The Instigator
1stLordofTheVenerability
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
tmhustler
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Queen Elizabeth II could out-debate anybody on this site.

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 6 votes the winner is...
tmhustler
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/27/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,617 times Debate No: 9846
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (6)

 

1stLordofTheVenerability

Pro

Greetings Tmhustler! Good luck, have fun and keep 'er clean. :D

I am going to argue that Queen Elizabeth II could trounce anybody on this website very easily. She possesses a long history of politics. The Queen is old and wisened. Her life experiences outnumber those of any member here. Numbers 1, 2 and 3 on this site are not older than 25, correct? Wise is our own eyes, and perhaps possessing some ability to debate, but even so this is not even a professional debate club. Rather, one presents an argument and peers decide on which they like better. Sometimes voters are biased and vote in support of one or the other simply because they like one debater over the other or agree with the topic.

However, the Queen has seen over fourty years of Parliament, observing political debates, Parliamentary gains, political jockeying etc. She's been around while some of the most famous Prime Ministers of all time have presided. She personally knew Winston Churchill, and she has seen lines of Prime Ministers and cabinets. She was presiding during the famed terms of Margaret Thatcher and Anthony Eden. Harry Truman, George W. Bush, George Bush, Eisenhower etc were all American politicians that she personally met. She has seen WWII, the Cold War, the Falklands War and the extremely recent series of wars in the East.

This is just an example of all of the famous events/leaders that she has seen and influenced.

Thus, her knowledge abounds and is far superior to that of any of ours. Her debating ability is incredible.
tmhustler

Con

I would like to thank pro for making thi debate.

Age is not a valid argument for why someone is a better debater than another person. The top debaters on this site have beaten out many others who are older and possible better educated.
furtheremore the events that have transpired during ones life, or the people that you have meet have no berring on what you know. for example I have seen many football games, and meet many football players but this does not make me an expert on the game.
"This is just an example of all of the famous events/leaders that she has seen and influenced." I will wait for My opponent to give examples to how she has influence these events or leaders.

"Thus, her knowledge abounds and is far superior to that of any of ours. Her debating ability is incredible."
This statement is compleatly unsubstantiated where did this knowledge come from? The Iraq war is happening during my life time but this does not make me an expert on that war. first you must showthat she great knowledge in many different disciplines (art, politics, history, philosophy, etc.) , then you must pruve that this knowlede is greater than any debater on this site.

now to my arguments
my arguments will come in three parts first her age, second her debate experience, and finally

queen Elizabeth the second is now 82 years old as a result her memory, and reasoning skills are likely greatly diminished. another reason she could not easily defeat anyone on this site in a debate is she has never had any sort of formal debate. my question to my opponent is, if you have never had a debate how can you be good at it?

I am quite shore that the user Lwerd could beat elizabeth in a gay marriage, gay rights debates as shown in these debates
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
also that the user Keplin would beat her with his semantic arguments as shown below
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
the user the skeptic could win an evolution debate
http://www.debate.org...
The user freeman would win a debate with her about morality of torture
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
These are just a few examples where Elizabeth could not beat members of DDO in a debate.

my apologizes to those members of DDO who I did not mention.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
1stLordofTheVenerability

Pro

At the age of two she had an air of authority and reflectiveness, astonishing in an infant."
- Winston Churchill, letter to his wife, 1928. (http://explore-parliament.net...)

"She knows more about world affairs than most diplomats who visit her, and has complained to her Foreign Office about its elementary briefings."
- Anthony Sampson, The Changing Anatomy of Britain, 1982

I agree that age is not an important factor in deciding a person's intelligence and proficiency at debating. However, the wisdom and knowledge that accompany a long life are to be greatly considered. As I have stated, the Queen has seen more political actions (and results) than any person on this site. As such, she is considerably wiser in the ways of the political world, warfare etc. We debate about events in Iraq, Afghanistan etc from news reports and second hand knowledge and theories. The Queen is/was privy to any reason Britain is involved in these wars (particularly back when they occurred. Perhaps not now, so much, but back when they were instigated, she was still quite involved in Parliament).

It is true, but her being a political figure, she has as much influence on another as that person does on her. Using your example of football players, you're not gathering knowledge but attempting to gather skill, which is impossible. It is also impossible if your argument were valid as you do not impact the football player.

Knowledge can be gained from another. This is exemplified in the school classroom when a teacher's expands on a book lesson, in which you are learning from the teacher's knowledge (hopefully truthful).

Let us consider the Queen's duty of meeting the Prime Minister once a week, shall we? The Queen grants him/her an audience in which the entire session is kept classified. Nobody can determine exactly how much her influence has on the Prime Minister, but it is alleged that her influence is extremely great. Obviously, these sessions are starting to diminish in number as she grows older, but they still occur.

The Queen is the Commander in Chief of the British Army, making her privy to a plethora of military updates and occurrences, if she needs them. http://www.associatedcontent.com...

I believe it is widely acclaimed that British Intelligence forces are some of the most superior in the world. With contacts in those forces, I believe Queen Elizabeth could find out more about anything than any of us. Remember her influence is astounding. If she was to argue abortion (for ex), she could have the top doctors and religious leaders around the world send her some of the most undisclosed files of the medical field. She has the ability to receive the true information before we even are aware of it.

