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

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) RenlyIn 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 StannisThe 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 pictureR2) LeadershipAgain 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 leadershipMy 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 FortitudeHe 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) FollowersHe 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 argumentEveryone 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) MeereenHe 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 armyThe 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.