The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
13 Points

Stannis Baratheon would make a better ruler of Westeros than Daenerys Targaryen

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/16/2014 Category: TV
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,804 times Debate No: 56709
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (3)




The first round will be acceptance.
Round 2 will be opening remarks.
Rounds 3 and 4 will each be rebuttals with new arguments, and the final round will be final rebuttals with no new arguments.

Through the course of this debate you are only allowed to refer to the show version of Game of Thrones. Any reference to book events or alternative versions of the characters than the ones seen in the show can not be part of a valid argument.

The participants are to assume the present state of affairs in the kingdom is similar to the end of season 4 - threats from the north, relative political strife, rivaling parties still at odds with each other, etc.
Given this state, they are to assume that by the hand of god either Stannis or Dany (as she may henceforth be referenced) gain the throne the following morning by destroying the house of Lannister and its supporters (not in the form of any great houses!) in an arbitrary military victory, leaving the rest of the houses and their dynamics intact.
For example, in this reality house Greyjoy is still rebelling against the Iron Throne and the Boltons are still considered to be wardens of the north.
All major houses who followed the Lannister's rule (including the boltons!) are assumed to accept the new ruler's rule.

How good a ruler of Westeros is deemed to be should be established based on a few parameters:
His or her capabilities to secure financial prosperity to both the kingdom and its general population, enforce the law (as well as dictate it), promote political stability and supply the kingdom with internal as well as external security.

Arguments are expected to be heavily relying on the character's history, past behaviour, current advisers, personality traits, leadership capabilities and anything else that may reinforce the belief that one's general rule would be better than that of the other.

Pro - You are for Stannis and against Dany
Con - You are against Stannis and for Dany

I will be Pro in this debate, also it is my first debate in this site so feel free to correct my mannerism etc!
Debate Round No. 1


Firstly I would like to thank Con for accepting this debate, as I consider this one of the more pressing issues in need of resolution in modern pop-culture.

Stannis, younger brother of Robert Baratheon, is shown throughout the series to be a strong and pragmatic leader. Spending a good portion of his days as lord of Dragonstone, he has an unquestioned experience in governance, a fact which should reflect greatly on his ability to rule the seven kingdoms as the one true king.

Thus, I advocate that Stannis Baratheon would make a better ruler than Dany in all aforementioned ruling parameters.

I will spend this round of the debate in going through the parameters and explaining how Stannis would do well in each and every one of them. As to why Dany would do worse than him, this I reserve to a later stage of the debate.

A) Financial Prosperity - It is shown that during the war of the usurper (the civil war in which Robert Baratheon ascended to the throne), Dragonstone, under Stannis, was besieged. This siege was a test of merit, in which Stannis had to manage siege economy - ration food supplies and keep moral high.
He must have been good at it, since it is explained he lasted very long during that siege. Thus we are able to tell that Stannis either understands economics well enough to avoid starvation in a time of dire crisis, or is humble enough to listen to professional advisers in regards to rationing resources.
His experiences also indicate that he will not see to manners of finance and economics lightly, as to avoid similar results in a grander scale.
It is a given that thriving in a time of crisis is not the same as thriving in a time of peace, yet this still serves as a good indicator that Stannis will be capable of managing a healthy economy as a ruler, as he did in Dragonstone during both times of peace and war.

B) Enforcement and Dictation of the Law - In this regard no one can deny that Stannis is a supreme believer in the upholding of the law. Such is his original claim to the Iron Throne - justified by law, and law alone. His will to uphold the rule of law is greatly revealed when facing his traitor brother who had a superior army, even then he would not sacrifice rule of law in the face of oblivion. Stannis only claims the Iron Throne because it is his right by law to rule, and it is suggested that he wishes to rule not for the sake of ruling, but because it his is duty.
His sense of justice is also very evolved by Westrosi standards. Davos, his closest friend and adviser, was a smuggler, who helped feed the starving population during the siege of Dragonstone. Stannis pardoned him for his days as a smuggler instead of executing him, only chopping off the tip of his fingers as a reminder of his past crimes. For his help during the siege Stannis then knighted Davos and made him a trusted counselor. This would seem fair even by modern earth dweller standards, and suggests that on top of his strict belief in rule of law, Stannis' sense of justice would also guide him to make new laws which would in turn benefit his citizens, and allow for a stable rule.

C) Political Stability - While unverifiable by the material shown in the series, Stannis seems impartial. which is a positive trait to have when you try to rule seven different factions in conjunction - if you unjustly favor one of the factions during any arbitration, the other may resent it. If your judgement when dealing with them is generally fair, they should not develop feelings of resentment and thus may not be inclined to revolt. He has a spiritual adviser (Mellisendre) who seems to be following a true god (in the sense that it exists and actually performs miracles) and who could hence deal with the clergy class of the realm. To top that, he also has a pragmatic adviser/hand of the king in the form of Davos, who has been shown time and time again to be capable of doing anything from commanding legions to dealing with finances and is also a good runner up for the most morally sound character in the entire Game of Thrones universe.

D) Security - Stannis is a well established military commander, as is implied by the attitude of other characters towards him, and explicitly demonstrated in his managing of a siege during the war of the usurper , and most recently crushing an army of 100,000 wildlings in the north. Internal security would be a non-issue to him as it would be a consequence of the financial prosperity, political stability and most notably, his uncompromising attitude towards the rule of law.

In short, Stannis is an overall strong leader, shown to put his people first - during the civil war, in which he ate vile things and not preserve the good food rations to himself, and again when coming to defend the kingdom from a wildling invasion in the north. His pragmatism, mannerism, good counsel and sense of justice deem him a leader not only worthy to rule Westeros, but worthy to rule, period.

I am anxious to hear the arguments that support Dany's rule as better than that of Stannis as well as rebuttals to the facts I have provided here.

Stannis admitting to eating vile things during the siege:

Stannis and Davos in a description of Stannis' claim to the throne and why he would be a good ruler (as well as a showing of Davos' finger tips):


I would like to thank my adversary for a fun debate. Sadly this is not off the book but just the TV so I will debate as such

I will offer rebuttals in later rounds, but first reasons why Daenerys would make a better queen.

