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

Palmerston had anti American sympathies.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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: 5/2/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,187 times Debate No: 8076
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)




"In dealing with vulgar minded bullies, and so much unfourtunately the people of the United States are."-Lord Palmerston.

"We also are on the verge of the disolution of the United States."-Lord Palmerston in a letter to Queen Victoria.

My source for these quotes is a documetary called Abraham Lincon vs. the Brittish Empire. The documentary could be looked up on youtube.

Another quote I have was what Palmerston's Chancellor of the Exchequer William E. Gladstone said about Palmerston and America:
"Lord Palmerston desired the severance as a DIMINUTION of a DANGEROUS power but prudently held his tongue."

My source is


I can only respond to arguments posted by my opponent and visible on the page. I am not going to watch documentaries and read ravings by this lunatic Roger Hughes whoever he is. Links are for supporting your arguments not for making them.

YouTube clips especially you notice cannot be linked or embedded in YourArgument. Why does my opponent think this is?

I will need the entire documents referred to.

I might answer by arguing that the dissolution of the United Stated would have been in its own and everyone else's best interest anyway so if this debate is intended to be about Lord Palmerston my opponent has not even.

I'll finish the sentence when my opponent presents some argument.

First of all there are alternatives to simply arguing the opposite of my opponent. In fairness I get to take a position too.

I propose we use the Lincoln-Douglas rules of debate, although there are others:

1. Each debate involves two debaters, one of whom argues the affirmative side, the other the negative.

The affirmative speaker must present a position agreeing with the resolution.
The negative debater must disagree with the resolution's statement.
(1) In circumstances where a resolution presents two alternatives, (e.g., "the sanctity of life should be valued above the quality of life') a negative side most commonly should argue the alternative to which the affirmative side has given second priority (i.e., 'the quality of life should be should be valued above the sanctity of life').

(2) A negative may choose a third option and argue both alternatives provided by the resolution.

(3) A negative debater can also argue a "critique" against a resolution in its entirety.

Because productive conflict, or 'clash,' is key to a Lincoln-Douglas debate, each debater should be able to make a positive case for their position and values, as opposed to a purely negative attack on those of their opponent.

2. Lincoln-Douglas is a fundamentally value-oriented (as opposed to policy-focused) debate. Judges must remember that debaters are not required to propose 'plans' for dealing with given situations. The role of debaters is to argue a moral position, and to use logic and ethical reasoning to do so.

But any modern debating format, I will argue, should be designed to allow a maximum of flexibility in responding.

This especially true when the topics are picked by just anyone.

The National Forensic League meets semiannually I think to pick topics. They must be chosed with great care. Even then they can be challenged as you can see. So the first step in a debate is to pick a good topic.

OK there are more than one definitions of LD format.

Anyway if my opponent wants a good debate there should be something to debate. I don't see much. I would be wasting my time spending two days and 8000 characters addressing what little my opponent has posted.

And it says post your opening argument so kindly do so.

Instigator posts entire argument in opening round and is not allowed to add later. That's in every debate format ever.

It would not be fair to ask me to develop a detailed plan for dismantling the United States if that is not what my opponent wants.

I need that protection against stupid topics and stupid arguments.

I should get some credit for posting within forty minutes.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank InfraRedEd for accepting my challenge for this debate, and for posting his argument within 45 minutes - ussually I have to wait most of the three days allowed to post arguments for my opponents to respond to my arguments.

My argument is that Prime Minister Palmerston had anti American sympathies. He saw the Civil War as an oppurtunity to split the United States in two. Though slavery had allready been outlawed in Great Britain, and though Palmerston was against slavery, things got close to war between Britain and the United States, when the U.S. Navy seized a Brittish ship. Palmerston demanded the ship back and an appology in a letter he was going to send to America, but first sent it to Queen Victoria. Prince Albert, then dying of Typhoid Fever, revised the letter and made it less harsh. If this hadn't happened, historians say, the Union would have been fighting the Confederacy and Great Britain at the same time.
Many say Palmerston had confederate sympathies because Britain needed the cotton from the south. He saw Lincoln as a threat to the European oligarchy.

