An argument about the mother being depressed and ignorant for a while is not an answer to why Katniss never inquired about the well being of her mother. Family is family. On the other hand, we have President Snow. Both his wife and grand daughter survived the rebellion. He made sure of that. President Snow sadly had much more family love than our "hero"- Katniss Everdeen. In addition, as I explained before, the San Bernadin shooting was not justified in todays society. However, the actions of President Snow were both accepted and justified in Panem. I will further expand on this argument in the upcoming refutations.

Furthermore, my opponents mentions how there are some districts that are okay with the killing most however, are not. She further mentions how the President continued making these values morally acceptable. However, the President never made these values acceptable. Before he rose to the throne and even AFTER his death, things remained the same. Killing children was acceptable in every single district of Panem. Lets take a look at the end of Mockingjay. President Coin suggests putting the Capitol children into the Hunger Games. Who agrees? Most of the victors. Well, my opponent may say that Katniss killed Coin because she did not want a final Hunger Games. Untrue. The real reasons was revenge for prim. Revenge is something that by no means can be justified. On the other hand, we have the regular Panem citizens. Those people wanted to see the death of every single capitolian. Whether it was a child or an adult, the district people wanted to see their blood. Snow never fed the morals to anyone. The people really fed it to him. Therefore, it is clear that Snows actions were justified for every person and for every district. My opponent could point out that people wanted revenge. However, revenge could never be justified. It is hypocritical. Say that afterall, the rebellion reason was because of injustice (which I will point out is not the actual reason). But anyways, if it was, then why are district citizens returning that injustice. Why are they giving the Capitolians something that the districts themselves rebelled against? That is simply immoral. My opponent could also say that the people rebelled because of injustice. The revolution however, had nothing to do with moralities and wishing to see the end of the Hunger Games. The people solely wanted to see the end of Snow. Why? Because they wanted power. They never cared about regular civilians dying in war. Unlike President Snow, (who actually wanted a cease fire in order to find a truce) they wanted pure power. President Snow on the other hand, wanted to find a truce. A truce which is fair- which will lead to peace. If he is trying to do what will result in less life loss and less war- he is ultimately the good guy. Katniss on the other hand, wanted to see the war rage on. Therefore, all the districts in one way or another accepted the Hunger Games and other "cruel" treatment.

My opponent refuted my next claim by saying that all people are the citizens. However, what is a citizen? A citizen is a person who belongs to a nation. He is willing to abide the laws. If a large group of people disliked the government, they can try to find a truce. If that does not work, it is acceptable to rebel. The citizens are those who do not want to ruin their nation. The district people who straightforward rebelled, without trying to change the conditions at first, can not be considered President Snow's or Panem's "people". So are they the nations citizens? Are they President Snows people? No. In addition, clearly killing President Snow will not lead to Panems benefit. It will lead to ruin. Lets look at communist Russia. The people rebelled and killed their Tzar. They divided the property of the rich among everybody. What did that lead to? Nothing good. For a while, Russia was a wreck. Why? Because without the leader, there was no one proper to rule the nation. A leader is experienced he know what to do. Lenin in the Russia revolution was much like Katniss. He was hope to the people, but at the end, the rebellion brought Russia and its economy down the roof. Clearly, since they people of Panem did not try to find a truce, and actually wrecked their nations, they can not be considered the citizens. The Muslim and Donals Trump anology was irrelevant. The Muslims are law abiding citizens who will not straightforward rebel. They are very different from the rebels.

Afterward, my opponent claims that Katniss would never go down President Snow's path. She did. At the end of Mockingjay, she wanted another Hunger Games. She killed Coin for revenge. Any different from President Snow? No. So what makes him the "good guy"? The fact that he was tying to make a truce. The fact that he tries to conserve lives with that truce. Did Katniss? No. She risked millions of lives. Did she try to decrease the losses not at all! She caused the death of district people, she killed Marvel, Glimmer, Cato,and directly caused Rue's death even though she refused to adnit it.

My opponent has finally argued how there were different ways to control the citizens. But were there? Before the Hunger Games even began, the district's citizens led normal lives. What did they do? They managed to screw that up. The rebels rebelled no matter how great there lives were before The Hunger Games. That first rebellion was the cause of the Hunger Games. The only way President Snow could control those people was with an iron grip. The reason capitolians were treated so well was because they were good- law abiding citizens.

Now onto examining the hidden motives:

President Snow- The man really wanted to decrease the amount of blood. He was ready for truce as told by Peeta Mellark in the interview with Caeser Flickerman. He agreed to have District 13 live underground. He was in the depth of heart, a man with his moral grounds.

Katniss Everdeen- A girl who never really cares about anyone but herself. All she wants- is to survive. She never cares about human life and wastes it with no care.

Judge, I am sure that you can see that President Snow is not a tyran as describes by Katniss Everdeen. Vote Prop.


Today I will be rebutting my opponent's rebuttals of my rebuttals (sorry, that's really confusing).

