The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Kawurairee
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

The US should adopt the British honors system

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Kawurairee
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/3/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 545 times Debate No: 51559
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

Last week, the Prime Minister of Australia announced: "On my recommendation, Her Majesty the Queen has amended the Letters Patent constituting the Order of Australia. Knights and Dames in the Order of Australia will be approved by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. This special recognition may be extended to Australians of extraordinary and pre-eminent achievement and merit". [1]

So, in due course we can expect to Australia's most famous racing driver addressed as Sir Mark Webber and the most famous singer, actress and hot pants-wearer to emanate from Down Under to be addressed as Dame Kylie Minogue.

Other former British colonies such as Canada operate similar honors systems, so why not the United States of America as well?

There are some really deserving Americans that, at the moment, just go by the plain old titles "mister; "miss"; "missus" (or "muzz" in the case of lesbians).

So, in order to make themselves sound more fancy, posh Americans have to give themselves pretend monikers such as Hank Wankshank "III", or Sonny Sonovabicz "Sr" but these suffixes don't really cut the mustard when trying to get a reservation at an exclusive restaurant or obtain membership of an elite country club.

This is what an American honors list could look like:

Sir Arnold Alois Schwarzenegger (actor)
Dame Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (lady politician)
Sir Michael Gerard Tyson (boxer)
Dame Destiny Hope Cyrus (a.k.a. Miley, twerker)
Sir Steven Frederic Seagal (actor)
Dame Angelina Jolie Voight (actress)
Sir Thomas William Selleck (actor)
Dame Paris Whitney Hilton (unemployed)
Sir George Walker Bush (former president)
Dame Kirstie Louise Alley (actress)
Sir Walter Bruce Willis (actor)
Dame Cherilyn Sarkisian (a.k.a. Cher, songstress)
Sir Robert Craig Knievel (a.k.a Evel, daredevil)
Dame Lady Jayne Seymour Fonda (actress)
Sir Dustin Hoffman (actor)
Dame Madonna Louise Ciccone (songstress)
Sir Thomas Cruise Mapother IV (actor)
Dame Oprah Gail Winfrey (talk show hostess)
Sir Prince Rogers Nelson (singer)
Dame Barbara Joan Streisand (songstress)
Sir Mark Elliot Zuckerberg (internet tycoon)
Dame Mary Louise Streep (actress)
Sir William Henry Gates III (computer programmer)
Dame Dolly Rebecca Parton (songstress)
Sir Edwin Eugene Aldrin, Jr (a.k.a. Buzz, former astronaut)
Dame Britney Jean Spears (songstress)
Sir John Joseph Travolta (dancer)
Dame Sarah Louise Palin (lady politician)
Sir William Jefferson Blythe III (a.k.a. Bill Clinton, former president)
Dame Jennifer Joanna Aniston (actress)
Sir Donald John Trump, Sr. (businessman)
Dame Beyonc Giselle Knowles-Carter (songstress)
Sir Muhammad Ali (boxer)
Dame Jennifer Lynn Lopez (songstress)
Sir Eldrick Tont Woods (a.k.a. Tiger, golfer)
Dame Pamela Denise Anderson (actress)
Sir Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (former vice-president)
Dame Roseanne Cherrie Barr (actress)
Sir David Michael Hasselhoff (actor)
Dame Lisa Valerie Kudrow (actress)
Sir Bruce Frederick Joseph Springsteen (singer)
Dame Carly Elisabeth Simon (songstress)
Sir Leonard Simon Nimoy (actor)
Dame Nicole Mary Kidman (actress)
Sir Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone (actor)
Dame Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta (a.k.a. Lady GaGa, songstress)
Sir Burton Leon Reynolds, Jr. (actor)
Dame Robyn Rihanna Fenty (songstress)
Sir Arnold Alois Schwarzenegger (actor)
Dame Destiny Hope Cyrus (twerker)
Sir Steven Frederic Seagal (actor)
Dame Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (lady politician)
Sir Michael Gerard Tyson (boxer)
Dame Angelina Jolie Voight (actress)
Sir Thomas William Selleck (actor)
Dame Paris Whitney Hilton (unemployed)
Sir George Walker Bush (former president)
Dame Kirstie Louise Alley (actress)
Sir Walter Bruce Willis (actor)
Dame Cherilyn Sarkisian (a.k.a. Cher, songstress)
Sir Robert Craig Knievel (a.k.a Evel, daredevil)
Dame Lady Jayne Seymour Fonda (actress)
Sir River Jude Phoenix (actor)
Dame Goldie Jeanne Hawn (actress)
Sir John Patrick McEnroe, Jr (tennis player)
Dame Anna Mae Bullock (a.k.a. Tina Turner, songstress)
Sir Carlos Ray Norris (a.k.a. Chuck, actor)

Anyone famous, important or influential that I have missed? Perhaps there is someone included you think shouldn"t be? It doesnt matter, the honors lists are always controversial but, by-and large, they recognize the achievements of the great and good in the land, and, therefore, I duly propose that the USA adopts the British honors system forthwith.

