The Instigator
sofiapvoss
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
missbailey8
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

alexander hamilton was the bisexual overloard

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
missbailey8
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 530 times Debate No: 90079
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

sofiapvoss

Pro

DID YOU SEE THE LETTERS TO JOHN LAURENS COME ON my dearest, angelica more like bi dearest, john laurens
missbailey8

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
sofiapvoss

Pro

why are you against this what do you have against the good bi's of the world ARE YOU GOING TO IGNORE US JUST LIKE SOCIETY
missbailey8

Con

Thank you for the debate. I'll present my arguments.

Overlord -a ruler, especially a feudal lord. [1]

Feudal - of, relating to, or like the feudal system [2]

Feudal System - the political, military, and social system in the Middle Ages, based on the holding of lands in fief or fee and on the resulting relations between lord and vassal. [3]

So breaking down the entire statement, you're saying that Alexander Hamilton was an overlord of the Middle Ages over all bisexuals. I would say that Alexander Hamilton was a bi overlord of the Middle Ages but you used the instead of a so that's the way I interpret it.

Alexander Hamilton was active from 1789 to 1795 as the Secretary of Treasury. That's far past the Middle Ages. And the Secretary of Treasury isn't comparable to a ruler.

"The Secretary of the Treasury is a member of the Presidential cabinet. This person is the acting head of the Department of the Treasury, and deals with all financial and monetary matters directly relating to the government. The secretary is the principal economic advisor of the President and plays a major role in formulating economic policy." [4]

Let's compare that to ruler.

Ruler - a person (such as a king or queen) who rules a country, area, group, etc. [5]

Notice in parentheses king or queen. A king is much different than a Secretary of Treasury. Here's the definition.

King - a male ruler of a country who usually inherits his position and rules for life [6]

A Secretary of Treasury is nowhere near running the country anytime soon. Here's the current line of succession up to Secretary of Treasury if Barack Obama were to die or something.

The Vice President Joseph Biden
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan
President pro tempore of the Senate Patrick Leahy
Secretary of State John Kerry
Secretary of the Treasury Jacob Lew [7]

In recorded history it has never gone down that far to Secretary of Treasury being president and it certainly wouldn't happen in the time of Alexander Hamilton.

Let's say that he did become after the long line of succession. He wouldn't be able to rule over only bisexual people. And he wasn't in the Middle Ages either. And this never happened in the first place, so the whole statement is false with my reasoning.

Thanks. Peace.

P.S. I'm aware that this is a troll debate, I just like to treat them super seriously because it's fun. I look forward to your rebuttal.

Citations
[1]http://www.google.com...
[2]http://www.dictionary.com...
[3] http://www.dictionary.com...
[4]http://www.investopedia.com...
[5]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[6]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[7]http://www.infoplease.com...
Debate Round No. 2
sofiapvoss

Pro

sofiapvoss forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
RFD Part 3

Conclusion

Pro's argument was that are you going to ignore us like society. Con's arguments were that recorded history wouldn't go that far. Because Pro's arguments were off-topic unlike Con's arguments, the vote goes to Con.
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
RFD Part 2

Pro's arguments

Pro's arguments are very trolly. He says are you going to ignore us just like society.

Con's arguments

Con gives definitions first. He says that recorded history would not go that far. However, Pro forfeited, so then Con's arguments are not rebutted.
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
RFD Part 1

This was a funny troll debate which turned into a serious debate. I give Conduct and Arguments to Con.

The Burden of Proof was shared, because both sides argued. I give Conduct to Con because Pro forfeited the last round.
Posted by jordanaw 1 year ago
jordanaw
ha
Posted by sofiapvoss 1 year ago
sofiapvoss
@mangolife23 same
Posted by mangolife23 1 year ago
mangolife23
wtf
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
sofiapvossmissbailey8Tied
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: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con. Con was also the only one who made an argument, so arguments to Con by default.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
sofiapvossmissbailey8Tied
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: RFD in comments.