I would first like to start with what makes a good king or queen. See the youtube video at the top when Tywin is talking to Tommen about what makes a good king. He says this

Tywin starts by asking Tommen what makes a good king. He responds with holiness, just, and strength. Tywin corrects him on why each of these is wrong, and Tommen finally responds with wisdom where Tywin agrees and says that wisdom is the key to being a good king. This is a hint that wisdom will bring in all the other traits as well [5]

C1) Ability to learn fast

This is where she excels at. From the start of season 1 she has grew into a great rule and leader. She started the show as someone who had no confidence or ability to rule. Between the Start of season 1 and where the show currently ended we are looking at nearly a 2 year gap[1]. So she has had nearly 2 years to develop and become who she is. We first have to look at how she became this way. She was promised to Khal Drogo leader of the Dothraki tribe. The Dothraki are all about male dominance and follow their leader by a trial of combat[2]. Daenerys was promised to Drogo against her will and at first was not very pleased, but as time progressed she learned her fate. Even agreeing to sex on wedding their night, and eventually falling in love with Drogo.

s://; alt="" />

This is also evident by the tears she shed when drogo finally passed, and how far she went to bring him back. She tried to bring him back to life from the dead because she loved him so much. Before Drogo died I would also like to show how much respect she had gained in the Dothraki. She was not liked by all but by a great many. Even after Drogo died she became khaleesi and the first female woman to rule the Dothraki. Even after drogos death a great many Dothraki chose to follow her, while some others left and went back to their own ways. This shows how much persuasion she has a leader, and how she developed. Over the year she was with Drogo she grew from being scared and weak to someone who could command the Dothraki. This is even more evident after her dragons are born

C2) Mental Fortitude

In addition to being raped by Drogo, she also is treated with a lack of respect throughout the first series but that quickly changes. Throughout the second and third books, she catches her stride. She was granted 3 dragon eggs and started to take care of her dragons after they hatched. If we fast forward to her slavers conquest, we can see how much mental fortitude she has. Her first stop was in Astapor, where she bought the unsullied. Immediately after buying them she had her dragons kill the slave leaders, and granted the unsullied freedom.

They still chose to follow her out of their own free will. This does now just show how capable she is at getting people to follow her, but how her mental fortitude is strong in certain situations[3]. After this we visit Meereen[4], it is here where she kills all the slavers and sets the slaves free. Still adding to her army. On her way to Meereen she found slave children nailed to crosses and other objects on the way to the city. In response to this, she had everyone who participated in this act in turn killed and nailed in the same manner.

She possess a fair but strong temper, and makes the right choices most of the time. She has had to make some tough calls but her fortitude and what she has been through allows her make the right ones.

C3) Ability to gain followers

As I stated prior to this, she started out with no one and just within the span of 2 years she has collected an army that could challenge the army of kings landing. She has gained

(1) The Dothraki
(2) Jorah Mormont
(3) The Unsullied (this includes the skill of greyworm)
(4) An army of slaves
(5) Missandei
(6) Barristan Selmy
(7) Daario Naharis
(8) The second sons
(9) dragons

This just keeps growing as the story progresses. Even when she dismissed Jorah for a past deep, he was deeply committed to her and did not want to leave. She has the ability to gain followers and loyalty.

daenerys and army - daenerys-targaryen Photo

C4) Ability to Rule

She has been able to keep a group of people who hate her in Meereen under control with just minor rebellions that are promptly crushed by the unsullied. This is a group of people including slavers and leaders that hate her and want her gone from the city so they can go back to slaving, yet she is able to rule them with a iron fist. Think what would happen if she would rule a group of people that loved her. Most of Westeros was just subject to Geoffrey who was the worst possible king ever

Take this quote from Tyrion

Tyrion: "We've had vicious kings, and we've had idiot kings...but I don't know if we've ever been cursed with a vicious idiot for a king!"[6]

In addition to this the North is in shatters from house bolton becoming the warden and leading a conquest to gain control of it. The conquest by Rob Start was cut short with the death of his mother and himself. Basically the people of Westeros are confused and looking for a strong leader, that can lead. The best suited person for that Job is Daenerys. The people would cling to her because of her ideas and mindset of freedom. There would be no slaves, and she would rule with justice for those who offered her respect and loyalty. She is a stern, wise, and vicious leader. That is something that cannot be said for Stannas.

C5) Tyrion

I am not allowed to mention the book, but tyrion is currently in a boat going far away from Westeros because he has just murdered Tywin and King's Landing is in a uproar. This is foreshadowing the fact he is about to meet Daenerys. In addition tot his Tyrion now has a hatred for kings landing and all those in it other than his brother and a few others. He is more likely to join Daenerys and help her out. This is a key factor as well. Tyrion is not just smart, he is one of the 2 smartest characters in the series. It is a toss up between him and Peter Baelish.

C6) Strength of her army

She has the sheer numbers to challenge kings landing. With thousands upon thousands of unsullied, and thousands upon thousands of free slaves fighting for her. She has the ability to take and defeat any army in westeros. This is not even the pinnacle of her power. She continues to gain more and more power as she waits. Not to mention she has 3 dragons that are approaching adult age and that could tilt the battle in her favor at any given point.


In terms of Wisdom, sheer strength of her army, her ability to rule, and the people that choose to follow her. Daenerys would make a better queen than stannis would make a king.

Debate Round No. 2


I will fully devote this round for a repudiation of Con's arguments.

Tywin's Wisdom Criterion
While the quality of wisdom is non debatable when it comes to making a good ruler, I find it controversial that Con chose the character of Tywin Lannister to act as a compass of good rulership. Tywin puts his house and family above the good of the commonwealth, and is full of moral inconsistencies.
I should note that I do not view wisdom alone as enough to make a good ruler, wise men may be wicked and self centered, as Tywin himself exemplifies.
Thus, while I agree that wisdom is a desirable trait, I dispute the fact that it is sufficient, and challenge Con to prove the converse.

Most of the traits Con associated with Dany are good and desirable for ruling a large kingdom, but he failed to directly address nearly all of the key parameters set at the dawning of this debate.

