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

King Joffrey Would Have (Eventually) Become a Good King

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/21/2014 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,809 times Debate No: 54990
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (39)
Votes (2)




** This debate will contain massive spoilers about the HBO television series "Game of Thrones". If you do not wish to read about the series before watching it, then please do not read this thread. **

This debate is impossible to accept. If you'd like to debate this topic, please leave a comment or PM me, thank you.


King Joffrey Would Have (Eventually) Become a Good King

This resolution is a hypothetical based upon assuming that Joffrey did NOT die at his wedding and would continue to be king in the foreseeable future, let's say 20 years time.

This speech by Tywin Lannister at Joffrey's funeral bed gives an overview as to exactly what constitutes a "good king": (

I understand I'm taking an extremely unpopular position. I aim to be as convincing as possible in defending what at first glance will seem to be the indefensible. =)


This debate is a "no scoring" debate with the exception of egregious conduct violations -forfeits, flaming, seriously sidetracking the debate, plagiarism, and cheating the character limit are some examples - both debaters find this to be highly unlikely to occur.

If you wish to leave an opinion about which position you found to be more convincing (i.e. an RFD), offer constructive criticism, and/or simply discuss the matter, there is a forum topic set up for this specific purpose here: (

Given that this resolution is a hypothetical, burden of proof (BoP) is shared. Both PRO/CON must present a convincing hypothetical case for their respective positions.

4 rounds
1st round: acceptance
2/3 rounds argument and rebuttal
4th round: closing arguments, rebuttals are ok, but no new sources.
5000 character rounds

Finally, this debate is about the television series and not the books. I understand there are significant deviations between the two, and so sources will primarily consist of TV series clips as opposed to book references. In regards to pre-Game of Thrones (GoT) history, I will refer both debaters to these video references from the DVDs:


If there are any inconsistencies in GoT history between the books and these videos (and I doubt there are any), these videos will serve as the authority, fully mindful that like the books, they involve a first-person narrative and may themselves not be fully reliable.


I accept and greatly look forward to the debate.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank phantom for accepting this debate and look forward to a good challenge. =)


Everyone Hates Joffrey

This video says it all - ( - just the first couple minutes consist of loving expressions like "LET HIM CHOKE!" and "Somebody chop his head off!"

Remember though that this debate is not about what Joffrey was at the time of his's about what he would have been had he lived for another 20 years. How would he have turned out? Would he still be the sadistic, foolish, king that we all knew him to be, or would he have changed? In order to answer this question, we have to explore - 1) why Joffrey was such a monster, and 2) what would cause Joffrey to change?

The Making of a King

Why is Joffrey the little sh!t that we all know him to be? Many of the qualities that made Joffrey despicable to the layman are actually qualities that, with moderation, would have made an excellent king.

1) He lies through his teeth

Skillful deception is actually a desirable skill when it comes to the Game of Thrones - Tywin deceived Aerys when he sacked King's Landing, Tyrion's deception of Varys, Pycelle, and Littlefinger regarding his plans for Myrcella was masterful and laudatory, etc...

So, as prima facie undesirable as lying may be, it is quite a prudent skill for the position, one that is difficult to master, and one we cannot fault a good king for having. If anything, this was a skill that Ned Stark simply did not have - he had to tell Cercei the truth about her children - and it cost him his life. As Tywin stated (round #1 video), someone incapable of smelling a plot on his life is neither a wise nor a good king, and make no mistake, Cercei intended to kill Ned Stark from the beginning (

2) He's a sadistic monster

All actors almost without exception in the Game of Thrones are exceptionally violent and do not hesitate to cause harm to others - even someone like Ned Stark had no qualms about executing "traitors" like Ser Jorah Mormont. The ones that are not violent are scoffed at as weak-willed and feeble-minded - Mace Tyrell and Tywin's father Tytos immediately come to mind.

Yes, Joffrey takes this well above any practical level...I will address this in #4.

3) He's supremely arrogant

As the Queen of Thorns said about royal weddings - "What good is the word 'extravagant' if it can't be used to describe a royal wedding?" - so too can 'arrogance' be said about kings. This cannot be held against his abilities to rule.

