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

I will fully devote this round for a repudiation of Con's arguments.Tywin's Wisdom CriterionWhile 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 fastI 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 MormontIn 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.