On to my rebuttals:

1. Ability to learn fast
I do not intend to disassociate this quality of character from Dany, but I will contend for two things:

A) The ability to learn fast is not as vital as marketed by Con - It certainly helps, in that it may amplify the ability to properly manage a sovereignty. However, it is too general a trait to hold its own foothold in this debate. A swordsman, a blacksmith, a cook, all have something to gain from being fast learners - but this quality alone is not enough to ensure any of them would make good kings or queens. Con may as well choose to point at her physique as a good leader quality, while it helps, it's simply not enough to be considered a serious, solid argument.
B) Since Con chose to bring it up as a pivot of comparison, I shall demonstrate why Stannis is no less capable of adapting to new situations and learning from past experiences.
- He was both willing and able to trade the religion of his forefathers with a foreign religion, despite massive opposition. He did so because it was evident to him, and to us as viewers, that this particular god actually does exist, and is extremely potent. So to secure and fortify his hold of the Dragonstone and his claim to the throne he has proven to be dynamic enough to change his entire base of faith - a feat Dany did not even come close to throughout the course of the series.
- The fact that his counselors represent very different systems of moralities and principles turns nearly any decision he makes into a real debate. No decision he takes throughout the show comes easy - from assassinating his brother, to using the blood of (and possibly sacrificing) Gendry, pleading to the support of the royal bank and ultimately sailing to the north. All of his convictions are based around not repeating past mistakes, and mediating between an entire array of thought processes.
And thus, his ability to make tough decisions in face of contrasting opinions with substantial resolve makes a solid point towards his ability to constantly learn and adapt.

2. Mental Fortitude
I won't argue against Dany possessing some degree of mental fortitude, but much of what was said in (A) above may be reiterated in this case.

As to Con's bottom line on this issue:

"She possess a fair but strong temper, and makes the right choices most of the time. She has had to make some tough calls but her fortitude and what she has been through allows her make the right ones. "

This is far from accurate. Among many examples, a prominent one would be the death of Khal Drogo. Her insistence of placing him in the care of the very same people who's lives he ruined was the reason for his ultimate demise. Dany chose to put Drogo at the mercy of a witch who had every reason and justification to cause him harm. This is not a case of common naivety, but outright stupidity. It does not take experience to know not to let the fox guard the henhouse, merely common sense.

Her just temper or right decision-making is a fallacy. Upon the conquest of Mereen, she insisted on brutally killing all former slavers. In this process she shattered the city's economy, inflicted retrospective justice on a society which knew no better, giving no time to adjust. Pragmatically this also made the entire city harder to manage, the ruling class was mostly crucified. Even after the emancipation proclamation I find it highly doubtful that there is a strong case to be made in favor of executing all former slavers in the south.

3. Followers - I feel like there are only two groups of followers worth addressing:
Most of the Dothraki left her after the death of Khal Drogo, with only the weakest remaining.
Regarding the Unsullied - They were conditioned to be fighting machines, and given no alternative path, freeing and then asking them to fight for her is an emotional blackmail and mainly served her own conscience, since de-facto it is as if she never freed them at all.
Daario will be addressed later.

4. Ability to Rule - Mereen is a weak testing point for her potential - Mereen is under Martial Law, Dany killed most of her opposition, and it is a minor city compared to the seven kingdoms. Also, there is little reason to believe the people of Westeros would love her. Her father was the mad king, and a lot of citizens still remember the horrors of his reign.
Finally, regarding her mindset of freedom - Slavery is already abolished in Westeros, which is why Jorah Mormont had to spy on Dany in the first place, so that's a non-issue.

5. Tyrion's Support - Based on the show we can't possibly predict where he is headed, who he will encounter, or whether or not he will join Dany. There are too many uncertainties to take this point seriously.

6. Strength of her Army - The issue of whether Dany's army could challenge kings landing is irrelevant, as we are meant to assume in the context of this debate that Stannis/Dany already have control of the kingdom.
If Con were to claim that Dany's army would make a good addition for the defense of the realm, then I have a few questions for him:

A) Who is going to feed thousands of unsullied, who know only war, during times of peace? Unlike most of the armies in Westeros, the unsullied are not rallied peasants or minor lords who can go back home after the war, work the land and feed themselves, and keeping this huge garrison would undoubtedly harm the economy. Who will provide them with lands? Who is to say that during times of peace they will not decide to immigrate elsewhere, or that they no longer wish to fight? Dany admitted to granting them this choice, and since they are not bound to Westeros by land, they are not bound to Westeros at all.

B) Her three dragons at the moment are untamed, as evident from last episode. She can not rely on them to fully obey during combat. They may wander off as Drogon did, or randomly eat Westrosi citizens. Overall keeping three dragons around seems to do more damage than good, and that is without even considering times of relative peace.

A citizen of Mereen laments his son, burnt by Drogon [3:30]

C) Daario Naharis, one of Dany's most prominent military commanders' loyalty is questioned, unlike Stannis who enjoys the full support and loyalty of his men, and commands them himself, there is very little guarantee that Dany's current military sects won't instigate internal strife (or even civil war), or simply withdraw from her service.

- Daario's loyalty questioned by Jorah Mormont [00:45]

"Daario Naharis killed his captains & dumped their heads at your feet when he grew tired of their commands." - Jorah Mormont

In summary for this part of the debate - Con has attempted to support relatively weak standards of rulership for Dany, which may indicate there are no real supporting arguments to be made on the real issues which are up for debate. I also exposed a good deal of inaccuracies and fallacies in the arguments Con presented.


My adversary agrees that Tywins speech about what makes a good king/queen is accurate, but he says I fail to address the key parameters in R1. I entirely disagree. I have shown how daenerys is efficient at enforcing the law, how she has political stability due to her ability to enforce it. The army size would tie in with her ability to enforce and financial prosperity. I have addressed and stated all of the key contentions

There are other issues that we need to look at as well. My adversary even states this about character behavior. Stannis is not a bad person but he is easily lead along by people that secretly behind him. He lacks the capability to be a good leader by himself which is his downfall, while Daenerys has twice his mental fortitude and can rule by herself easily. I will address this as we move along.

I will briefly address some points on Stannis then go into rebuilding my contentions.

Rebuttals on Stannis

R1) Ability to rule in general

Let's review this point into detail. Stannis is a very weak leader in general. Stannis relies on and I do mean strictly relies on people behind him to address problems that he encounters. Take for example Melisandre, he follows her blindly even in spite of the fact that she admitted most of her stuff was trickery [1] .