4) He's rash and impetuous

This is easily the greatest mark against Joffrey...indeed I will go so far as to say that what makes Joffrey so unlikeable is exactly this quality. If he was not rash and impetuous, 3) his arrogance would come off as confidence, 2) his sadism would come off as courage and ruthlessness, and 1) his deceptions would come off as masterful politicking. Much of this was inherited from Cercei and exacerbated by the unlimited power of his position, both of which I will delve into detail in later rounds.

Joffrey's Future

Given that Joffrey's greatest failing was his rashness and impetuousness and how it permeated the rest of his being, what evidence is there that he would change?

1) Tywin

Lord Tywin, widely held to be the most competent man in managing Westeros, returned to King's Landing after several decades of absence. Joffrey was very receptive to his grandfather's influence, taking his advice to attend small council meetings, tempering his behavior, etc...

2) Cercei

Joffrey forcibly detached himself from his mother. While this may seem to lead to its own rashness (the first instance of this detachment led him to behead Ned Stark), detaching himself from Cercei and attaching himself to Tywin would have led to a wiser king by nearly all accounts.

3) Margaery

Joffrey was very receptive to his bride-to-have-been's moderating and positive influence. She's a master at administrative PR (feeding the poor, caring for orphaned children from the Battle of the Blackwater), and having some of that rub off on Joffrey would have been a good thing.

4) Age before Wisdom

Joffrey was young, and as the third season progressed he showed signs of being receptive to learning from his betters, even despite his initially uncontrollable arrogance as king. This stands in marked contrast to Aerys Targaryen, who became more and more uncontrollable and scornful of his advisers as he matured.


What made Joffrey so despicable was mainly his rashness and impetuousness. With Tywin staying in King's Landing indefinitely, along with his new queen Margaery, came a moderating influence over Joffrey that was very noticeable throughout the 3rd season. Most of Joffrey's other ostensibly negative qualities would have actually become positives with this concomitant moderation, and so Joffrey would have indeed eventually become a good king.

"The virtue of justice consists in moderation, as regulated by wisdom."



Joffrey’s flaws and follies

Joffrey would be worse than almost any other character in Westeros for continuing on the throne. He was a mix of tyranny and incompetence. Tyrion states "we've had vicious kings, and we've had idiot kings, but I don't think we've ever been cursed with a vicious idiot for a king!" He was cruel, violent, sadistic, and pretentious as well as incompetent, cowardly, rash, unintelligent, deluded, and naive.

Joffrey inspired not a shred of loyalty yet expected it unconditionally; he left it to others to save the realm and took the credit for it; his only interests were that of his own well-being, power, and enjoyment. And cruelty was a game to him. He thought he could do whatever he wanted. He was deluded and demanded unquestioned loyalty by mere virtue of his status.;

Power corrupts

Joffrey was on the path to absolute power. When does an evil person ever become good after gaining absolute power? Pro’s entire case rests on the premise that Joffrey would become a good person, yet he’s the biggest dick in the realm and with the most power in the realm.

Joffrey was a psychopath; psychopaths don't change

Joffrey exhibits all the qualities of psychopathy. He never expresses remorse, never takes responsibility, had a strong sense of entitlement, was very violent and acted rashly.

“Psychologists... state that psychopaths suffer from a severe “personality disorder,” not just normal human flaws that can be worked on and ameliorated…Personality disorders are character deficiencies that are so deeply ingrained in one’s personality that they are, for all practical purposes, unchangeable.” Joffrey would never change because he was incapable of it, thus Pro's case falls apart.

Westeros is plagued with major problems that Joffrey could never handle

The kingdom is severely divided and vulnerable. At a time when Westeros most needs a king that will unite and protect them, Joffrey is an abysmal hope. He would instead magnify the problems as he always does.

1. "He lies through his teeth"

There is no reason to believe Joffrey knew how to lie particularly well, nor that he could lie wisely--an important factor. The art of deceiving is much more than an ability to act out a lie and a willingness to lie: you have to know when to lie and who to lie to. King's Landing is a nest of deceivers and plotters and lying is a vital art for survival. Joffrey is willing to lie, but that doesn't mean he's shrewd.

2. "He's a sadistic monster"

All major persons in power are willing to inact violence, the difference is that Joffrey does so for pure pleasure and without any prudence at all. King Aerys was a sadistic monster with similarities to Joffrey. In the end, his own Hand, Tywin, turned on him and sacked the city. A member of his own Kingsguard killed him. Violence needs to be reserved only for times when it is necessary. Sadistic monsters are not the kind to moderate their violence.

