The Instigator
Dubloon
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Deathbeforedishonour
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Sarah Palin should be elected as "Queen of Earth"

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 4 votes the winner is...
Deathbeforedishonour
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/21/2012 Category: Sports
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,765 times Debate No: 25221
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (4)

 

Dubloon

Pro


This debate is about whether Sara Palin should be elected Queen of Earth. I am Pro for this, and you must be con. The first post must be an argument, as this one will me for me. Queen of Earth means that she gets to do whatever the heck she wants with anybody at any time at all for any reason, and can make laws without any approval of anyone else. She also exists outside of the law. Here is my first argument below:

______________________________________________

My Reasons
(By Dubloon)
(Dedicated to Sarah)

1. As you know, Sarah can see Russia from her backyard. From her current home, she can keep tabs on unruly humans that for some reason want to be in russia. If anyone insults her hair, she'll know!



2. Sarah Palin is already the leader of the tea party, and she was almost the vice president! She has leadership experience! Also, she is the group leader of the four or five people in alaska.

3. She has a reality show, so when she records her evil hypnosis films, she will have experience.

4. She might be able to chew gum and walk at the same time.

5. She is on a website! http://www.biography.com...;
Deathbeforedishonour

Con


Rebuttel 1

My opponent has no point here. Russia is to far away from Alaska to actually see it [1]. Furthermore, I would like to point out anyone could fill in that job if it were really an issue. Russia is not our enemy anymore [2].



Rebuttel 2

As to his second point, it really fairs no better then the first. He claims that she has leadership abilities however, she is not the only person with leadership experience. I would also like to as that he clarity what "four or five people in Alaska" are. But I will refute this further in my negative case.


Rebuttel 3

This does not help his case in the slightest bit.

Rebuttel 4

This is no better then my opponent's third point.


Rebuttel 5

Indeed. So does the rest of the politicians.


My Case

Contention 1:The Threat that Comes from a World Leader.

We have seen time and again that having a totalitarian form of government leads to tyrrany and other horrible things. We have seen Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and others who have gained complete control over single countries and have destroyed their's and other countries around them, because why? They had too much power given to them [3]. Having Sarah Palin become undisputed "Queen of the Earth" would no doubt end in the same thing only on a more massive scale.


Contention 2: Sarah Palin is an enemy of Liberty.

Sarah Palin has shown many times that she hates liberty. I will state three examples.



1. She is against legalized abortions even in the case of rape and incest or when the mother's life is threatend. She is therefore, against women's rights to self-ownership and freedom of theirn own body [4]. She is even against birth control of any kind [5], which further intells her hatred of women's rights even though she is a woman herself.


2. She is against gay rights [5]. She against both Same-Sex Marriage and same sex couples adopting children. She therefore, hates another group of peoples. She is against them on the because her religion tells her so therefore, she is against Se Church and sState making her against against the rights of different religious and known religious people as well.


3. She is also against dind including use as a means of medicine. She shows yet again he opposision for people's rights to self-ownership.



I will now await response.


[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://wiki.answers.com...
[3]http://answers.yahoo.com...
[4]http://www.alternet.org...'s_9_most_disturbing_beliefs/
[5]http://en.wikipedia.org...;













Debate Round No. 1
Dubloon

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for describing his feelings with words. Although, I do see a couple problems here:

The tragedy of a world leater(Part II: Rebutzel)
The problem with you is that you don't have an open mind. Sure, those guys commanded countries. But did they command countries-From a space base in the sky? No. Will Sarah Palin command the world-From a space base in the sky? I have know idea. But there is actually, like, a fifty fifty chance.

Also, leading the world takes practice. Did I eat the largest bag of Crunch To The Max (TM) Lard chips in one day? No. Will Sarah Palin complete her Queen Training in one day? No. She'll approach ruling the world the same way one might approach a king sized bag of Crunch To The Max (TM) Lard chips; with experience.

