The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

The US should introduce a system of ennoblement

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 3 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/19/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,119 times Debate No: 20489
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

Distinguished gentlemen in Britain do not go by the common-or-garden titles of Mister and Missus: rather they are addressed as Sir, Lord, Baron, Earl, Duke, Marquis, Count or Viscount and distinguished ladies are addressed by those titles' female counterparts.

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic in one of Britain's former colonies, distinguished Americans are not set apart from ordinary citizens by their titles and A-list celebrities, former politicians, captains of industry, financially-privileged socialites and other notable worthies are still called plain old Mister and Missus.

Of course, it wouldn't be appropriate given America's history to adopt the British titles – rather all-American titles such as Pioneer (-ess), Dude (-ette), Patriot (-ette), Honcho (-rita) and Gunslinger (-ess) should be used.

And rather than the Queen ennobling outstanding citizens, it would be within the President's gift to confer titles upon the nominees.

That way, at high society functions American VIP's will be introduced with the respect they are due and thus a typical guests list might read:

Pioneer Tom Cruise
Pioneeress Britney Spears
Dude Jerry Springer
Dudette Venus Williams
Patriot Rupert Murdoch
Patriotette Barbara Streisland
Gunslinger Donny Osmond
Gunslingeress Paris Hilton
Honcho Tiger Woods
Honchorita Sarah Palin

Much more befitting their elevated social status, I think you will agree, and that's why I affirm that the US should introduce a system of ennoblement.

Thank you.
imabench

Con

These are my arguments about why the US should not grant titles of nobility
1) It does not reflect the social standing of the people receiving the titles
2) It puts people unfairly ahead of other ordinary people in a society where equality of opportunity is considered holy
3) Its flat out illegal
4) Making it legal would be a costly and time consuming process in a time where other issues are far more important
5) Putting the sole power of granting these titles to the president could be wasteful
6) Wouldnt work

1) Your first idea that titles of nobility should be used in the US is that the US should not use traditional British orientated titles, but instead should use American titles such as "dudette" and "honchorita" which dont really give off any sense of "nobility". If Steve Jobs for example was given the title of "dude" then addressing him as Dude Steve Jobs doesnt evoke a sense of awe or respect, in fact it makes him sound like any other ordinary person...

2) Giving people titles of nobility immediately places those people above society, which in the US (a country founded on equal opportunity for economic success) would go completely against American values and beliefs that have been a part of this country since its founding. Ordinary people would not take it lightly if the President was favoring certain individuals above the rest of the population, especially if those individuals really havent done anything at all (Spears or Hilton). Those titles of Nobility may end up making those people targets rather than people of nobility...

3) The Constitution completely forbids the granting of titles of nobility to anyone from anyone in the government. If this system were to be put in place an Amendment to the Constitution would need to be made which would be a very long and time consuming process. The amendment would probably not pass Congress and if it does I doubt that it would get 3/4 of state approval. All that time and attention which could have been used on other important issues would then be lost and pointless
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.lexisnexis.com...

4) I kind of combined the illegality of granting titles of nobility and the time consuming process that would occur to make an amendment to the Constitution to allow this under point 3....

5) You say that only the President would be able to grant titles of nobility which means only the President could spend time and decide who gets which title of nobility, and that sounds like a large waste of time for the most powerful person in the world to be concerned with....

6) Would titles of nobility really work? We dont respect Queen Latifah just because she goes by the name Queen, the same goes for a lot of other celebrities whose aliases include titles of nobility, but people respect them for other actions not just their names,
List of people or things whose names include noble titles but are respected for other reasons
Prince
Larry King
Billy Jean King
Burger King
King Kong
Queen - The Band
Queens of the Stone Age - Band
Queen Anne's Revenge - Blackbeard's ship
Queen Mary 2 - Ship
Queens - Part of New York
Prince Fielder - Baseball player
Prince Edward Island - Island in Canada
Prince of Persia - Game

My point is that titles of nobility that are actual titles of nobility that people have are respected or honored for completely different reasons other than their names or titles. This implies that titles of nobility arent needed since Society even today has respected people who do have noble names for completely different reasons.