3. "He's supremely arrogant"

Arrogance is neither necessary for rule nor is it in itself a good thing. Eddard Stark may have been hopeless in the politics of King's Landing, but he generated a mass amount of loyalty and respect while remaining a supremely humble man. Arrogance can be good, but Joffrey is blindly arrogant and estranges those around him.

Joffrey changing

Joffrey does not exhibit any potential to make the extreme change required, nor is it easy to sway people in power.

Joffrey is not submissive or respectful to Tywin--nor anyone. He says to Cersei, "My grandfather's stupidity in the field of battle is the reason Robb Stark has Jaime in the first place." latter, when Tywin says he’ll win his war for him, he angrily responds that his father won the real war while Tywin "hid in Casterly Rock during the fighting". Joffrey would hate to be under the control of his grandfather, and as he got older and more used to being king, his defiance would only increase, especially as Tywin approached old age.

Joffrey detached himself from Cersei, not to attatch himself to Tywin, but because he's becoming more independent and less heeding of advice as he grows into power.

Joffrey could at any time turn the Tyrells against him. Margaery's grandmother is willing to do much for her sake, and Loras Tyrell is both much devoted to his sister as well as arrogant and extremely skilled at fighting. When Joffrey inevitably brought Margaery to harm, House Tyrell would no doubt react.

Moreover, Tywin's agenda is the furthering of the family. If Joffrey threatens that, Tywin would, without hesitation, remove him, perhaps to put his more prudent and subtle brother Tommen on the throne.

Thus Joffrey's reign would be a disastor.


Pro gets two things wrong. Joffrey was not very young--easily past the age of adulthood in Westeros, and Joffrey was not in any way becoming more receptive of advice. As demonstrated, persons like Joffrey do not change, especially when they are in positions of power.

Debate Round No. 2


I thank CON for a substantive case, although I note that because PRO/CON are very much in agreement about most aspects on Joffrey, and to the extent that we agree, I would think that I've easily provided my burden.



PRO/CON agree on many, many aspects:

1) Joffrey was a mix of "tyrrany [sic] and incompetence" at the time of his death.
2) Power corrupts
3) Joffrey has many characteristics of a psychopath (not psychosis)
4) Joffrey lies, is violent, and is arrogant in excess

This is the majority of both PRO/CON's cases, and PRO readily agrees to all of it.


The disagreements are few, but significant:

D1) CON: "Joffrey was not very young--easily past the age of adulthood in Westeros"

100% incorrect. Joffrey was young enough to require a Queen Regent. ( ( This means that Joffrey was recognized as still having a LOT of growing up to do. Most of his mistakes are a result of the rashness and impetuousness of youth, something he will grow out of as he matures.

D2) That power corrupts is not something we can hold against Joffrey, as power would corrupt anyone and everyone who would seek the crown or had it thrust upon them.

D3) Joffrey indeed exhibited many traits of a psychopath per Hare's checklist ( However, there are several things to note about CON's characterization:

a) Psychopathy is synonymous with sociopathy, and not psychosis (i.e. Joffrey was not deranged). "In contrast to people with psychotic disorders, such as schizophrenia, who often lose contact with reality, psychopaths are almost always rational." [1]

b) It's commonly accepted in the business world that sociopathy is a desired trait for people in power - "Psychopaths appear, through some Darwinian practical joke, to possess the very personality characteristics that many of us would die for...A number of U.S. presidents exhibited distinct psychopathic traits..." [2]

This all points to my observation in round #2: "Many of the qualities that made Joffrey despicable to the layman are actually qualities that, with moderation, would have made an excellent king."

CON is also flat out wrong that psychopaths cannot change their recalcitrant behavior. "...psychopaths may benefit as much as nonpsychopaths from psychological treatment...their criminal behaviors may prove more amenable to treatment." [1]

Just to put all this in perspective, I have to note that Tywin is the supreme sociopath - no one really likes Tywin, and Tywin doesn't really like anyone - he didn't like Robert Baratheon because he was a friendly, gregarious guy. ( He even treats his children as if they were pawns on a chessboard instead of human's that for empathy? Still, he's THE MAN of Westeros when it comes to ruling.

Finally, I will note that CON's points on psychopathy are all sourced from a no-name blog, whereas I am sourcing an established scientific journal and one of the nation's leading business publications.

