Daenerys destroying Kings Landing and burning civilians was not true to how she would actually behave
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 2 votes and 8 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
Conduct for the forfeit.
This debate boils down to whether the previous examples of killings by Daenerys constitute enough that what was done in kings landinf was merely an extension. There was not a lot of time spent explaining the general background of what happened prior to kings landing to motivating Daenerys, but I think con does enough regardless.
The issue con presents is that Daenerys was vicious, often revenge driven and didn’t consider collateral. The example of the father slaver crucified and her reaction spelt that out to me.
Pros defence was really that all these people deserved it so aren’t the same. The issue as con points out is that Daenerys seemed less driven by justice than by revenge - the issue at Qaarth council, and threats to burn cities to the ground ties into this fairly well.
The only real argument of note was chaining her dragon for killing an innocent girl. Cons argument that she has killed without remorse was a key point here; this wins out and paints the picture that Dani is Generally good, but gets into fits of revenge.
Given this, con manages to paint a pattern of vicious behaviour by Danerys, and contrasts this behaviour (such as with Greyworm). While the reaction was extreme and not a great execution of story, con does enough to show this is broadly within her character and has been building over multiple series.
Arguments to con.
Really thought this would be a troll debate about how she doesn't exist... Nice surprise.
Pro does a nice opening, but falls flat after that. He overall makes a good case for the writing not being as good, but fails to show her as someone who would choose the path of peace when given the chance.
Con uses a long list of her actions, to suggest her underlying growing madness the whole time, plus her consistent use of terrorism to get her way. Most telling was her insistence that she can do no wrong, and that in her hands crucifying a political activist could not be considered a crime. This is classic virtue ethics.
Where pro could have won was reminding us of her liking her own loyalists, and in the episode in question intentionally murdering countless of them as they stormed the city.
Conduct for forfeiture.