Sarah Palin is a meanie :( (Part II;Rebuttalina)

I know. She has the stupidest beliefs since I believed it would be a good idea to be a proffesional lard enthusiast. But once she goes through the intense training exercises for the mind, hair, and spirit, she will be a mindless drone who is easily manipulated. But really, isn't this what polititions are, but on a much larger scale? She will be the super-politition of earth. She will be the great gift that we will give to the crap we have put up with all these years

Now here is my case:
1. She knows everything simple. Look at the link below, where she gracefully states that "Bad Guys Don't Follow Laws." This observation is the epitome of the obvious human condition: Everything is black and white. If your bad, your bad. If your good, your good. Nothing else exists.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;

2. Sarah Palin loves puppies

http://xfinity.comcast.net...

puppies!!!
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

Defense 1

My opponent has not proven anything in this. All of the training the world would not help her. It is not her leadership skills I am attacking, it is what happens when people get a hold on too much power. They become corrupt and have no restraint. I would also like to point out to my opponent that whether or not she commands from space or not is irrelevant.



Defense 2

My opponent admits that her ideas are horrible, and then goes on to say that Palin would be subjected to "training". However, that last part is absurd, if she would become "Queen of the Earth" then she would have complete control over everything and everyone. Politicians are not drones, they are a lot of times ruthless and tyrrancal. Plus, if she were to be a mindless drone who would control her? The Church? Corporations? They people? if that be the case then the first two would still be tyrrany, and if the second were so then "Queen of the Earth" would not exist.



Refutation 1 & 2


1. Simple mindedness is over powered by tyrrany. It is too big of a risk, and a very bad idea at that.


2. I like puppies too. I doubt everyone thinks I should be "King of the Earth".


I will now await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 2
Dubloon

Pro



Defense 1

"All of the training the world would not help her." You say that all of the training...in the world? On google there are 2,110,000,000 results for training[1], and I doubt that is all the training in the world. Training to become totally un-corrupt, un-meanie and un-sarah palin? She could train as much as a crazy train, and also train in the world. Think of a metaphorical, erm, train. You get on a the train when you are a sarah palin. But you came out as a leader of the world. Seventy chugga chugga miles of choo choo!



Defense 2

'Politicians are not drones, they are a lot of times ruthless and tyrrancal." Republicans have to believe what republicans believe. Mitt Romney had to change his stance on abortion because he was a republican. Definition 4 of "drones" on dictionary.com: "a person who lives on the labor of others; parasitic loafer." Did Mitt Romney really have to think to accomplish that? Its not like he was: "Oh I have a great idea. I could be pro life!" He did it because others were doing it, like a drone.

Refutation 1 & 2


1. Before Ceaser, being a tyrant was a good things. They took absolute power and steared a crumbling society into the the right direction. Now we associate them as the metaphorical evil apple in the batch of good leader apples. If you ate the bad apple nowadays, you would probably spit it out, and then (metaphorically) protest against it wearing V for Vendetta masks. In the old days, the tyrant was the metaphoricaly metaphor of a golden apple. You wouldent be able to eated, because it is to hard for your teeth. But you can worship it because it is shiny. And throw at people to impale them.


2. I dismiss this argument because you havent posted a picture of yourself holding not one but two puppies. No you haven't. She has.


I will a-now will a-wait my a-opponent's response.

[1]Citation
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

Defense 1


My opponent fails. He fails to see that I was stating a figure of speech in my statment about "all of the training in the world". What I am to point out that evenn if we were to brainwash her she would either still become currupt because that is whjat happens to ALL humans beings when they are given power over all. He then ends with a sad metaphorical statment that case at all.



Defense 2


My opponent then brings up Mitt Romney as an example, which does not help him. For one, abortion bans are a violation of women's civil right and another thing he brings up the risk that I stated in mthe last round. I said if Palin were to become a mindless drone of someone else other then herself then she would be under the control of one of three groups, the church and the corporations (in this case it could be both), which is what she already does if you take a look at her policies. Or the people themselves, in which there would be no reason to have a "Queen of the Earth" anyways. So really, my opponent has done nothing here but help me.



Refutations

1. My opponent has no point here, so I will dismiss it until he actually comes up with something that helps him.

2. Puppies are irrelevant to this debate.




Debate Round No. 3
Dubloon

Pro

This again? 1
Defenition of brainwash: Make (someone) adopt radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible pressure. (Merrian-Webster) That does not mean just personal beliefs, or physical beliefs, it could be any type of belief you like! This is open to interpretation! What about a belief that you are a fresh baked muffin? Would you have the agenda of a human? Of course not! Your sole purpose is to be delicious for the person that eats you. Think about that for a dictator: what if you believed you had no personal bias, no actual opinoin on anything and a benevolent mind? You would total Queen-of-the-world material.