" Months later, Queen Selyse speaks to Melisandre, who is enjoying a bath. She quips that the Lord of Light told her to enjoy it as it was the last time she would have a good bath, but the joke goes over Selyse's head. Cementing her position as Melisandre's most devoted follower, the Red Priestess tells Selyse about her use of potions and illusions in serving the Lord of Light, the idea being that a bit of pageantry and deception in helping converts see the truth will be forgiven later on" [1]

In addition to this the one time she actually used dark magic was in response to Stannis's brother Renly. Renly visits Stannis in order to confront him about unrest in the kingdom

" Stannis meets Renly on the coast of the Stormlands to parley. Stannis is accompanied by Melisandre, Davos and several guards. Renly brings Catelyn, Brienne and Loras along with his own guards. Stannis remarks on Catelyn’s presence and she says that she had not expected to be there. Renly wonders if it is really Stannis and feigns confusion over his banner[2]"

Renly even states that

" Renly says that no-one wants Stannis for their king and that he is opposed from Dorne to the Wall. Renly says that Stannis never wanted friends but that a man without friends is a man without power [2]"

As you can see throughout this entire conversation, no one trusts Stannis is his kingdom nor does anyone want him to rule, the only time he gained a sliver of control is when Melisandra comes into the picture. She convinces stannis to follow the lord of the light and rules from behind him, convincing him to kill people that oppose the lord of the light[3]. In addition to this she commands Stannis to burn the 7, which is the people that followed him prior to this worshiped which made a severe atmosphere of distrust for Stannis because he abandoned they Gods they worshiped. It came to the point where Sir Davos had to free Gendry before he was killed, which in turn led to the imprisonment of Davos which was the one person that was loyal to stannis[4]

To recap Stannis is easy manipulated and without the presence of someone to guide him he is a very weak leader and rules poorly. This is evident by Remlys analysis of how his kingdom was in tatters and that no one wanted him to rule. This was so true that Melsandra committed dark magic to kill Remly so people did not flock to him and so they would stay loyal to Stannis. He is a very weak minded individual that is easily controlled.

R2) Ability to gain wealth

Again with out anyone helping him, this is false. We can clearly see the shape his kingdom was in prior to the lady of light offering her help. People did not trust him, they were poor, and they were ready to follow Renly. Even his bad decision to attack kings landing which was foiled by Tyrion left him without money or warriors. He could not even solve this. This was fixed by sir davos when he went to the bank of bravos[5]. They declined Stannis and only reconisderd because of how Davos addressed them. Which if anything proves Davos is a better leader than Stannis. Stannis was on the verge of having nothing, nor army ,no food, no ability to rule. The decision Davos made and how he addressed the council of the bank of Bravos helped them gather funds

Which affirms that Stannis relies on people to rule properly.

R3) Political Stability

My adversary claims this is not verifiable based on the material in the series. I disagree. I send you back to Renlys remark and how the lady of light had him murdered so that people did not forsake Stannis. He cannot maintain political stability on his own, and the only stability he has is through the efforts of others like Davos and Melisandra.

R4) A strong military leader

Again this is false. This would tie into the fact about being a good leader. To be a good commander you have to have the trust of the people you lead. As shown by the willingness of his people to forsake him and follow his brother, he is not a strong commander. One has to be able to lead to command. I direct you back to Renlys quote once again.

" Renly says that no-one wants Stannis for their king and that he is opposed from Dorne to the Wall. Renly says that Stannis never wanted friends but that a man without friends is a man without power [2]"

Tie this in with the fact about the distrust and lack of loyalty under his banner and you have someone that is not fit to rule Westeros.


I'm actually running out of characters so I will address my adversaries counter rebuttals to my contentions about danny in the next round. I will say she possess qualities that make her a great leader that stannis will never posses.

She has control over her army, she is stern and just, she has they loyalty of those who follow her, she is fair, and she has respect. She relies on herself and only herself to lead. She makes the calls. She takes advice from others but is not manipulated. You see her response to her Jorahs disloyalty. She dismisses him and sends him away with a promise of death upon returning. She leads by her own will

This is what is absent from Stannis. He is not capable or ruling without someone behind him. If the person controlling him or helping him were ever removed from power, he wold be helpless and not worth anything. It would go back to the same situation in his kingdom prior to the lady of lights visit.

Debate Round No. 3


Con claims I agreed Tywin's speech was accurate - well, I appeal against the fair mindedness and intelligence of the audience. Did I in fact agree? I agreed that wisdom is a desirable trait, not that it is the most pivotal one. Tywin in his speech implied that it is the prominent trait to desire, and Con backed that idea up, suggesting the speech hints to wisdom being the root of the other traits. I invested a paragraph to discredit Tywin as a reliable expert on such matters, and stressed the point that it is not a sufficient quality, or the root of the other desired qualities.
I have asked Con to prove wisdom is sufficient to make a good ruler, he failed to do so.
I repeat that Tywin himself is an example of a wise person who is not known to be just or fair, and puts the well being of his close circle above that of the kingdom.
Claiming that wisdom is sufficient is equivalent to supporting the case that Tywin would be a good ruler of Westeros.

Since I feel my case stands strong I will allocate the rest of this round to provide rebuttals for Con's rebuttals.

Ability to Rule
- Con claims Stannis is a weak leader in general because he relies on the guidance of other people when making crucial decisions. I claim that a ruler should not be considered weak for hearing the advice of his counselors, as they are not kept by his side for mere aesthetics.
Stannis is the one making the final decisions upon considering all of the advice given to him, and he is the one who faces the consequences, and takes responsibility for his actions - these are leader qualities.
Would Con prefer a leader who ignores all counsel and advice over one who listens and debates?
As a final note on this regard, I wish to draw attention at the inner contradiction of Con's claim. Dany has advisers, and she takes their counseling just as often if not more often than Stannis. Sometimes when she fails to listen to them the consequences are dire - as was the case of the death of Khal Drogo, which I addressed in round 3, or when marrying Xaro Xhoan Daxos, which nearly resulted in the loss of her freedom and her dragons. In both cases she chose not to listen to the warnings of her adviser Sir Jorah Mormont.

It is true that Melisandre admits to using cheap tricks on occasion, when authentic miracles are not required, yet this does not contradict the fact she possesses true powers. Consider her birthing a smokey assassin, or drinking poisoned wine without being harmed:

If Con is arguing against Melisandre's abilities or the existence of the god she represents, the work is cut out for him.
Stannis recognizes her and her religion's power, and justly listens when she speaks, and it served him greatly over the course of the show.