I didn't think I needed to put the historical explanation in when I wrote my original argument, I thought the quotes spoke for themselves. I still do think that there is enough evidence that Palmerston had anti American views simply because he said the people of the United States were "vulgar minded bullies". Gladstone the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister's right hand man, said that Palmerstone "desired the diminution" of the U.S. Palmerston wrote a letter to Queen Victoria where he said "we are on the verge of the dissolution of the United States."

It is my opponent's burden to prove that despite the fact that Palmerston said the people of the United States were vulgar minded bullies, despite the fact his right hand man said he desired the diminution of the U.S., despite the fact that he bragged to the Queen that "we are on the verge of the dissolution" of the U.S., that Palmerston didn't have anti American sympathies.

I don't see why my opponent thinks Roger Hughes is lunatic, especially if he doesn't know who the fellow is.

I also politely object the proposal for a Lincoln Douglas debate format.
One last point I would like to make is that I wasn't "making" my arguments with those links, I was using them as evidence those quotes existed.


Here I am looking for an intelligent conversation in the middle of the night and here is all there is.

Lord Palmerston was a blithering idiot and debating anything about him is a waste of time. His rantings changed throughout his life. In particular, the notion that he was proamerican is not even remotely defensible with this scoring system which asks if you have changed your mind. When we finish debating Lord Palmerston will not have changed so even if I argue brilliantly that Lord Palmerston was somehow an admirer of America, by sorting through everything he ever wrote I still lose the debate.

Pick a topic that at least allows the remote possibility of an intelligent conversation.

Oh by the way my opponent might stand a chance of winning the debate but still has just been skunked because who cares. I get to rant for sure and that is my payoff.

History will decide. Currently serious debaters make jokes about online debating, and for good reason.

If my opponent wishes to go ahead with the gigantic waste of time proving something that has pretty much been known for some time, and not doing a very good job of it, I should be rewarded for having the common sense to avoid such a waste of time.

Or debate yourself. Ed has better things to do.
Debate Round No. 2


InfraRedEd keeps on complaining this is a stupid topic he couldn't even win, so why did he pick it in the first place. Note that he has backed away from his burden, that he took on by accepting my challenge to debate.
And another thing - I'm not arguing Palmerston was a blithering idiot, but that he had Anti American sympathies. In his first round he called a historian who made a documentary a lunatic, even though he didn't even know who he was. In the second round, he has concluded Palmerston was a blithering idiot, even though he knows nothing about him accept some disturbingly anti American views. I wonder if he'll call me an idiot in the third round, even though he doesn't know me or anything about me! Talk about ranting.
So I'm not picking another topic, if he thinks this topic is stupid, then, well it's his fault for accepting my challenge in the first place. In short, he'll have to just suck it up.

You should vote Pro because Con doesn't have any arguments, or rebuttals. If my opponent uses the next round to continue wining about how it's a stupid topic that is unfair to have a burden to argue then the judges should remember he the one who decided to accept my challenge, and even though he says I didn't have any arguments, those quotes alone were pretty good evidence Palmerston had an Anti American bias. He should have been able to decide then that this was something he might think is a waste of time. He keeps on saying he should get credit for this and that. Remember to give him credit for picking a topic he now thinks is stupid.


Using another debate as an example:

Now I have made the point I think that my opponent used this

to produce this

without telling anybody.

so What?

One thing is lacking here, and it is a good point and one made frequently in debating: Who cares? So what?
What value do you attach to pursuing this matter? Why are you bringing this up anyway? What is your agenda? Put your cards on the table.

Any court of law is going to want to know where you are going with this, and it is important to know why. It is not because we don't want to waste the court's valuable time.

It is because the withholding of that information is not fair to your opponent. What you are doing is concealing an agenda. If your opponent does not know what you intend to prove down the road with this conclusion, in debating terms it is like posting an incomplete opening argument that does not attach any value to itself. It cannot be countered with opposing values because there are none to oppose. In layman's terms, so what?

