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

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:http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com... 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.http://www.youtube.com...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.