She easily has the knowledge to make a debate. She has made a plethora of speeches and public appearances, all of which are quaint and intelligent.

She is sovereign over 16 nations (Including Canada and Australia).

The Queen has even got multimillion's invested in business interests.

http://www.andhranews.net...

The Queen is shrewd. She's extremely aware of the economic welfare of Britain, Canada and the United States. She's seen more countries and culture than anybody here.

One other example of her influence may be given during 2004, when George W. Bush wanted to be seen with the Queen to boost his popularity in the States before the November elections.

Semantics? LOL If you think that anybody could defeat the Queen at her own game, you've got another think coming. The Queen is a master of philosophy and such debate tactics as semantics and other linguistic characteristics. She is a finely trained and styled public speaker, please do not forget. She has addressed Parliament and other Governments in dozens of countries dozens of times. To think that anybody could beat her at semantics, one had better be as wisened and skilled at politics as she. A real philosopher and debater, a member of a highly esteemed debate club acclaimed across the world, not an online site in which anybody is capable of joining and jockeying for points simply by outclassing an opponent whom argues lamely on an issue.

As for the rest of them, you are just theorizing. Most likely any one of these people would need time to compose him/herself after the Queen had gotten through her own stupendous argument.

Agreed, many of these are good arguments, but you obviously don't comprehend the ability of the Queen...

As I have stated before, her speeches and Parliamentary debates outclass that of even politicians, of which have a reputation of 'slick'. If any of you are a seasoned politician or lawyer, speak up and perhaps i'll change my opinion, but until then, I will 'stick to my guns' regarding the Queen's superiority of debate.
tmhustler

Con

My opponents two quotes are both examples of the fallacy "appeals to authority", and also I do not see there relevance.

I will some my opponents arguments in to two main points first the queen has access to information we (DDO community) do not have 2. She is more intelligent than the rest us.
the problem with pro's first contention is that her claims would be unverifiable because the voters and her opponent would not be able to verify the claim because of our lack of access to such information. Also much of the information she might have (especially regarding military matters) would not be able to be disclosed for reasons like secrecy or national security. The problem with this second claim is that is very hard to prove even with the IQ's of very debater on this site and the queen herself.
now to some specific rebuttals to my opponents arguments

"Let us consider the Queen's duty of meeting the Prime Minister once a week, shall we? The Queen grants him/her an audience in which the entire session is kept classified. Nobody can determine exactly how much her influence has on the Prime Minister, but it is alleged that her influence is extremely great." If it is classified who exactly is making the allegation that the queen has so much influence.

"The Queen is a master of philosophy and such debate tactics as semantics and other linguistic characteristics." again will you prove that she has this great knowledge.

"As for the rest of them, you are just theorizing. Most likely any one of these people would need time to compose him/herself after the Queen had gotten through her own stupendous argument." this part I found to be quite funny because in the same sentence you accuse me of just theorizing, you yourself do the same by first assuming the queen would make a stupendous argument and that her opponent would need time t compose themselves.
"Agreed, many of these are good arguments, but you obviously don't comprehend the ability of the Queen..." isn't that your job.
"As I have stated before, her speeches and Parliamentary debates outclass that of even politicians" do you have any evidence for that claim.

My point still remains if you have never had a debate there is no way to prove you are a good debater.
Debate Round No. 2
1stLordofTheVenerability

Pro

How are those two quotations fallacious? The two are merely remarking upon her wisdom and integrity.

In fact, by the account of Sampson, she believed that the briefings were too simple and 'elimentary'. She wished them to be more thorough and inclusive. Something slightly more in-depth, so as to completely grasp the state of affairs. I doubt that too many of you ever ask for thing to be more thorough and complicated, do you? I have, but that does not mean I would be so egotistical to think i could take on the Queen, who's knowledge, authority and influence is unbounded.

Frankly, my opposition has not offered any reason why the Queen could not debate, except that she is old and possibly senile, which, from her still frequent activities, does not seem to be true, as of yet. He ignores the fact that is perpetually witnessing and participating in Parliamentary debates on a regular basis.

He doesn't realize that the Queen has personally signed Constitutions of entire countries (after comprehending them) or the role she plays, and how it is extensive in relation to debates.

She does have such access, but it is not the research so much as the intake of it that substantiates her wisdom, and, hence, ability of debate.

Let us look at this site... http://www.encyclopedia.com... According to this article, a speech of the Queen's ignited a movement regarding anti-terrorism. Debate is rampant and the Queen in the heart of it all.

You claim that she has never debated when she has. What does it actually take to be a good debater? A thesaurus? The Queen is highly educated and doesn't rely on one. Sources? Always good. The Queen has access to the very best. Public speaking? Not on here. But she has it, anyway. She's a very seasoned and accomplished public speaker.

We can know nothing about any member here. Maybe some of us wouldn't even apply to the school debate club for various reasons. Perhaps some of us stammer through our grammar. Perhaps some of us are uncertain. The Queen is not. She is anything but uncertain of the actions she makes. She is composed and cool; she has a reputation for it. Throughout all of the Crisis of the Royal Family, it appears that the Queen maintained her composure.