Taking a look at that Michael Coren buffoon we can easily see so what. He's the buffoon on the right. The guy on the left is the one that is going to debate me. Now if I don't know about this clip I won't see the buffoon on the right who lays it all out for me. Debating him would be a dream come true. He is translating the smooth academic language Ross McKitrick is speaking but does not practice into the hysterical stuff that Joe Sixpack will hear on talk hysteriadio.

Any scientist would address Mann's paper by looking at it and not what was said about it.

Where does anyone say anything about what Mann says about Man's (or Mann's for that matter) contribution to global warming? That would be critical if you are arguing, as they are, that the value is "look at all the money we are spending on global warming because of bad science." Well we are not spending money to address natural global warming.

More importantly the buffoon on the right, Michael Coren, whom I have never heard of and now I see why, exposed the whole agenda of piecemeal attack.

It is like the old Cisco Kid radio show where one bad guy starts confessing and the other bad guy says, "Shut up you fool!"

He forgot to explain that this whole agenda of piecemeal attack is bad science. Michael Coren, who we may think of as a reincarnation of Wally George, thinks it is OK and spills the beans.

Disregarding for the moment the remarkable similarity between the title of the YouTube post and my opponent's premise, aand that it's pretty clear he was pretty dishonest but that's not the worst of it.

If all I have is the arguments of the guy on the left, the only thing I have to go on is a valueless argument.

Serious debaters have long since left all three of these buffoons, and online debating itself, in the dirt with the simple requirement that you need to attach some value to your argument.

Now we see why.

Because it tells where you are going with this argument.

Now go back to "So What."

Keep reading until you get it.

But there's more.

A court of law would have to adjourn in order to properly address the demand to restrict the scope of the debate since prolonged laughter is not allowed in court.

"Your honor I would like to address the damages I have suffered and not what I have caused."

There's a lot more but, as I point out, what would be the value of it?

But I would certainly like to find out whether my opponent's agenda is Zionist.

I am not saying it is but it is plausible.

Lord Palmerston proposed using Jewish money to prop up the failing Ottoman. It was his job, not his "sentiment."

Whatever is going to come in down the road we need to know it now.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Danononian 7 years ago
Thats what I thought Oh wait u dont respond infrared? Ur not small, u dont even have one so calling u small was a compliment so sorry
Posted by Danononian 7 years ago
for InfraRedEd you are really mean, also u have a small weiner, u r so sad and weird mainly weird because, u think every zionist has some hidden agenda, by the way I am not jewish I am buddhist and u have a small weiner, probably because, u are so angry about how ur weiner is microscopic
Posted by SPF 7 years ago
Abraham Lincoln once said some thing to the effect that for a man to hear a lie about him it's hurtfull, but if that lie is utterly ridiculous than it makes him laugh. Having read my opponents last round I could not stop chuckling. The idea that I was lying, is absurd - ha ha. But lets not stop there - the idea that I have some "hidden zionist agenda" made my laugh fairly hard. I wanted to debate a historical topic, and so if anything that was, my 'agenda', and also to have better arguments.
I was correct that my opponent would try to label me, but I was surprised he called me a "zionist."
Oh, and "Jew Money" come on, really. My people have been dealing with antisemitism for 2,000 years, so why doesn't he quit with that. There might have been Jewish bankers who lended money to those efforts but jew money? grow up.
Posted by leet4A1 7 years ago
<sarcasm> Yeah, you look like a classy guy. </sarcasm>
Posted by InfraRedEd 7 years ago
Trying to bring some class to this place.
Posted by leet4A1 7 years ago
"History will decide. Currently serious debaters make jokes about online debating, and for good reason."

What the hell are you doing here then? I'm sure nobody here would miss you so if you're thinking of leaving, enjoy.
Posted by leet4A1 7 years ago
Barney Gumble: And I say Britian's best Prime Minister was Lord Palmerstone!
Wade Boggs: Pitt the Elder!
Barney: Lord Palmerstone!
Boggs: Pitt the Elder!!!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Charlie_Danger 7 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:70 
Vote Placed by Danononian 7 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:70 
Vote Placed by SPF 7 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:70