My opponent tries to show that President Snow loves his family more than Katniss Everdeen, citing examples of when Katniss' sister died and Katniss didn't call her mother, despite that fact that she lived far away. However, if you examine these two situations, you see there was a reason for her actions. When Prim died, Katniss just barely saw her before the bombs went off. Of course, she could have tried to go in and save her, but there was no time and she would have ended up dead anyways. However, she certainly would have tried it if she had known there were going to be more bombs. Remember, these were double exploding bombs, just recently invented that had never seen combat. Katniss had no idea that the bombs were going to go off. And if we must blame Prim's death on someone, why not the person who decided that a 14-year-old should go out on the front lines? And Katniss' mother. It's true Katniss didn't call her mother after the war was over. But again, we can excuse her. She had seen almost everyone she cared about in her life die, or be tortured, or just leave. She certainly had some serious depression going on, not to mention PTSD and grief over the recent loss of her sister. She tried to shut out the world to deal with her problems, and yes, that included her mother. But we do know, as stated in the book, that once she began to recover, she DID call her mother and talk to her, and began to do it more frequently as she got better. I will ask again, where did my opponent get mention of Snow's wife? I have never seen her mentioned in book or movie.

My opponent then states that killing children is actually morally acceptable in the districts, and President Snow didn't foster these morals, but actually grew up in them. The first assertion is preposterous. The REASON for the rebellion was that people were tired of the Hunger Games. Most of the districts hated the Hunger Games. My opponent states that a majority of the remaining victors did agree to a final symbolic Hunger Games. And this is true. But, Coin states that the reason for the final Hunger Games is to temper the need for blood with the desire for mercy - they were to prevent more bloodshed. Is this not the core of Pro's argument as to why Snow was justified for starting the Hunger Games? Also, I disagree with Pro's analysis of why Katniss shot Coin. This is widely open to interpretation, I grant you, but my belief is that Katniss saw too much Snow in Coin - someone thirsty for power, with too little sense of humanity. She felt that Panem was just spinning back into the same black hole it had spun out of. As to Snow's role in the lack of morals in the Capitol, I only said it was LIKELY due to him that the morals degraded too fast. We really have no solid information as to what happened in that time period, so we cannot make definite conclusions. My opponent also states that while Snow wanted peace, the rebels wanted power. This is blatantly untrue. Snow called for a cease-fire because he was afraid that if the rebels won, he would lose power. Remember, a cease-fire would have left Snow still in power, as the rebels hadn't gained enough steam to really be able to take any. Snow didn't want peace - he wanted to APPEAR as if he wanted peace. Manipulation. As for the rebels, they just wanted freedom from oppression - oppression that forced them into poverty, to work like slaves for a government that killed their own children. If you argue that they wanted power, you could just as easily argue that the American colonists wanted power when they rebelled against the British. It's true the rebels wanted power, but they wanted it so they could control their own destiny. A famous philosopher named John Locke once stated that if a government doesn't protect your life, liberty, or property, you have the right to overthrow that government. Clearly, Snow wasn't doing these things, so the rebels were completely justified in their rebellion.

My opponent then states that the rebels can't really be citizens since they rebel against the government. But the only reason they did rebel was because they weren't being treated fairly as citizens should be treated in the first place! This argument has no solid ground. They then show how overthrowing a government can destroy a country's economy, such as with Russia. But I believe, that if I had to choose between an uncertain future or oppression forever, I'd choose uncertainty.

My opponent states that before the Hunger Games, the districts led 'normal lives' but still rebelled. Again, we have no information about that time period and so cannot draw definite conclusions.

I will now examine hidden motives of characters:
President Snow - The man who wanted power above all else. To get it, he killed children, tortured and killed people who got in his way, and treated a nation so unfairly that they felt they had to rebel.

Katniss Everdeen - A girl who only cared about her family at first, but eventually became the leader of an entire rebellion and helped to take down a corrupt government.

Thank you for your time. Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Vane01 2 years ago
In this debate, pro will have to prove why Snow is not that bad and why Katniss is better. Con has to show why President Snow is not the good guy and why Katniss Everdeen is superior to him. So, Forever starts with on observation on why good is a subjective thing. Then, she states her points. They are love for family, his actions had reasons to them and the theory. Con introduces the arguments, little love for family, he was horrible to others and his actions were all about power. Pro refutes the first point with showing how he cares for family. Second point about how morality is subjective and the third point by saying that if he only cared out power, he would never spoil the Capitol citizens so much. Con continues. he refuted claim #1 by showing that family love does not make someone good. He refutes the observation by saying that most of the districts were against his rule. He then states how President Snow was not doing everything to prevent another rebellion. However, con misses out on the point that Snow had a reason for his actions and the utilitaranism theory point. Pro wins.
Posted by Forever23 2 years ago
No new arguments in round 4!
Posted by StatsAndFacts 2 years ago
I challenge thee in a debate upon this subject. Let the Hunger Games begin!
No votes have been placed for this debate.