Just remember, debating on here and in real is a very different thing. I take my cap off to any who actually belong to a 'real life' debate club (as I do), but I still doubt that one could beat the Queen. Our amount of debate and public speaking is like a coin in a treasury compared to hers.

The Queen has been a mother. She is a thoroughly religious woman whom is sound in theology. She could most likely provide a debate well worth listening to (if simply to see her win) on any matter regarding her philosophys and theology.

I can't theorize as to how she would perform regarding certain cases, such as abortion or euthanasia, but I can tell you that her moral standpoint is strong and that she will utilize all of her seasons and skill in the debate, coupled with her wisdom, philosophy, skill at semantics and medical study to defeat the opponent. Her emotions will not affect her arguments, and her stern and calm composure will clearly win out.
tmhustler

Con

To start I would like to thank pro for interesting debate.

rebuttals
The two quotes are fallacious because you use them of proof of your claim that the queen is very smart and she knows more about world affairs than most diplomats. Another example is

I believe A to be true
( insert famous name here) also believes A to be true
therefore A must be true.
"In fact, by the account of Sampson, she believed that the briefings were too simple and 'elimentary'. She wished them to be more thorough and inclusive. Something slightly more in-depth, so as to completely grasp the state of affairs." I thought you said those meetings classified.
"the Queen, who's knowledge, authority and influence is unbounded." evidence anywhere other than she is old and knows smart people.

"she will utilize all of her seasons and skill in the debate, coupled with her wisdom, philosophy, skill at semantics and medical study to defeat the opponent. Her emotions will not affect her arguments, and her stern and calm composure will clearly win out." again a my opponent has given o examples or evidence to back up his extraordinary claims. How is she skilled at debating? Were did her skills at wisdom, philosophy,semantics, and medicine come from? Age does not necessitate wisdom. Also you did not show she was formally educated so I and the voters must assume she has non.
I will summarize my opponents arguments for brevity

The queen is smart therefore se can beat anyone on this site
The queen has a lot of life experience therefore she can beat anyone on this site
the queen is a good public speaker therefore...

This first unsubstantiated claim is irrelevant because intellect alone does not make you a good debater. I likely have one of the highest I.Q.'s on this site and I am not even close to the best debater.
second point is also irrelevant because there are many older members on this site with a lot of life experience that can't even crack the top ten. http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org...
third point is relevant but it would not help her on DDO, and we are unaware of the speaking abilities of most of the DDO community accept our present champ. Lwerd http://www.debate.org...

final rebuttal my opponent claims The queen has debate experience with the parliament yet has given no examples of such an accurance or given evidence to back up the claim.

in summation
my opponent has given no valid evidence for how or why the queen could defeat any member of this site in a debate.
The queen has no debate experience and because of this it is unlikely for her to be the caliber of debater to be able to beat all of us. I would like the voter to think back to there very first debate and ask themselves what caliber of debater was I.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 7 years ago
1stLordofTheVenerability
That's quite the statement, considering that you voted for yourself with no less than 6 points.
Posted by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
and a frog wouldn't bump its asss if it had wings
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 7 years ago
1stLordofTheVenerability
If I could have given myself 2 points, I would have won, but alas, that was not to be...
Posted by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
some people are willing to believe any conspiracy theory
Posted by TOMlive 7 years ago
TOMlive
the queen is a reptilian shapeshifter
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
C: Tie
S/G: Pro - Con's writing style was quite difficult to read at times.
A: Tie - Pro made a strong case in favor of the queen's debating skills, showing she has experience and resources unparalleled by members on this site. However, he overreached with the resolution, which is essentially impossible to prove. Con offered an extremely weak rebuttal but this does not excuse Pro from failing to meet his burden.
S: Pro
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 7 years ago
1stLordofTheVenerability
When voting for this debate, I realize that I may have ruffled feathers, but please consider that I was not referring to any ability or inability to debate by you guys, but rather the Queen's superiority at the matter. When you vote, consider my arguments and consider her skill... I know that you guys are often skilled debaters (including my opponent), and all offer your own style and degree, but the Queen is on a professional level of competance. I have swallowed my own pride in belief that she could easily trounce me. It is not a question of theory.
Posted by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
I will like ly be away from ddo for a couple of days so i wish !stlord luck and ask for RFD's
If possible give constructive criticism for me and 1st lord tanks
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
I bet you I could outdo her in a debate about incompatibilism, the nature of time, meta-ethics, etc. Point is, while she may be well informed about political topics, I doubt her knowledge of philosophical and scientific topics is as keen :).
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
1stLordofTheVenerabilitytmhustlerTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
1stLordofTheVenerabilitytmhustlerTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by animea 7 years ago
animea
1stLordofTheVenerabilitytmhustlerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
1stLordofTheVenerabilitytmhustlerTied
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:32 
Vote Placed by tarsjake 7 years ago
tarsjake
1stLordofTheVenerabilitytmhustlerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
1stLordofTheVenerabilitytmhustlerTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30