On Renly Baratheon:
Renly was unjustly given lordship of Storm's End by Robert despite not lifting a finger in its defense, and despite being younger than Stannis. It was not within Stannis' control to prevent this from happening, as Robert was his king, and bore him no love.
By law, Stannis was next in line for the throne, and Con should not slight him for his younger brother's power greed.
This is the true source of Renly's political power and the division of the factions in the Baratheon camp, not Stannis' poor performance as a leader.
Quoting Renly as a reliable testament for Stannis' abilities or level of support is as relevant as quoting Stalin when trying to bash Capitalism and personal property. Renly is not a reliable character witness, and has a clear interest to chastise Stannis and dishearten him during that conversation. At the time of the conversation Con quoted there were 5 contenders for the throne, and there was a huge dispersion of loyalty, Renly's words serve to belittle his brother for his own political benefit, and their factual basis is shaky at best.
What we know for sure is that Renly's banner men flocked back to Stannis as soon as he was assassinated. Why? If his leadership qualities were so badly viewed in the Kingdom, and no one wanted him for king, why did the banner men not desert to the Tyrells, Martells or the Lannisters? It seems they only followed Renly as the lord of Storm's End, and not due to their doubts of Stannis' skills and qualities. This fact casts a big shadow of doubt over Renly's words.

I feel like I successfully demonstrated that Stannis respects the advice of others, which is an important leadership trait. He is also confident in his decisions and abilities, and does not shun responsibility. Finally, he was able to unite the Stormlands in the face of a civil war instigated by his brother.

Wealth - Con keeps retracting to the point of Stannis being hopeless without his supporters. A king is only a king if his subjects deem him so, and there is no error in that.
We can not see in the show, nor is it implied, that the shape of his kingdom prior to the lady of light's arrival was bad, and I appeal for this claim to be retracted.

Since the subject surfaces again under this headline, I want to emphasize and repeat that people followed Renly because Renly was given lordship of Storm's End. They fought for Renly not because of Stannis' poor management skills, but in spite of his good governance of Dragonstone (not Storm's End!).

Regarding Blackwater - The decision to attack Kings Landing was not a bad decision, the battle of Blackwater Bay was lost due to unforseen circumstances in the form of the Lannister-Tyrell alliance. It is made clear in the show that without that last minute intervention, Stannis would have breached the city and taken the throne.

Lastly on this matter, can Con honestly judge Stannis when one of his subjects speaks of his high qualities? Did Con expect Stannis to brag when trying to convince the bank to fund him? Using a third party to convince the bank of his merits was the better route to take. Would Con be incline to believe someone who speaks highly of himself more than the one who speaks highly of his friend?
There is nothing wrong with delegating certain duties and tasks. Davos is great at public relations and fundraising.
When required, Stannis knows to pull the strings and call the shots, but he has enough confidence and humility to enlist the skills of others when he needs them.

Political Stability - I claimed that Stannis' impartiality is not explicitly verifiable from the show material, but that it is implied on numerous occasions via his strong sense of justice and unrelenting adherence of the law. My claim holds.
I have to note that this was but a small fraction of my argument for Stannis' ability to achieve political stability, and the rest was not fully addressed.
To address Renly's assasination - Stannis ordered to assasinate his usurping brother precisely to achieve stability in the Stormlands, and succeeded in doing so.
Con's complaints regarding Stannis not slitting Renly's throat himself are ridiculous - a king is expected to make use of his minions, why expect Stannis not to make use of his supporters?
I find it ironic that Con, who supports Dany, criticizes this specific nature of leadership. Dany is not the direct commander of her army, and she always sends others to fight for her - consider the battle between Daario and the champion of Mereen.

Military Leadership - I have already tackled the fallacy of using Renly's testaments in this debate, and explained why the Stormlands were divided. There is no evidence in the show to support disloyalty within Stannis' ranks upon dealing with Renly. If Con claims otherwise, the burden of proof is on him.

To conclude, the arguments Con provided in Round 2 were poorly linked to the specified parameters set at the beginning of the debate. If we pretend the links were provided, then note I have discredited those arguments in Round 3. Lastly, I have successfully rebuked all of his rebuttals, and expanded on Stannis' own good merits.


I am going to briefly touch on some of the points con tried to refute then go into counter building my points about Danny. Although I would like to make a brief point on Tywins speech about what makes a good king.

My adversary makes a huge fallacy in assuming that being just in his mind equates to being a good ruler. He states that wise people can be evil thus making them bad rules. He even states that Tywin would be a bad ruler (this is entirely false, Tywin is by far the most sufficient person to the rule the kingdom for obvious reasons). For him to validate this poitn he would have to show that one cannot be evil and a good leader. I make the petition that an evil person could be a very good leader, as we can see in Tywin. Wisdom applies across the board and stand, because with wisdom comes my adversaries sub points of what make a good ruler.

Military strength
potential to lead
ability to maintain wealth

etc and so forth, wisdom is at the heart of this because without wisdom one would not be fit to rule as Tywin shows in his speech.

R1) On Stanis's leadership and military capability.

There are a lot of issues my adversary brings up in regards to this, which are false. He first states that Danny has advisers to, and is more likely to take their advice than Stanis. This is in response to my point that Stannis is often used and lacks the capability to rule by himself. I showed by his inability to effectively speak for himself in the bank of Bravos and his blind following to Melsandra which in turn led him to burning the 7 and almost killing some of his loyal followers at Melisandras wish. The issue with this is that Danny does take council, but she decides for herself. When Jorah betrayed her, she discarded him. He had advised her many times not to take cities, or do certain actions and she literally almost stated. I thank you for the advice but the final decision is my call. Meaning she weighed the voices of her counselors but she was her own persona and made her own calls unlike stannis.

While Danny often does take council advice from her counselors, she does not adhere to stupid advice from them. Note when Melsandra has Stannis almost kill one of his loyal followers and threatens anyone who does no follow the lord of light[1].

In addition to this he took Melsidanres advice on blackwater bay as I stated early. He was advised multiple times against this by davos and was a poor decision that he was baited into by following Melisandre. This cost him nearly his entire army and left him broke and without the ability to defend himself.

He follows people blindly, and does not think before he acts. He lacks the ability to think by himself and trusts people without considering the choices he makes.

A) Renley and Stannis inability to lead

I refer you to youtube. [2]

Renely came to address him as I stated early and was quick to claim that people under his banner did not trust him and were no loyal. My adversary says we can not take Renlys words at face value and that is true. The issue is his words were true enough to have him murdered before he could try to overthrow Stannis (this was due to the fact he was right). Melsandre used black magic to kill him in his sleep before he could try and overtake Stannis. This gives extreme credibility to his statements about Stannis and his followers not liking him. He was murdered because of this.

Renly hits the nail on the head. He chose to have no friends and that is a weak man.