D4) CON provides no evidence that Joffrey is becoming "less heeding of advice as he grows into power." On the contrary, he began attending small council meetings at Tywin's suggestion and acted upon all of Margeary's suggestions about helping the poor.

D5) On responsibility, I'm sure we've all heard of people who take all the credit, and none of the blame. While certainly morally questionable, one has to admit it's an effective strategy to get ahead, and to stay ahead.


Joffrey takes very much after Cercei, and that Joffrey is freeing himself from his mother is a good thing:

C1) At Tyrion's birth, she twisted his cock to the point of nearly pulling it off in front of Oberyn Martell. Cercei also sadistically had Ros beaten thinking that she was Tyrion's whore, demonstrating that she is the source of Joffrey's sadism.

C2) Cercei has no idea how to administer a kingdom - she has no idea that the gold mines of Lannisport are dry, that the Crown is heavily in debt, or that a content populace is one that would not rebel.

Instead of Cercei, Joffrey is attaching himself to Tywin and Margeary. Tywin, on top of possessing all of Cercei's ruthlessness, is the most capable administrator in Westeros, has a tempered sadistic streak, and is well-respected. This can only be viewed as a positive.


In the end, what seems to make CON's case the strongest is actually what makes PRO's case even stronger. Unusual traits that most people would classify as a mental disorder are actually exceedingly prized traits when it comes to a position of power. Joffrey is indeed an unusual boy, and under good guidance and with temperance of his sadism, would have (eventually) become an excellent king.



Power corrupts (Conceded)

Since “corruption” is a heavily negative term, Pro concedes that Joffrey would get worse, and, thus, essentially, concedes the debate.


I’ll drop my blog source since all I need is contained in Pro’s sources.

Unless Pro can prove that psychopaths are good persons, I’m not sure how he can argue Joffrey being a psychopath would make him a good king. Even if Joffrey was effective, that wouldn’t mean he’s good.

Joffrey is a psychopath because he fits extremely well with the characteristics described in Pro's source. But nothing in the definition necessitates rationality. Joffrey is clearly irrational and Pro already accepted that fact.

Pro’s source depicts two sides to psychopathy: violent criminals, murderers, and rapists, Vs. "exceptional persuasiveness, captivating charm, and razor sharp focus under immense pressure". Joffrey is a stereotypical horror film psychopath and a psycho to the extreme. He's a criminal psycho, not a calm, rational, leader. If psychopathy has any positive traits, they are of the more moderate cases.

Nothing in Pro's source implies a consensus on the value of psychopahty.


OK, extensive psychological treatment can change a psychopath. But there's no chance at all that Joffrey would ever acquiesce to treatment. Tywin’s sage advice is the most treatment Joffery would ever get and Joffrey recognizes no faults in himself. Years have passed since Joffrey displayed his brattiness at Winterfell, and he’s only gotten more cruel.

Pro's source claims "the core personality traits of psychopaths are exceedingly difficult to change”. That verdict applies to psychopaths in general. Joffrey is on much more the extreme level & as a person in power, it would be more than exeedingly difficult to change Joffrey. In other words, it would be essentially impossible.

Joffrey could not handle the problems plauging Westeros

Ignored by Pro.


Joffrey was old enough to marry. Cersei had ceased to be Queen Regent. Growing older would make Joffrey worse than ever. As he receives absolute power and authority, Joffrey would become even more arrogant and confident. Pro claims Joffrey takes after Cersei and Cersei certainly didn't become competent once she grew up.

Heeding of advice

Joffrey enjoyed the cheer of the crowd at his feet. It’s not at all surprising that Joffrey approves of Margaery’s social work. It doesn’t count as anything significant in his favor, it’s purely out of selfish motives, as usual.

Joffrey does not attatch himself to Tywin, he's intimidated by him, somewhat. We clearly see him squirming when Tywin's telling him to attend the council meetings. He still defies him and Pro's point is pretty weak given that all Tywin's really acomplished with Joffrey is to get him to attend the council meetings (by embarrassing him).

Tywin was largely unsuccessful with his children, why should Joffrey be different?

Tywin raised Cersei and Jaime, yet Cersei is a fool (as Pro admits) and Jaime only became a good person through his own journey. Tyrion is the most capable of ruling of the three siblings, yet Tywin despised him. In other words, Tywin failed as a father. If Tywin cannot even raise his own children properly, how does Pro expect him to teach an already much much worse, sadistic, foolish king?

