The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
uj0320
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

The public have a right to know if Sarah Palin's "fifth child" is actually her daughter's.

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 5 votes the winner is...
uj0320
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/2/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,283 times Debate No: 5227
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

So, extreme right-wing, ultra-conservative, Christian fundamentalist Sarah Palin's unmarried teenage daughter, Bristol, is up the duff and rumours abound on the Internet that she is also the real mother of her younger brother. (1)

If John McCain is elected President and snuffs it mid-term (not unimaginable given his advanced years), Sarah Palin will become the world's most powerful person.

As she cannot possibly reconcile her failure to bring up her daughter in accordance with her staunch pro-marriage views, we must conclude that she would make an unsuitable leader because even her own family don't respect her opinions or authority.

Possibly worse than that, however, is that she may be deceiving the electorate by pretending Bristol's first child is actually her own.

I believe the American voters have a right to know the truth and that independent DNA tests should be conducted on the boy to establish whom its real mother is.

(1) http://edition.cnn.com...
uj0320

Con

First of all, I'm not really that familiar with this topic, but I figured out some points that my opponent gave out were misleading so I accepted this challenge.

"As she cannot possibly reconcile her failure to bring up her daughter in accordance with her staunch pro-marriage views, we must conclude that she would make an unsuitable leader because even her own family don't respect her opinions or authority."

Just because her family members do not agree with her view, it doesn't mean that her own family doesn't respect her opinions or authority. Hilary Clinton often had different views from her husband, Clinton when he was running the office and often advised him with her political perception. However, it does not mean that Hilary Clinton had no respect for her husband, it's just she had different thoughts from his thoughts. Therefore, it is fallacious to conject she will become a unsuitable leader just because she can't make her family members to think the same way as she does.

"Possibly worse than that, however, is that she may be deceiving the electorate by pretending Bristol's first child is actually her own.
I believe the American voters have a right to know the truth and that independent DNA tests should be conducted on the boy to establish whom its real mother is."

The public doesn't have the right to interfere or denounce Sarah Palin just because it assumes there is a possibility she might be deceiving. It's part of her privacy and it should be protected by all means as written in Constitution. I don't see why the issue, who the real mother of the child, should be treated with great significance, when it has nothing to do with her political views or
electoral pledges.

Summary : 1. figuring out who the real mother of the boy is not really consistent with the issues of the election. 2. the public doesn't have the right to interfere with her privacy.
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

With thanks to my opponent for accepting this debate, I will admit that, like him, I am not really familiar with Sarah Palin – few people are - until recently she was an obscure politician in some godforsaken backwater – but the more I learn about her, the more aghast I am that she has been selected as McCain's running mate – she's clearly totally unsuited to hold any sort of public office at all – I mean, didn't his people vet her first?

Anyway, my opponent rightly pointed out that the Bill and Hilary Clinton had differences of opinion, to which I make the following observation:

As the Clintons are man and wife, they are equal partners in a relationship. However, Bristol Palin is still only a schoolgirl and she should, in theory, respect and obey her mother. That said, I can totally understand why she wouldn't, but more of that later.

It is interesting that my opponent chose the Clinton's as an example though. Bill Clinton's political career was ruined when it was discovered that he had an affair with an intern. This was also a totally private issue but the Republicans still tried to impeach him, because the matter called into question his integrity.

Similarly, my opponent may be correct in saying that the Palin scandal is essentially private and, legally, there is no way to force the woman to prove that the boy she claims is her son is not actually her daughter's child, but her integrity as a candidate for the Vice Presidency is a matter of real public interest and they have the moral right to know if she is telling the truth or not.

Sarah Palin could easily end the speculation through DNA testing but she refuses to. Why?

The American public would be completely justified in being suspicious about her. Firstly, because she's not a patriotic American – until quite recently she was an active member of the Alaskan Independence Party,

Secondly, she's corrupt. For example, when she was Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Sarah Palin fired a number of senior public servants, including the chief of police, for not supporting her re-election campaign. She was sued but, incredibly, the court found that she had the right to fire city employees even if their dismissals were politically motivated – so much for democracy in Alaska!

Bearing this in mind, once installed in the White House, what's to stop her selling off America's military secrets to the highest bidder, for example? Not loyalty to the country - she doesn't even want to be an American citizen - and certainly not her conscience, her track record proves she doesn't have one.

(Sources found via http://en.wikipedia.org...)
uj0320

Con

My opponent pointed out that the relationship between Bill Clinton and Hilary Clinton was different from that of Sarah and Bristol;therefore, Bristol, who's only a daughter of Sarah Palin MUST obey to her mother, and believe in the same way. And there should be a reason for her if she doesn't, and the reason should be her mother's political conceptions are distorted or just simply wrong.

Although the relationship between daughter and mother may be different from that of a wife and husband, both of the relationships are the same in a way that they both need a total respect. Just because Sarah's daughter does not believe in her mother's, Sarah's opinions, it does not mean that Sarah is not qualified for the election, but it means that she just respects her daughter's opinions and does not feel it's necessary for her to persuade her daughter to think the same things as she. Although it's just a vague assumption, but I just want to point out that my opponent can't say that Sarah is not qualified for her position because she cannot make her daughter to have the same opinions as she.

Yes, Bill Clinton's integrity was questioned when it was found that he had an affair with his intern. However, it was issued more than it was supposed to be because he was the leading figure of the U.S. and he was expected to have the perfect moral and ethical backgrounds. Sarah also as well is expected to have good moral and ethical backgrounds, however, it is her right to inform the public about her past and backgrounds.

My opponent said
"Similarly, my opponent may be correct in saying that the Palin scandal is essentially private and, legally, there is no way to force the woman to prove that the boy she claims is her son is not actually her daughter's child, but her integrity as a candidate for the Vice Presidency is a matter of real public interest and they have the moral right to know if she is telling the truth or not."

We're arguing about the legal right of people rather than the moral right. Even though I already proved my point why people don't have the right to know about Sarah's privacy either legally or morally, my opponent failed to argue why people have the "legal" right to know her privacy when it is written in the Constitution that every person's privacy should be protected by all means. By the time he accepted the point that the public doesn't have the LEGAL right to know and dig out her privacy, this argument was basically over because he agreed it is not constitutional for the public to know if Sarah Palin's fifth child is actually her daughter's, and that was the topic of this argument.

After, my opponent deviates from the topic and just tries to prove other points. And I think my job is done at this point. Ladies and gentlemen thanks for reading this argument.
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Leftymorgan 9 years ago
Leftymorgan
Lets talk truth then, we need to know Baracks dealings with Wililiam Ayers and Tony Resco? Ayers is not ashamed or has he said sorry for the bombings he committed, Resco is now headed to jail. So do you really want to go down this road?
Posted by uj0320 9 years ago
uj0320
Corrections:

Although it's just a vague assumption, but I just want to point out that my opponent can't say that Sarah is not qualified for her position because she cannot make her daughter to have the same opinions as she.

Omit this sentence please because it's grammatically misused and really not necessary.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Leftymorgan 9 years ago
Leftymorgan
brian_egglestonuj0320Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by craiglightcap 9 years ago
craiglightcap
brian_egglestonuj0320Tied
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 
Vote Placed by dmls1120 9 years ago
dmls1120
brian_egglestonuj0320Tied
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:16 
Vote Placed by aaronr8684 9 years ago
aaronr8684
brian_egglestonuj0320Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by Daredevil42 9 years ago
Daredevil42
brian_egglestonuj0320Tied
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:05