The Instigator
Debatasaurus
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Cotton_Candy
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

A monarchy is a good thing

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Cotton_Candy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/24/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,226 times Debate No: 76894
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (43)
Votes (2)

 

Debatasaurus

Pro

This debate will have 5 rounds that should go on the lines of this:

1st: Opening statement, how you will structure the debate, initial thoughts and arguments.
2nd AND 3rd: More strong arguments, concrete, but no discussion regarding the opponent"s arguments.
4th: First comments about opponent"s arguments, arguments directed against opponent, more arguments for your opinion
5th: More of what is in 4th round, plus concluding discussion and statement.

I am not too strict about sources; I accept the use of Wikipedia as a source. In fact, I won"t mind if no source is given, so long as the statistics used or statements made are valid and not made up. If they are flatly contradicted by a reliable source, then I will not consider them.

I find this an important topic because many people are very critical of monarchies, particularly in the UK where I live, and I don"t think all the criticism is justified. I think there are actually many benefits from having a monarchy. I will argue that having a monarchy is a good thing for a country, with the benefits of having a monarchy outweighing the losses.
Cotton_Candy

Con


Before getting started I would like to clarify that since PRO is making the assertion here, he must bear the whole burden of proving objectively that ‘Monarchy is a good thing’.


Since usually what is good and what is bad is attributed on a relative basis with a specific standard used for comparison we can safely assume that PRO has upheld the resolution if he, manages to show that the advantages of monarchy, as PRO had already mentioned, OUTWEIGHS the disadvantages. As CON in this debate I only have to show that the disadvantages are just as equal in significance as the advantages, if not greater or cast enough doubts on the claims he makes supporting the resolution and make them appear shaky.


Also PRO has agreed to have this debate, be restricted to four rounds as opposed to the assigned five rounds. So, as agreed NO, NEW ARGUMENTS or anything related to the debate whatsoever, shall be made in the fifth round.


Looking forward to a fun and rejuvenating debate.



Over to you PRO.


Debate Round No. 1
Debatasaurus

Pro

Before I elaborate fully on the major benefits of having a monarchy, let me first deal with an issue which, I believe, is one of the key things that causes people to dislike monarchism. It"s the issue of equality. Today, most of us live in a democratic society that tells us that everyone is born with equal opportunities and equal standing. A monarchy, supposedly, stands in stark contrast to this: a baby can be born into a royal family and immediately become a celebrity and famous without having lifted a finger!

In reality, this criticism just attacks one aspect of an overarching matter which is impossible to deal with: human nature. These days, there are plenty of people who are born immediately famous and well-off in families of celebrities or presidents. People, as The Spectator once pointed out, naturally honour important or famous people like millionaires, athletes, and celebrities, and it is these same feelings that allow people to glorify and celebrate monarchs. Children born into these sorts of families present the same equality problems as that of a royal family, and there is nothing we can do about that. So criticising the monarchy for not encouraging equality is attacking one offshoot of something that isn"t actually a problem, but human nature. As such, if a monarchy is useful, having them by no means contradicts democracy and the possibility of equal opportunities.

It is also interesting to point out that many royals find it very difficult to live with the constant presence of the media they "enjoy". Prince William and Princess Kate of the UK have tried to stop media from regularly publishing photos of Prince George and instead have tried to only publish his photos once every six months approximately. Many royals would be just as happy without the crown, suggesting that it"s not they who are insisting their rule like dictators but they are being held firmly to the post by the people " a significant democratic achievement if you ask me.

What I have tried to show here is that the common criticisms that monarchies receive are not so simple and are unjustified. I will later describe how a monarchy can actually strengthen and benefit their nation; socially, politically, and culturally.
Cotton_Candy

Con

Preface:

PRO has made his case in his ROUND 2 by addressing an issue which he believes, is the key thing that causes people to “dislike monarchism”. But the logic that supports his arguments, is faulty and has many errors. I will be using this round to address and rebut his arguments exhaustively and will include a few arguments of my own.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Opening Arguments:

A monarchy is “a form of government in which supreme authority is vested in a single and usually hereditary figure, such as a king, and whose powers can vary from those of an absolute despot to those of a figurehead”.[1]

Now summing up PRO’s Round 2, he has claimed that: Monarchs are unfairly discriminated.

He argues that the privilege of people being made monarchs because of their birth is just as similar as celebrities or millionaires who become so, because of their birth. He claims that this is ‘human nature’ and shouldn’t be considered a violation of equality. Hence he concludes that it is unfair to discriminate monarchs alone based on this aspect, since it happens all around us.

This conclusion that PRO has drawn though is erroneous and I’ll illustrate why. Let’s consider two acts of a person getting killed. Let the first act be suicide where the individual ‘kills’ himself and the second act be murder where he kills someone else.

