The Instigator
Pro (for)
6 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
11 Points

Lady Thatcher is related to Atilla the Hun, Vlad the Impaler, Hitler and Pol Pot - but not Idi Amin

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/14/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,084 times Debate No: 10457
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)




That fact that Margaret "The Milk-Snatcher" Thatcher (1) is related to some of the most evil men in history will surprise few of you but why can't she also count the late Ugandan dictator Idi Amin (2) as one of her relatives?

After all, he was a ruthless dictator who was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians and who the President of Tanzania described as "a murderer, a liar and a savage". Surely a man that evil must be related to Thatcher, even if the relationship is only a distant one?

Well, no. You see, anthropological researchers have recently proven that all non-African humans are related to members of a single tribe of around 150 people who crossed the Red Sea from Africa to Arabia around 80,000 years ago and it was this extended family that then went on to colonise the rest of the world. (3)

So because Atilla the Hun (4), Vlad the Impaler (5), Adlof Hitler (6), Pol Pot (7) and Margaret Thatcher all hail from Europe or Asia while Idi Amin was from Africa, she cannot possibly be related to him.

Thank you.









Thank you for proposing this most interesting debate topic.

I accept that given the way in which you use the term "related" Lady Thatcher is indeed related to Atilla the Hun, Vlad the Impaler, Hitler and Pol Pot.

I take issue with the your holding that she is not so related to the man you call Idi Amin.

Firstly, you have not provided any genealogical information about her line of descendance, and you really don't and can't know if one of her great, great grandpa's was really an African Pirate who kidnapped one of those European lady's in the 1700's [1]

Secondly, and more importantly, all people are related. In showing how Margaret Thatcher is related to the esteemable crew you expounded upon, you drew upon the scientific explanation of how all peoples, outside of Africa, are related to this one guy whose family crossed the Black Sea. To show how Margaret Thatcher is related to all people, including the esteemable Idi Amin, I will draw upon the scientific explanation of how all people, Africans too (cough*racist*cough), come from this one guy from back in Africa many years ago called by National Geographic "Scientific Adam".[2]

Now unless my opponent can show how his theoretical person deserves to be considered human, and this "scientific adam" guy does not (which is contrary to scientific thought on the matter), I have shown that the Ms. Thatcher, if she was so blessed as to be with us today, could legitimately claim relation to the pillar of humanity that is Mr. Amin.

Debate Round No. 1


I would like to extend my sincere thanks to mattrodstrum for his thought-provoking (if somewhat ethically unsound) response to which I would like to reply as follows:

Margaret Thatcher has always been a fierce opponent of immigration (1) and also supported the apartheid regime in South Africa. Furthermore, her daughter Carole was sacked from her job as a TV presenter after she called a black tennis player a "golliwog" (2) and her son Mark is currently on the run from secret agents from Equatorial Guinea after having been convicted of trying to overthrow the regime there (3). None of this suggests a latent family empathy with people from Africa to me!

Additionally, Thatcher is blonde and fair skinned which would indicate that none of her female ancestors were abducted by villainous Negroid buccaneers and even if that were the case and that ancestor of hers became the wife of an African pirate it seems unlikely that she would then be able to escape with her half-caste children and somehow return to the sleepy English countryside where Thatcher's other ancestors come from. Certainly, I have examined her family tree (4) and can see no mention of a Mrs. Thatcher-Bananabwana or a Mrs. Thatcher-Mambofandango!

Now, to address the issue of the common ancestor of all humans and the elusive "Adam".

Please review the taxonomical classification of chimpanzees, Neanderthal man, Idi Amin and Margaret Thatcher reproduced hereunder.

You will note that Neanderthal man, Idi Amin and Margaret Thatcher are considered the same type of animal as chimps all the way down the table as far as subtribus.

From there Amin and Thatcher are considered the same type as animal as Neaderthal man as far as genus.

However, at this point they go their separate evolutionary ways with Idi Amin being classed as a member of the Capoid subspecies (the hominids that stayed in Africa) whereas Margaret Thatcher is a Caucasoid (the hominids that left Africa).

The point of all this is that Margaret Thatcher may share much her evolutionary history with Idi Amin, and they may even have had a common ancestor who may or may not have been called Adam. However, this common ancestor would have been at the subtribus level when Homo sapiens evolved from their ape-like predecessors and first became adapted to life on the ground rather than the trees. (5)

So if these proto-humans should be considered relations of both Thatcher and Idi Amin, as my opponent suggests, then so could chimpanzees. However, even though many people would describe Margaret Thatcher as "inhuman", I don't think that they would expect her to send Christmas cards to her extended family in London zoo!