More facts to consider

-Tywin’s approaching old age

-Joffrey ridicules Tywin to his face and behind his back (Pro never addresses this)

-Joffrey is heedless and will only become more heedless as he grows into his throne

-Margaery is a women; Joffrey is sexist and a prideful one

-Margaery’s philanthropy would not have rubbed off on Joffrey. Joffrey’s a psychopath, he has no empathy for the needy

-Haughty sadists in extreme power are NOT receptive to influence

-Joffrey took after Cersei and Cersei never become a good ruler despite having Tywin Lannister as her parent.

Joffrey would turn the Tyrells against him

Ignored by Pro. Extend.

Taking the credit

Pro calls it an effective strategy for Joffrey to take credit for others' accomplishments. On the contrary, this is imprudent practice bound to generate disloyalty and an unwillingness to serve. If Joffrey claims to win all the victories the real victors will spite him and he’ll estrange his most valuable assets. As said, though Ned Stark was clearly over his head in the politics of King’s Landing, he’s exemplary in creating loyalty because of how fairly he treats those around and under him.


Pro’s case hinges entirely upon the postulation that Joffrey will be turned from one of the worst kings imaginable to a cunning & wise king. Pro bases this conjecture on the fact of Tywin’s and Margaery’s positive influence on the king. This, I contend, is a very weak footing for Pro. Even if Pro showed it was merely plausible Tywin and Margaery would change Joffrey into a good king, that would be a remarkable feat, but the fact remains that the question is not even moot. It's very unlikely that Joffrey would be anything but a hopeless case.

Debate Round No. 3



1) CON: "Since “corruption” is a heavily negative term, Pro concedes that Joffrey would get worse, and, thus, essentially, concedes the debate."

This is silly. The negative, corrupting influence of power needs to be weighed against the positives that Joffrey would gain from maturity and good guidance. All kings are subject to corruption from power; this cannot be used as a determinant of a good vs bad king.

2) CON: "Joffrey is clearly irrational and Pro already accepted that fact."

This is also silly and a mischaracterization. Joffrey is exceptionally's just that he is rash and immature. Some examples:

2a) Joffrey was right about "[Tywin's] stupidity in the field of battle." Cercei and Tyrion may think that Tywin is a capable battle commander, but what do they know of battle? Tywin lost every single battle to Robb Stark, and this with an army 3 times the size of Robb's.

Tywin is a master strategist and administrator, but battle commander? Incompetent, especially compared to Joffrey's "father", Robert Baratheon.

2b) Joffrey's first impression of the Tyrells is that they're an "ideal match" for his rule and would allow him to rule for 100 years uncontested. This is exactly Tywin's independent assessment of their alliance as well.

2c) Joffrey does not treat anyone poorly until he has reason to so - Sansa only after Ned's treason, Tyrion because, well, you know, the slaps, Ser Dontos because he was drunk at a fight to the death, etc...

Recall that Joffrey was the picture of civility towards Sansa before Ned committed treason.

There are many other instances of Joffrey's rational and, dare I say, insightful mind at work, but space does not permit.

3) CON concedes that "If psychopathy has any positive traits, they are of the more moderate cases." Indeed with age and good guidance will come this moderation.

4) CON is "not sure how [PRO] can argue Joffrey being a psychopath would make him a good king."

You can be a wise sociopath and thus a good king. It just means you lack empathy. If you start putting faces to each life when you're comparing numbers of lives saved or lost in war and peace, you won't be able to make the hard decisions that kings need to make. This is a picture perfect description of Tywin, who for the purposes of this debate defined what a good king would be.

5) PRO/CON agree that "Tywin’s sage advice is the most treatment Joffery would ever get," and this has proven to be enough to change Joffrey's behavior. Per Tywin, Joffrey ceased with the bedding ceremony during Tyrion's wedding, gave an initially appropriate response to Tyrion's gift at his own wedding, etc...There are not many scenes between Joffrey and Tywin, and in nearly all of them, Joffrey defers to Tywin.

6) CON: "Joffrey was old enough to marry. Cersei had ceased to be Queen Regent."

Cercei was Queen Regent up until and after Joffrey's death.

