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

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' leadershipCon 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 FortitudeI 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.3. FollowersCon 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.http://www.youtube.com...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 ruleCon 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 armyCon 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.Thanks,PensiveBacon