This again? 2
I said that Mitt Romney changed his stance on abortion simply because he was a republican. Coulden't Sarah Palin become a better person just because she had complete control of the world? And also a little brainwashing might help?

As for your second reason, I have a story for you. Back on the metaphorical apple farm, sometimes apples landed on top of other apples. Those apples were unrulu and caused a bit of trouble, since they bruised the lower apples. There where fiestier apple still that fell off the tree and took all of the apples on it with them. Soon, I had to duct tape all of the metaphorical apples to their respective trees until they were ready for picking. After that solution was made, all was well, and the apples were sent to there normally scheduled ride to the factory to be mashed up and made into baby oil and to color different assortments of festive bubblegum. My point here is that I'm right, you're wrong and I am the best at making good metaphors.

Relutiblublius:

1. I meant that sometimes it was a good thing to have tyrants, and quite a few romans did it without becoming corrupted (before Ceaser, of course.)

2. http://www.helpguide.org...
I like linking to studies. And puppies!
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

1. If there was a Queen like that, then there would be no need for a Queen because then the people couort to direct democracy rather then control a really ugly puppet.


2. My opponent didn't refute my claim.

.....



My opponent is either a bad debater or a troll.


Vote Con

Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Artorius 4 years ago
Artorius
This was amusing.
Posted by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
@Dubloon: Or better yet, you can actually carry on an intelligent debate. You should expect "vote bombs" (by your definition) when someone puts a lot of time and real effort into presenting good arguments and all you do is troll him with absolutely ludicrous arguments that aren't worth a penny.

Learn to get some debating skills you stupid excuse for a debater.
Posted by Dubloon 5 years ago
Dubloon
Travniki, I don't really give a crap. I had fun. I just hate vote bombs.

I will now write "This is a troll debate" at every non serious debat I make. I can see the confusion, since there is tons of people that believe Sarah plain should be elected as an ultimate ruler.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 5 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
lol It it didn't say joke debate anywhere on it.
Posted by Travniki 5 years ago
Travniki
Hmmm, I just don't like that someone would accept what is obviously a joke debate and go at it completely serious and 100% stone faced then complain that it was a troll debate.

Deathbeforedishnonour you might want to take the stick out of your @$$

But the people have spoken :/
Posted by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
@Dubloon: Shut up. You know you lost because of your constant, annoying, and most times plain idiotic trolling.

LEARN TO GET SOME DEBATING SKILLS YOU TROLLING IGNORAMUS.
Posted by Dubloon 5 years ago
Dubloon
And now someone just changed their post from 4 votes to seven just because...
Posted by Dubloon 5 years ago
Dubloon
How the heck is "Troll" a good explanation for voting when this is obviously a troll debate?
Posted by Dubloon 5 years ago
Dubloon
I thought it was rather obvious that this debate was never going to be serious in the first place. But that made it fun :D
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 5 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
I think it is rather obvious that even if my opponent is serious, he still didnt refute my argument while I refuted his.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
DubloonDeathbeforedishonourTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: What the? Pro's arguments were the dumbest I've ever seen. Where was pro? AMEND 1: Wtf at Travniki?
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
DubloonDeathbeforedishonourTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Troll....
Vote Placed by ceruleanpolymer 5 years ago
ceruleanpolymer
DubloonDeathbeforedishonourTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didnt refute anything lol and his arguments were literally a mess.
Vote Placed by Travniki 5 years ago
Travniki
DubloonDeathbeforedishonourTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons absolute and utter failure to recognize this as a joke debate and play along is not acceptable. As we have seen with imabench, troll debates can be and are a rewarding aspect to our community, and they can provide comic relief and be incredibily entertaining. To take what is obviously a troll debate and take it 100 seriously is nothing more than an unfair attempt to get a free win. You shouldn't have taken the debate if you didn't want to play along, you knew exactly what this was. Shame.