7) CON thinks it's a bad thing that kings act "purely out of selfish motives." Nonsense. In order for a king to do any good, the king must put himself first. Just think of chess - if you lose the king, you lose the game, no matter how many pieces you take.

Per Tywin (round #1), Orys the First was not a good king because he died shortly after taking the crown - this despite all the good works he did for the people.

8) Another mischaracterization by CON: "Cersei is a fool (as Pro admits)..."

I do NOT admit this. Cercei is a most capable power broker. Unfortunately, she knew nothing of administration. Of course she wouldn't...she's a woman, and women in Westeros did not hold any position of administrative responsibility, and thus were not taught any aspects of administration. Margeary does not know either...she only does charity work, not administrative detail.

9) CON: "Joffrey would turn the Tyrells against him...Joffrey could not handle the problems plauging [sic] Westeros"

Ignored because this is baseless speculation.

10) On "Taking the credit", scapegoating occurs often and is accepted as practical at nearly every level of society even today.

11) CON: "Tywin failed as a father."

Tywin is not raising a grandson in Joffrey, but a king.

12) PRO/CON agree that "Eddard Stark [was] hopeless in the politics of King's Landing". Ned Stark would not have made a good king.


Most people would like to be around people they can share a beer with. Joffrey is not like most people...Joffrey is king. What would make someone undesirable and even dysfunctional in a normal environment would, interestingly enough, make someone fit to be king. Kings don't drink with buddies...they manage power, violently and ruthlessly when appropriate.

Regardless of what all of the jealous and petty bystanders at court would have you believe, all Joffrey needed was maturity and guidance, and he would indeed have become a good king.

Despite numerous mischaracterizations (which could have been ameliorated by CON simply quoting PRO), I thank CON for a challenging debate, and I thank you for reading this debate.


I thank Pro for an enjoyable debate about an interesting subject.

I would bring to attention the fact that only once did I mischaracterize Pro (he never called Cersei a fool) for which I apologize. Pro says I commit numerous mischaracterizations but only mentions one other, which wasn’t really a mischaracterization at all, but a matter of definitions.


If Joffrey becomes more corrupt it’s very hard to see how he could improve elsewhere since his evolution into a good king, would require him to become a (much) more moderate character. Corruption generally leads more to extremisim.

“Exceptionally rational”

1. Pro says Joffrey is exceptionally rational, yet calls him rash and immature in the same sentence. “Foolish”, “rash” “impetuous” “arrogant in excess” “incompetent” are all terms Pro has used that imply irrationality, not to mention the terms he never denied "unintelligent”, “deluded”, “entitled” and “naive”.

2. If Joffrey is exceptionally rational for criticizing Tywin (something he would do no matter what Tywin’s reasons for losing were) he’s exceptionally deluded for saying he defeated Stannis (he didn’t even know what the defense plan was until it happened and deserted as soon as the enemy set foot on shore) and critisizing Jaime despite him being captured.

3. Tywin is not an incompetent battle commander and is actually famous for his accomplishments in battle. The well known“Rains of Castamere” is in fact a testament to his complete annihilation of the defiant Houses Tarbeck and Reyne.

4 Robb's victories were a mix of good planning, trickery, and luck. There's no good reason to put much blame on Tywin, but, of course, Joffrey will blame anyone for anything that doesn't go his way.

5. Tywin was only directly in charge of part of the Lannister force. It was split up.

Joffrey was convinced by his advisers to acquiesce to the Tyrell union. “Joffrey balks at setting aside his betrothal to Sansa, but is easily convinced in a sham dialogue with his mother and courtiers and agrees to marry Margaery Tyrell.”;

Sadists treat people poorly for their own pleasure. Since Pro has frequently called Joffrey a sadist, his claim that he only does so with a reason, makes no sense.

These are the only pieces of evidence for Joffrey’s “rational and insightful mind".


As per Pro’s source, Joffrey would require extensive psychiatric treatment to change his ways, yet Pro posits that Tywin’s sage advice is enough to turn Joffrey around. Joffrey listens to Tywin sometimes, yet never changes his ways for he continually does brutish and rash acts. Tywin intimidates Joffrey; his influence is based on fear, not respect or reverence. How long will that last if Joffrey became more powerful, older, confidant and tired of Tywin’s tempering (especially since Tywin’s getting old)? The answer is easy and in itself refutes Pro’s entire case since it rests on such weak footing.

