Round 3. Intrepid v Animal: The Other, Other, Other, Other Dead Kennedy

The topic for this debate is "There is sufficient reason to suspect that Kathleen Agnes Kennedy's death was not accidental".

Intrepid will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
Animal will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.


There are no limits on the length of posts, but you may only use 1 post per turn.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations


Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each invidual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources.
Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.
When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceeded by a direct answer.

A new time limit policy is in effect
Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extention of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extention begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extention request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.


Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

My thanks once again for the efforts of The Vagabond in setting up these debates. Salutations to Animal.

Topic:

"There is sufficient reason to suspect that Kathleen Agnes Kennedy's death was not accidental".

First off we may need a brief introduction on this Kennedy.



www.youandyesterday.co.uk...

Was this an accident? Possibly. There are however several aspects of this lady's life and family past that could lead one to reasonably suspect that her death was not an accident.

One aspect would be the relationships she had with British royalty. Not only on a social level but also on one based on religion. Politics also comes into play, particularly the conflict between the British and the IRA.

Also, everything was not calm in Camelot. It may have been in the mid to later part of the 20th century but in the early part of the 1900's that was not the case.

As I delve into this further it will become apparent that there clearly IS "sufficiently reason to suspect" that her untimely death was more than an accident. I will show "motive" for such actions to be taken, correlating this with modern day conspiracy theory.

More to follow. On to you Animal.

"There is sufficient reason to suspect that Kathleen Agnes Kennedy's death was not accidental".

Let's look at the Monarchy

Kathleen(a Catholic) was married into the British monarchy:



www.youandyesterday.co.uk...

The Marquess did his duty in WW11 and fell 4 months later to a German sniper. This left a boisterous widow in England. How did she conduct herself?



Bold is mine. She was "Kick". Kick was wild. Kick was bold, Kick was everything that the royal family didn't need at the time. Already reeling from the abdication of a king in Edward VIII, wedded to a commoner, let alone a Catholic:



www.guardian.co.uk...

Could the monarchy take another hit so soon? Would another scandal harm the monarchy at a difficult time in the 20th century? Kick was interesting BUT Kick was Catholic. Religious doctrine hurt her, not only in England but with her own family. More on that later.

The meat of the issue:



Would this lead to the monarchy to take action on this person? Kick already had a "kick" at the can, marrying a member of the royal family. He died doing his duty. She was going to marry another person of distinction. Would the Windsors take this at par? THAT is the question. Do you think that the royal family is willing and able to act nefariously on an individual?

Animal has elected not to participate in this topic. Intrepid will advance.