Now Back to Daenyrs and why she would make a leader

C1) Ability to learn

This is a false statement by pro. The ability to learn to lead is a rare trait. Not everyone is cut out for it. Danny in the span of two years has massed an army greater than Stannis, has more loyalty, and is able to lead with and make her own decisions. This is something that it took Stannis a lifetime to do and that he still does not do effectively. In 2 years she has became a better leader than him.

The question is who would make a better leader of Westeros. That is the resolution ,so we are reviewing their current ability to rule and their future ability to rule. Danny with her ability to learn and adhere to advisers advice without faltering from her own choices makes her a great leader and gives her a gift that Stannis will never have.

C2) Mental Fortitude

My adversary bases his response on this from the Khal Drogo incident and how she responded to it. My adversary commits a fallacy here due to the time spam. Currently we are 2 years past that incident. The danny then is no the same danny now. It is because of Drogos death that she is the leader she is. This is when she had no army, no ability to lead, and had never lead. After this incident is actually when she first started to lead and take control of herself

My adversary is basically saying she is not fit to lead because of an incident before she was put into a position to lead makes her a bad leader. We can discard this argument.

He also misunderstands what she did with the slavers in Meereen. She killed the slavers who opposed her rule and that committed horrible acts to slave children. This did not shatter the economy, my adversary will not find a source for this and it is a false assertion. She set people in charge of the slaves and let them be free while assigning the unsullied to take care of the city and maintain order. Actually later on a slaver approached her and asked her to go back to her master, where she set up a year contract for slaves that actually wanted to be slaves. This again shows her ability to compromise and make rational decision. [3] ( you can view the transcript and slave conversation in the last few episodes. This is where she sets up the contract)

His points fall flat.

C3) Followers

Actually some still follow her, although it is not evident in the show but they follow her. Just stating that she does not have them is false, the show just does not focus on them and chooses to stay with the unsullied and other parts more. She still had hundreds of them that followed her after Drogos death and that stuck with her

He then says this

" Regarding the Unsullied - They were conditioned to be fighting machines, and given no alternative path, freeing and then asking them to fight for her is an emotional blackmail and mainly served her own conscience"

This is false. They did have the path to chose, she offered them freedom. She told them to make their own choice and they *chose* to fight for her. She gave them the ability to do what ever they wanted or to fight for who they wanted. They chose her because she freed them.

C4) Ability to rule

She is ruling meereen. Whether or not he thinks it is a weak starting point is a non sequitur. She has established wealth, compensates people that he dragons harm (greatly), got control of trade in the city, and keeps justice with the unsullied. This is not even considering the fact that people are drawn to her and she can rule in general. All the way from Drogo to currently people have took up arms for her and chose to follow her because of her ability to rule. Stannis does not have anything near this.

C5) Strength of army

My adversary says that her ability to challenge kinds landing is irrelevant I disagree. She possess the ability to take kings landing, and this includes feeding more people in to follow her. Her ability to rule from there would be unquestionable. She would have the most powerful army in westeros in general and be able to lead with strength and wisdom. Military prowess is a key point in leading. It helps her maintain and gain wealth along with maintaining justice.


Danny has a draw to type personality. She draws people to her and they love to follow her. She has a powerful army, has high intelligence and possess the ability to rule with a iron first. She is well suited to be queen

Debate Round No. 4


Con argues I made a fallacy by claiming that being just equates to being a good ruler.
I challenge Con, as well as the audience, to refer to the part in which I made this statement.
I did not expect to have to repeat this point but since Con insists on attacking a straw man I will resurface the gist of it one last time:

Wisdom may be a desirable and even necessary quality for good rulership, but it is not a sufficient one.

I gave Tywin as an example of a person who's wisdom is as clear as his malevolence and sense of self-preservation.
If Con wishes to speculate upon the case for Tywin's good rulership, I dare not stop him ("For obvious reasons" is not a strong argument though).
However this insistence only emphasizes Con's basic failure to grasp a known truth, that wisdom may be used for more than just one end.

Final Rebuttals:

1. Stannis' leadership
Con repeats the arguments he made last round with a few minor additions, To avoid redundancy I will only address new claims he made:
- Con claims Melisandre almost got Stannis to kill some of his loyal followers. This is simply not true. I challenge Con to bring forth the evidence for his claim. What actually happened was the exact opposite - Melisandre advised Stannis against killing Davos, an advice he gladly took, as he was rightfully conflicted by the verdict. The reference material Con used for this claim is prohibited as it's not featured in the show.
- Con claims Dany takes the council but decides for herself. By what criterion can he make this claim about Dany, that would not hold true for Stannis? As I've already mentioned, Stannis listens to his advisers, but the ultimate decisions are his. The fact that he accepts their counsel does not render him weak, as I have already stated and elaborated on previously.
- I have already addressed Blackwater Bay, and repeat - according to the knowledge Stannis had at the time, he was going to conquer King's Landing that night. Con attempts to establish a false causality between bad advice and unforeseen circumstances.
As no new information was supplied, and the rest of Con's arguments have been dismantled in previous rounds, my point stands.

2. Mental Fortitude
I chose the example of Khal Drogo specifically because it was a sublime case of lack of common sense in Dany, disregarding inexperience. Who in his right mind would trust his loved one to the care of his greatest enemies? The answer is Dany. I took the time to write this regarding the Drogo incident:

" It does not take experience to know not to let the fox guard the henhouse, merely common sense."

This example has not been addressed from the proper angle, as the time in which it took place is irrelevant.
It remains a valid demonstration of the faults I aimed to expose in Dany.
In round 3 I linked to a video in which Dany crucifies all masters brought before her upon conquering the city of Mereen. This contradicts Con's claims that she only killed the slavers who opposed her rule. She did not discriminate. She did not even bother to filter out the ones truly responsible for the crucifixion of children, as evident from the video.
Regarding my claim that killing the slavers shattered the economy - I will elaborate for the satisfaction of Con.
I have made the assumption based on logical deductions. Mereen is referred to throughout the show as a slave city, which means its economy is ran by slaves and the slave trade.
Killing the slavers effectively means uprooting the management class of the city and now I ask you - Where in known history or written lore, has there ever been an instance in which the slaughter of the management class of a city, and a sharp violent change to the inner workings of its economy, not resulted in economic turmoil? It is merely logical to assume the economy of the city was badly hurt. It is true that there are no explicit evidence from the contents of the show, but I have now established the logical bridges which allowed me to reach this conclusion. The same can not be said about most of Con's arguments.

