User blog comment:Madman97/Blog Critic: Why the Stormcloaks are right/@comment-3524435-20131205201549

Interesting. I can understand and appreciate both sides. I do support the empire in general, but I tend to like the Stormcloaks more. Overall, I'd say my support for the imperials/stormcloaks is about 55/45. That said, I have to ask a question. Why in Oblivion did Ulfric have to kill Torygg? No offense is intended, really, but the reason given above is guar dung. I'm not saying that it's a poor argument because the duel was unfair or because killing him was unnecessary, as stated above. There is one flaw in logic that's making my teeth itch.

"if the High King couldn't protect himself, how was he supposed to protect Skyrim?"

What I'm trying to figure out is how the protection of one man equates to the protection of an entire province. From a political aspect, this is utter foolishness. Torygg greatly respected Ulfric, and no one had any reason to suspect that a dignified, respected jarl was planning on killing the king. Once Ulfric issued the challenge, Torygg had to accept, and any warriors present who could have protected him were bound by tradition not to intervene.

From a cultural aspect, perhaps the logic is that a man cannot be a strong leader unless he is also a great warrior. I can't argue with this logic. Since this is a silly belief without any factual evidence to back it up, anyone who believes it is unlikely to change their minds no matter how much evidence is presented that disproves this theory. All I can say is that prowess with a blade or the thu'um is unrelated to effective leadership.

Let's use a real world example. From the political aspect: if the president of the United States was visited by the governor of New York State, and the governor slipped a knife into the president's back, would that prove that the president was unable to protect his nation? From the cultural perspective: George Washington was the first president of the US, and he's fondly remembered by many americans for this role. However, he gained the respect needed to attain this office because of his military career. Is he considered a good president? Generally not. On the other hand, Franklin Roosevelt generally is considered to have been a good president. Could he have beaten other politicians or foreign leaders in a one-on-one duel? Maybe if his wheelchair had spikes on it.