Finally, I should just like to point out that my opponent's report of Thatcher's demise is premature – she is still alive and kicking – although she wouldn't be if I had taken my chance and stabbed her with a cheese knife at the private party we were both guests at when she was still Prime Minister!

Thank you.

The taxonomical classification of chimpanzees, Neanderthal man, Idi Amin and Margaret Thatcher

Subregnum: Eumetazoa
Cladus: Bilateria
Cladus: Nephrozoa
Cladus: Deuterostomia
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Infraphylum: Gnathostomata
Superclassis: Tetrapoda
Classis: Mammalia
Subclassis: Theria
Infraclassis: Placentalia
Ordo: Primates
Subordo: Haplorrhini
Infraordo: Simiiformes
Parvordo: Catarrhini
Superfamilia: Hominoidea
Familia: Hominidae
Subfamilia: Homininae
Tribus: Hominini
Subtribus: Panina

Neanderthal man - as for chimpanzee until:
Subtribus: Hominina
Genus: Homo
Species: Homo neanderthalensis

Idi Amin – as for Neanderthal man until:
Species: Homo sapiens
Subspecies: Capoid

Margaret Thatcher - as for Idi Amin until:
Subspecies: Caucasoid




You have been arguing that the two are not related on the basis of belonging to different "racial groups", or as your source "The Races of Humanity" constantly puts it: "subspecies".

This is a flawed way of understanding both human variation and the concept of "Race". I would not claim that the races have not developed some level of difference, as they clearly have in a limited degree, but making the claim that there exist "subspecies" is unnecessary and unsupported by fact. [1] Most mainstream contemporary Anthropologists see the "racial categories" you cite as being cultural constructs due to the level of information from which to draw perceptions and the given socio-political realities.[1]

The people in question (Amin, and Thatcher) are both Homo Sapien Sapien, and are not classified as different species by mainstream contemporary scientists.
In fact Science points to their sharing a common, Homo Sapien Sapien, ancestor in Scientific Adam.[2][3]

Further if you are arguing that they're not related because of racial difference, then I would say it is inconsistent that you would say Thatcher is related to Pol Pot, as the latter would quite obviously be considered belonging to the "subspecies" "Mongoloid", as opposed to Thatcher's "subspecies" of "Caucasoid". Sure you can say that these subspecies share the fact that their from that group that's "Out of Africa" (as your source Richard McCulloch puts it) but that's a rather subjective standard for you to pick, as they're still considered separate "sub-species" according to your source, and given your line of argument. I (and I would hope any voters) however, can see no reason to grant "relational status" between Thatcher and Pol Pot, or indeed Atilla, if they are also held to be of distinct "sub-species" as your source claims.

Either way I have negated the resolution.

Your sources hold, and you argue based off of, the idea that people can be accurately divided into separate distinct "sub-species" categories, which you hold to be important in the matter of people's level of "relatedness". Given this standard the first half of your contention doesnt hold up for Lady Thatcher, Atilla the Hun, and Pol Pot all belong to different "subspecies".

And given the more reasonable understanding of human variation, your contention that Lady Thatcher is not related to Idi Amin is absurd because they are both humans; that isof the species Homo Sapien Sapien; and share a direct line to a common human ancestor in 'Scientific Adam'.

Vote con!

Debate Round No. 2
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by brian_eggleston 6 years ago
Noah? Oh yes, that man that is supposed to have saved two of every species from the flood God sent to punish all earth's creatures.

I'm not sure about that God thought that one though.

I mean, okay all those lions drowned as a punishment for biting baby antelopes and the wolves drowned for attacking cute little bunny rabbits but, think about it, the prey drowned along with the predators. Hardly fair, is it?

And what about the sharks? They are pretty nasty bunch, devouring up all those defenceless seal cubs, but they weren't punished by God's flood, were they?

No, if anything, it was a bonanza for them with all those millions of drowned corpses floating around.

No, God definitely isn't as clever as Jesus tried to pretend he is.
Posted by twsurber 6 years ago
If you take all the way back to Noah, aren't we all just a little bit related?
Posted by Zetsubou 6 years ago
Lol, this made me smile. Ty
Posted by XimenBao 6 years ago
I've decided that blatant racism isn't a conduct voter when it's the subject of the debate, so Pro gets a pass there.

But as Con pointed out in the last round, either Thatcher is related to Idi Amin based on the commonality of human descent, or Thatcher is not related to Pol Pot if we grant the subspecies argument.
Posted by Volkov 6 years ago
I agree with this. Also; Thatcher is related to Mao Zedong. Cruelly ironic. +1
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by twin 6 years ago
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:16 
Vote Placed by Nails 6 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by XimenBao 6 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05