Con claims that it is not evident in the show but hundreds of Dothraki still follow Dany.
To settle this matter I have added the video of the scene in which Dany arrives at Qarth with her "Dothraki Horde". You can see her party at the time in its entirety in that scene. I could almost count them all with my two hands, and almost all of them seem weak and helpless, as I previously claimed.
Con's claim that hundreds of Dothraki followed her after Drogo's death is not only unfounded, it has just been completely rebuked. This is the case of a completely false assertion.
Note that we see the party in its entirely enter the city at that point, so no serious claim of other Dothraki followers straying behind can be made.

In his latest claim that Dany "frees" the Unsullied Con neglects to address the issue I brought forth - the Unsullied know nothing but war and servitude, and thus the amount of choice they truly had on the matter is dubious at best. They had no where to go, no sense of identity, and as such the choice was all but made for them. Dany used a psychological mischief to justify the usage of slaves to promote her purposes.

3. Ability to rule
Con repeats the claim that Dany rules Mereen.
Did I argue that she does not?
Con then claims I think it is a weak starting point.
Did I argue that it is?
Fending off straw men is strenuous, but on the bright side it means my arguments stand strong, I need only repeat what I've already stated, with emphasis that it had not been addressed:

Mereen as a small city currently under martial law, with all political opposition exterminated, is not a great platform by which you may speculate on Dany's ability to rule Westeros.

I did not express my opinion of Mereen as a starting point of any sort. I referred to Mereen as a weak point of reference by which we may infer and speculate about her end goal, which is ruling the Seven Kingdoms.

Con furthers claims that Dany established wealth and secured control of the trade in Mereen. In the context of the show there is no explicit or implicit reference to her establishing wealth or controlling the trade in the city. I have gone to some lengths to supply evidence via youtube videos, or establish logical bridges to reach my conclusions, I expect Con to do the same if he wishes his arguments to carry any weight.
I only agree with Con's claim about her Unsullied "keeping the peace" - though it is done via martial law, which makes it a pretty weak case for Dany's ability to keep order and secure the rule of law.

Finally, it is not Con's place, or Dany's place, to try and estimate the value of a child's life. There is no way for Con to successfully gauge the value of her compensation when weighted against the lives of children - yet this is exactly what he attempted to do in this argument.

5. Strength of army
Con has agreed to participate in this debate on the premises that Westeros has already been conquered - I noted that Dany's ability to conquer Westeros is irrelevant on its own merit.
I proceeded to pre-emptily rebuke the exact argument Con only now presented, which is the case of her military might serving as an addition to the Westerosi force.
I refer you to my round 3 rebuttals section, item 6, in which I already laid out all problems her alleged military might may bestow upon Westeros, specifically addressing The Unsullied, The Dragons, and the Second Sons.

As Con failed to rebuke the claims I made (or even address them), my argument stands strong and requires no further reinforcement.

Final Recap:
Some resources used by Con are not from the show material, and should therefore be dismissed. This dismantles a big chunk of Con's arguments.
Furthermore, throughout the debate Con resorted to attacking straw men or reiterating arguments.
Despite these facts, I have been able to successfully demonstrate that Stannis would indeed make an overall better ruler of Westeros.



I accept his challenge from the start

" I repeat that Tywin himself is an example of a wise person who is not known to be just or fair, and puts the well being of his close circle above that of the kingdom. Claiming that wisdom is sufficient is equivalent to supporting the case that Tywin would be a good ruler of Westeros. "

The intend may have been different but that was a short poke at saying wisdom does not equate to being a good leader because one could be unjust. Then he uses Tywin as an example. I think anyone that has read the books or watched the show would agree that the 1 and 2 spots for best king in Westeros would either go to Tywin orTyrion in any given order.

R1) Renly

In cons last round he completely drops the point about Renly being killed in order to quell and stop people from leaving Stannis in order to follow him. This point would go to me. It is not addressed and we can assume he gives up on it. The fact is Renly was killed when he came back and was challenging Stannis's power. He stated there was a lack of loyalty under his banner and no one wanted him as a leader. There is no way I can give numbers or facts on this without invoking the book because he are required to strictly use the TV show, but we can make a logical step to assume this is true. He stated that Stannis wanted no friends and a man with no friends is a man without power. Then goes on to say there is a lack of loyalty under his banner. The night before all this was to happen and Renly was going to go in on Stannis, Renly was assassinated by black magic from Melisandre.

He was such a threat that Melisandre put her own life at risk to kill Renly in hopes of quelling a rebellion and stopping people from leaving Stannis

The fact he was killed and the length that was gone to kill him gives massive credibility to the fact that Stannis was not liked. Even less liked since he adopted to the teachings of the lord of light. He went from being a leader that people did not like to a leader that people really did not like when Melisandre came into the picture

R2) Leadership

Again my adversary has made nothing but military claims in regards to this. Sure Stannis had some military capabilities that made him a great commander, but he is equating being a good commander with being a good leader. This line of logic could be applied to Eddard Stark or Robert Barathon. Both were great commanders but were not suited to lead. Robert because he lacked wisdom and let conquest be his wife, and Eddard because he possessed a sense of undying justice that was not realistic. Stannis has both of these and it would be his downfall. He may be able to lead a army, but he cannot lead a nation as a good king. This is entirely evident with his traits and character flaws. He possess both the character flaws from Robert Barathon and Neddard Stark, all while having no backbone and being used as a puppet by Melisandre.

ra) Blind leadership

My adversary misses the entire point behidn this argument. Davos and others had advised Stannis not to attack kings landing. Saying there are "unforeseen circumstances" does not address the main cause. Any battle will have "Unforeseen circumstances" that is why its a bloody battle. Stannis attacking at night was an unforeseen circumstance to Tyrion and the others defending kings landing but they handled it well and crushed Stannis.

The main point behind this is everyone advised him not to attack and the only person supporting the attack was Melisandre. Stannis blindly followed this advice just bcause she said the God of Light would allow him to win. If you watched the show we can clearly see the outcome of this attack. All of his army, his rations, and his power are shot down by Tyrion and Tywin. He was used as a puppet by Melisandre to attack with blind faith and in turn lost all of his power. Think if he was king of Westeros and used the same judgement.

This is where Danny beats Stannis. She takes advice from her council , but manages to make her own decisions if she feel the council is wrong. She is her own person and makes her own calls, and she does it with weighing all the possible options including her councils advice. She is not used by her council nor manipulated by someone like Stannis is.