Thank you.

[1] http://www.pm.gov.au...
[2] http://www.gg.ca...
Kawurairee

Con

To understand why the United States of America (USA) does not require the honours (please spell it the British way if you're going to refer to a British tradition) system of the United Kingdom (UK), one must first realise the vastness of cultural inconsistency between the two nations. One is a land of European cowboys slaughtering native Americans to shreds in the name of racial dominance turning into the world's foremost melting pot of all cultures and races, it is the epitome of irony in every single way. The other is a land of Royalists that has had knights, referred to as 'sires' (yes that's spelt right and pronounced how it's spelt) and had al high class women referred to as 'madams' (stemming from the French word 'madame'). Needless to say, the terms 'sir' and 'dame' came form these and, what my opponent forgot to mention, is that there is a second level of honour that is now the same for both men and women and allows power in court decisions and law passing; the title of 'lord'. USA has a completely different legal system to the UK and the people of that nation are proud to have a very dissimilar ethos to that of the British.

America is fundamentally by the people, for the people, in every single way imaginable. They vote in a President and their soldiers, police force and all emergency services do it in the name of the President and his/her people, not in the name of someone born into automatic, divinely attributed, power. In Britain, one pledges allegiance to the Queen/King of the time and the entire nation revolves around this tradition held onto so desperately despite Britain almost entirely democratic apart from this one sentimental aspect of their culture. Thus, it is clear that to be 'knighted' by the Queen would be an honour to the British since it is a culture that clings desperately onto a far outdated tradition for the futile hope that this will somehow preserve the nation in some shape or form. If anything, the British should be getting rid of the honour's system due its lack of contextual validity in today's society rather than America beginning to adopt such an irrational system of honouring the successful.

The American dream is not to serve the Queen to death and beyond, nor even the President. It's to get the big house, the fast car and the family that love and adore you. Thus, their priorities, culturally, are not comparable what the British ones and there is no parallel to draw between the two societies to insinuate that the honour's system belongs in the USA. It does not fill an American with patriotic warmth or pride to undergo a British ceremony that is based upon terms used to regard the British knights and ladies of high class. This is, after all, the only purpose for the honour's system to her than the legal authority of lords, which my opponent must prove are required in USA's legal system.

In conclusion, there is no reason whatsoever that the honour's system should be adopted in USA and many cultural, practical and historic reasons, from the Medieval wars of Britain, why USA having it would defeat the purpose of its origin which I have proven to be Patriotism.

Relevant sources
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I would like to thank Kawurairee for accepting this challenge. I will respond briefly to the crux of his rebuttals that

At the end of the day, people are all the same all over the world. Why do people aspire to own the fast cars my opponent mentioned, for instance? Is it because they are more in a hurry than other people? I have seen plenty of Lambos, Porsches, Ferraris, Aston Martins and Maseratis in Hong Kong, for example. where there is only one or two stretches of highway and even there the speed limit s 50mph. These supercars hardly get out of third gear. The owners buy them not because they need a fast car but just to prove to other people they are successful. They are status symbols just like designer clothes, expensive jewellery and big houses in posh areas.

It is the same principle behind conferred titles. Being a Sir or a Dame says to other people that you are successful, and implies a certain social superiority.

Americans are no less aspirational than any other group of people on the planet and they are just as likely as anyone else to flaunt their success given the opportunity to do so.

An honoury title would be the ultimate status symbol for a successful American and obtaining one would be a goal in life for hard-working Americans of all social backgrounds.

Thank you.

PS. Regarding the American spelling in the first round, but this was deliberate as I know most of the readers on this site are American rather than British and I wanted to make them feel at home. I have used my native British English in the second round though!
Kawurairee

Con

Kawurairee forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 2 years ago
Seeginomikata
brian_egglestonKawuraireeTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Honorary titles are for Monarchies and monarchists. Sirs and Lords can only exist when they have a Liege or King to bow down to. America is founded on the principles of liberalism and equality. Monarchy is incompatible with Republic, and thus, America's very basic core values rule out the possibility of titles of honor. This was too easy for con.
Vote Placed by Anon_Y_Mous 2 years ago
Anon_Y_Mous
brian_egglestonKawuraireeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for forfeiture. Con loses Spelling an grammar because despite his repeated insistence on the matter, he couldn't click spellcheck to detect his typo in round one. Con's round of arguments were more compelling than Pro's.