Pro continually defers to his “with age and good guidance will come moderation” argument, despite this being based on weak speculation. Joffrey is horror-film-psycho. Pro can’t simply refer to his argument every time I mention the extremity of Joffrey’s character.

Psychopaths are, by definition, not good people. Tywin’s certainly not a good person If effective ruling requires psychopathy, it is impossible to be a good king.


Cersei was Queen Regent after Joffrey’s death because Tommen was next in line, but Joffrey’s marriage marked an end to her being Regent.


It is fine for a king to act selfishly at times, but Joffrey is blindly selfish. He doesn’t even realize that acting for the good of his subjects is beneficial to himself.

Taking the credit

Scapegoating has nothing to do with this, nor is it practical when used incompetently. Though Eddard would have been a flawed king, he is exemplary when it comes to creating loyalty through his fairness.

Tywin failed as a father; why should Joffrey be different?

Pro doesn’t contend that Tywin failed as a father. His only response is that Tywin isn’t raising a grandson but a king. This is an extremely weak response as Tywin's fathering is the perfect example we can refer to to see if Tywin would be able to moderate Joffrey's behavior. Since Joffrey already received poor parenting and is already much worse than Tywin's children, Tywin's task is doubly great.

Ignored (other than what’s already been mentioned)

"The core personality traits of psychopaths are exceedingly difficult to change”

-Pro’s source

“Joffrey does not attach himself to Tywin, he's intimidated by him”

“Tywin’s approaching old age”

“Joffrey ridicules Tywin to his face and behind his back”

“Margaery is a women; Joffrey is sexist and a prideful one

Margaery’s philanthropy would not have rubbed off on Joffrey. Joffrey’s a psychopath, he has no empathy for the needy

Haughty sadists in extreme power are NOT receptive to influence

Joffrey took after Cersei and Cersei never become a good ruler despite having Tywin Lannister as her parent.”

Debate Round No. 4
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 2 years ago
Just to remind anyone reading this debate, there is a forum topic set up for the purpose of discussing this debate:
Posted by wrichcirw 2 years ago
lol, this could have gone on for several more rounds - I have various retorts to your final round. Anyway, good game. =)
Posted by phantom 2 years ago
Source didn't work .
Posted by wrichcirw 2 years ago
Yeah, there are hits and misses. The first Batman he did was amazing, IMHO. The second one he did (with Danny DeVito) was a monstrosity, although Michelle Pfeiffer in that one was amazing in her own right, lol...
Posted by phantom 2 years ago
I didn't know Tim Burton did it. I have mixed views on him. His style is usually great, but not necessarily his content.
Posted by wrichcirw 2 years ago
It's as corny as any other Tim Burton movie. If you liked his Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, you'd like his Batman as well.
Posted by phantom 2 years ago
Never watched it, looks corny.
Posted by wrichcirw 2 years ago
lol, I feel like Jack Nicholson in the first Batman movie...that was indeed a fun movie. =)
Posted by phantom 2 years ago
Your side is more fun. Next time I want to defend the arse holes.
Posted by wrichcirw 2 years ago
lol, fvcking terrible...I should rename this debate "In defense of psychopathy!"...

2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Mikal 2 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: withdrawing the RFD and vote due to the rules saying it was no scoring. Just noticed that part. Minus the no vote, the win goes to con for me for all the reasons I typed out and will not type out again lol. Took me 30 mins to write that RFD to realize it could not be voted on XD
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Were this a scored debate, I would have likely voted the following... CONDUCT: In R3 con tossed this away with the highly frivolous claim that pro had in fact conceded the whole debate. S&G: Tied. ARGUMENTS: I learned more about Joffrey than I ever thought I wanted to... "Unless Pro can prove that psychopaths are good persons, I?m not sure how he can argue Joffrey being a psychopath would make him a good king" is where the argument started tipping in pro's favor, as con began a semantics game; to be a good king is to be good for the people, not to be a good person themselves (that one really just king mentioned in the R1 video was a bad king for example). Bullet point lists in debates runs dangerously close to Gish Galloping. I guess it felt like con was trying to lean on how much people dislike Joffrey, and love Edard who "would have been a flawed king, he is exemplary." However in the end I was convinced by neither side, first of all that Joffrey could have survived long enough.