R3) Mental Fortitude

He continues to blindly argue a fallacy he has set up, and there is no need to address this anymore. He keeps trying to bring up a point about drogo and how she reacted, I have already shot this rebuttal down with nothing left to be argued. This was before she was ever in a positin to rule. Claiming this was a fault of hers, when the fault was before she underwent her transformation and before she was ever in a position to rule is a true fallacy. You can dismiss this entire argument.

I did not disagree that she killed the masters in Meereen. In fact I was the first one to bring this point up in my first round. I showed where she crucified them and had them killed for their treatment of slave children and hanging them from crosses every (x) amount of feet on the way to the city.

Also this did not effect the economy. As you can see from most the series, the money was kept in vaults and what not. The slade trave was a focus on the entire city and how it made money sure. When she killed off the slavers and masters ( she did not kill them all , as we can see when one slave asks to go back to his slaver in the last two episodes of s4 and danny sets up a contract for 1 year to oblige him) , she attained the money of the slavers. If anything this was wealth redistribution and used to set up a free city and establish a valid economy. As you can see from the Tv show danny maintained the wealth after the killing the maters and was compensating people that deserved the compensation and used the money to set up slave programs to help them find valid jobs and stimulate the city in other ways. Some slaves did not want this so in the end of the last season she set up a contract as I have said 3 times, in order to allow slaves to be slaves if they still wished but with no more than a 1 year contract. So slaves that wanted to be slaves, still could be slaves and then free slaves could find other work. She stimulated the economy , she did not break it.

R4) Followers

He keeps failing to address the initial point. There is no way for me to show that some of the dothraki followed her without using stuff from the book, but he is basing this argument off one scene. Granted he is missing the ENTIRE point of the argument

Everyone Danny encounters she is drawn to her. Some dothraki chose to follow her after Drogo, jorah, an army of slaves that probably rival the people in kinds landing i size, Daario and the sons, Selmy and anyone that comes into contact with her. She has a personalty and is a born leader. People like to follow her and she can lead because of that.

Ra) Meereen

He goes back to this fallacy and claims you can not gauge a leader from here. I disagree as I have stated over and over. She overthrew the city, killed the maters, and re worked the economy and is still able to have full control over the city with respect from most of the people in it. That is enough to shoot down his entire point. She over threw a city and had control of it within days, and also had the respect of some of the living masters and slavers as we can see when they approach her in her chamber for requests like removing their fathers from the posts from which she hung them (she obliges this).

R5) Strength of army

The point in showing she could take kings landing , is in showing that her army now is that powerful. When you add it to the army she will have as Queen, she will have absolute control over westeros and be able to maintain order like none other.

He brings up a few points about the dragons being untamed and unsullied migrating elsewhere. This is a false at heart. She has just chained her dragons and begun to tame them, and there is enough money in westeros to maintain feeding people.

Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by phantom 7 years ago

Con rightly--and without rebuttal--claims that the debate is not only about the characters" current traits but their future capabilities. Since Danny demonstrates a large capacity to adapt, grow, and learn, she would become better and better at ruling. I share much of Pro"s criticisms of Danny, but it"s hard to deny that she would become a better ruler latter on, and it is hard to say the same about Stannis. Moreover, Danny"s past achievements are still remarkable. She amassed a greater army than Stannis in two years and greatly evolved from her weaknesses.

Danny being at fault for Drogo"s death becomes largely inapplicable to the Danny of season 4 since the incident was from her more naive and inexperienced days, which she has evolved from.

Stannis being a good military commander does not mean he would be a good leader in times of peace. Con mentions Robert Baratheon as an example of a military leader who made a bad king, and Eddard Stark whose unrealistic idealism would have made him a bad king in the same way Stannis would be.

Finally, no matter what you can say of Danny, her followers love her and she inspires loyalty very well. It is harder to say the same of Stannis.

I commend Pro greatly on his performance, but I have to hand it to Con for these reasons.
Posted by phantom 7 years ago
Wow, these votes suck. I'll try to get mine in today or tomorrow.
Posted by Malacoda 7 years ago
I disagree man. The thing about Eddard is this. He may not be the smartest or most cunning ruler, I admit. However, if he was heavily counseled by his hand and small council, which constitute the most intelligent minds in Westeros, he would simply act as a "justice and good of the kingdom screen" if you will. He wouldn't devise plans, but he would make sure they were for a just cause.
Posted by Mikal 7 years ago
That was per the video, you can view it from the sources. Everything i used was cited per GOT the series, which hurt my case in some regards. I could not bring up points about Stannis that I wanted
Posted by PensiveBacon 7 years ago
I see this is becoming a recurring issue with the votes - Con's usage of sources should work against him since he accepted the debate on the premise of using only the show for reference:

"Through the course of this debate you are only allowed to refer to the show version of Game of Thrones. Any reference to book events or alternative versions of the characters than the ones seen in the show can not be part of a valid argument."

I took the time to calling out this misuse of source material on more than one occasion throughout the debate.
Posted by phantom 7 years ago
Lol, Eddard would be a pretty bad king--Tyrion as his hand or not.
Posted by Mikal 7 years ago
Eddard would make a horrible leader js
Posted by Malacoda 7 years ago
I really wish I could vote on this one. It's a great debate. (Also I think Eddard would of been a great leader if he had a proper small council.)

Perfect Leadership:
King: Eddard Stark
Hand: Tyrion Lannister
Small Council: Petyr Baelish, Varys, and Sir. Jorah.

Try to come up with a better group of leaders than that!
Posted by Malacoda 7 years ago
I've got to say, I think it was a little stupid how Daenerys dealt with Sir. Jorah. Then again, Jorah did a terrible job of explaining himself. He just stammered, "My.. My Khaleesi and tried to touch her. Maybe that scene was better in the book, but it was pretty lame in the TV show.
Posted by 9spaceking 7 years ago
pros very good for a guy who just joined...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by phantom 7 years ago
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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Jonbonbon 7 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Concerning the sources, both people in a way used the same source, but con seemed to use it more accurately than pro. Also, I think con's argument was definitely stronger in pointing out the flaws in pro's logic with regards to qualities of leadership and their relations to characters.
Vote Placed by Linkish1O2 7 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: con used many great sources. also cons argument, as to how targaryen was a natural leader, was far more superior then pros why Baratheon could become a leader.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.