(sorry I took so long replying)
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I would like to thank Imabench for accepting this debate and to reply to his various objections as follows:

1) It does not reflect the social standing of the people receiving the titles

The United States has already adopted certain titles that confer respect and status on their bearers in accordance with their professional rank. Here are some examples:

Doctor Anne T. de-Mocratique
Chief Justice Brad Slobberchops
Professor Holly Korst
Lieutenant Juan-Pat E. Roole
Reverend Eamonn E. Grabber
Captain Buster Gutt
Police Commissioner Hank J. Wienersucker III
Attorney General Buck Grubscoffer
Detective Sergeant Polly Stait
Rabbi Isaac Kashkowski
Chief Justice Phil A. O'Fish
Sheriff Billy-Bob Turdkicker
Imam Thackeray C. I. O'Toller
Deputy Inspector Martin Gallonhat
Colonel Ken Tucker Fred Schicken
Mayor Plato MacEnchies

It is only a short hop from professional status to social status – and both have the design and effect to set the title-holder above the common crowd.

2) It puts people unfairly ahead of other ordinary people in a society where equality of opportunity is considered holy

The reality is that certain people already exercise considerable influence on the President: ultra-high-net-worth individuals financially support presidential election campaigns but they don't do so out of the goodness of their hearts – they do so because they want something in return, usually tax cuts for rich people like them.

However, with a system of noble patronage, the funders of election campaigns could be rewarded with a title that would make them feel special and would not mean that middle-class people have to pay more tax to make up for the shortfalls in the contributions from the mega-rich.

3) Its flat out illegal / 4) Making it legal would be a costly and time consuming process in a time where other issues are far more important

With the utmost respect, the US Constitution a bit out of date these days – it's hundreds of years old and its authors could never have foreseen the political, social and economic realities of the 21st Century. Perhaps it is time to look at making amendments to it quicker and easier?

5) Putting the sole power of granting these titles to the president could be wasteful

In Britain, the Queen may ennoble people of her own choice but more often or not people considered worthy are nominated by others and a committee decides who should and should not get what title – and a similar system could be adopted in the US.

6) Wouldn't work

My opponent is being unduly negative - of course it would work! I agree that the titles I thought up do not have sufficient gravitas and would not command the appropriate level of respect, but perhaps my opponent could think up some better ones?

Sorry to cut this short and not provide any sources but I only have a few minutes to go before the deadline is up.

Thank you.
imabench

Con

- 1 -
The US didnt adopt those titles for professional rank, those are just the names of job positions they occupy. And once those people leave those posts they dont get to keep those titles so a reverand who retires from the church wont always be addressed as reverand _______ .

- 2 -
Titles of Nobility wont eliminate lobbying in government, and the people you want to give these titles to dont lobby for government (Paris Hilton Steve Jobs, etc.). Titles of nobility dont eliminate lobbying because people dont lobby for respect, they lobby for leverage or for power.

- 3 - - 4 -
I dont think the Constitution should be changed or altered just so that Tom Cruise can have the title of "Pioneer" in the front of his name....

- 5 -
So now we should hire other people to waste time to argue and quibble over who should be considered royalty or not? thats not much better than wasting the presidents time over the matter...

- 6 -
Im not here to argue which titles should be used, im here to argue that there shouldnt be any titles of nobility in the first place.

I thank the Pro for a very short but still pleasant debate and I would like to thank the voters for reading too :)
Debate Round No. 2
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Lesterfreeman 5 years ago
Lesterfreeman
This is a funny debate, lol to the pro intro
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
:)

(comments cannot be in all capital letters)
Posted by brian_eggleston 5 years ago
brian_eggleston
Worth waiting for!
Posted by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
Its in our Constitution, we can't do this. lol
Posted by brian_eggleston 5 years ago
brian_eggleston
"Distinguished gentlemen in Britain do not go by the common-or-garden titles of Mister and Missus...."

Why didn't I proof-read this before posting? Arrgghhh!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
brian_egglestonimabenchTied
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: The Constitution only forbids the Federal government from conferring title. Kentucky conveys the title of "Colonel" --nothing at all to do with military, it's a pure honor. So maybe there was a route for Pro to win. California could confer "vacuous magnus" (VM) to idiot Hollywood personalities, per "Paris Hilton, V.M." It could work.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
brian_egglestonimabenchTied
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: Con showed why the US should not incorporate a system of ennoblement. Furthermore, Con said it was illegal. Pro's response: draft a constitutional amendment making it easier to pass constitutional amendments...which is ridiculous in this context (which Con pointed out)
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
brian_egglestonimabenchTied
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: Con showed why the US should not introduce a system of ennobelment thus cancelling out Pro's attempt to satisfy the burden of proof.