So if we were to judge which act is more heinous the obvious answer would be murder. But why is that? It is because murder conflicts with the interest of another person entirely, where you take away another individual’s right to live, whereas suicide is an act where the person’s action only affects himself. Thus, it wouldn’t be far-fetched to say that murder is an act that is several times more heinous than suicide. So what does this have to do with PRO’s case? Well we can keep the problem of another person’s interest being conflicted as reference and view the scenario we currently have in hand. A celebrity or a millionaire no matter how popular or rich do not present the problem, of their decisions conflicting the interest of other people or at least it would be fair to assume that this impact would be negligible as when compared to the decisions taken by a monarch. A monarch has the privilege of wielding an immense amount of power and has the authority over the lives of millions of people this, beyond any doubt, diminishes any and all power that a said celebrity or a millionaire would have.

Having wealth and popularity is one thing but having the power to decide the fate of a nation consisting of millions of people, just because of birth, is entirely another. Thus, monarchism IS a violation of equality.

A monarch wields such power that it destroys social equality entirely. The only requirement to become a monarch is ‘birth’ and the ruling of the country pretty much depends on the character of the person born. Thus, in simple words, the future of how the country is going to be ruled depends on how the character of the person born in the position would be.

Monarchy also denies other potential people, who might be more capable than the monarch in ruling a nation, the chance to become the head of the country. This primarily, is unfair, since equality deserves maximum importance in a just society. And secondly, the system values ‘chance’ instead of ‘merit’ and hence significantly deters the progress of a nation by not allowing capable people to head the nation. PRO himself has conceded that “Many royals would be just as happy without the crown” and that they are very much forced to be in their position. This just goes to show the ineffectiveness of the system in choosing a proper ruler for the country.

With that I conclude my case for round 2. I will bring more arguments to the table in the upcoming rounds.

Over to you PRO.

Ref:

1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;

Debate Round No. 2
Debatasaurus

Pro

Having shown that the ethical issues about monarchy are not so straight forward and are not all bad news, I would like to elaborate on the benefits brought by a monarchy.

Matthew Feeney, a British-American writer, once pointed out that, compared to other European nations; Britain, the Netherlands, and the Scandinavian nations have all enjoyed relative political stability. No revolutions, no coups, no dictatorships, no fascism, Nazism or communism. In fact, some of these nations are prospering and extremely free; Sweden was once by The Guardian described as being the most successful society the world has ever seen. He ascribes this to their monarchies: having a monarchy prevents radical or extremist political ideas from taking fruit because the political setting of constitutional monarchies is naturally more conservative. It is this that lies behind the success of the monarchies " political stability.

In the UK, the monarchy does absolutely nothing politically. In fact, the Queen is forbidden to make any political statements or recommendations. She is "above" politics, as the phrase goes. In the vast majority of all European monarchies, the monarch yields absolutely no power " the democratically elected head of government has the power. So, in some if not most cases, monarchies do not have any influence on other people"s lives. The events of the last century have shown as that not every monarchy is authoritarian and not every republic is democratic. Thus, your argument that a monarchy has unjustified power is just that: unjustified. Not all monarchies have power, so no monarch has power over many simply because they were born in a royal family.

Having now established that a monarchy actually poses no threat to equality in the terms my opponent suggested, I would now like to finish the picture of what benefits a monarchy can bring. The head of state in republics are generally part of a political party. Party politics can get quite awful because politicians who belong to political parties tend to lie more when their reputation in the party is at stake. It is why I sometimes believe that party politics ought not to be the norm. A monarch is the equivalent of an independent; he/she represents the whole nation and not a political party. A constitutional monarch is accountable only to the people, not to any political party. Not only is a monarch neutral and thus more representative, he is also someone who plays a major cultural part of the nation. Having a monarch represents a connection with the past and a preservation of the nation"s past culture and way of life. In a time where an all-consuming monoculture seems to be emerging, this is quite precious.

So, when a monarch yields no power yet manages to keep the government and culture stable, no one is affected by the decisions of a non-elected head of state and no one will actually mind the fact that only certain people can be monarchs simply because monarchs do nothing. Without lifting a finger, monarchs can preserve a nation, identity and way of life. In a time when political stability is very appealing, monarchies can only be positive things.

In the next round, I will directly combat what my opponent has and will say and I will conclude the debate, as we have agreed before. And I say this to my opponent: while you are still looking through your dictionary, please look up the words "constitutional monarchy". And also, find out the number of people the Queen has had executed in the last few years. You won"t need any fingers to count it.
Cotton_Candy

Con

I will kick-start this round by addressing PRO’s last statements in the previous round. He wants me to check what 'constitutional monarchy' is and asks me to find the number of people killed because of the queen. But what he forgets is that the resolution he is advocating for is neither about ‘Constitutional monarchy’ nor does it specify a time period. So as PRO in this debate, he has to show that the concept of monarchy itself is a good thing irrelevant of the time frame. With that made clear I will move on to make my case.

I will be using this round to strengthen my previous opening arguments and rebut my adversary’s contentions. My case as I see it has five major arguments.

A1) Monarchy gives extensive, unaccountable power to the executive.

The monarchs are the supreme judicator, legislator and executor of the nation. They have the final say in almost all major decisions that are taken for the country. Monarchs of countries like Saudi Arabia have the authority of presiding over and controlling the Council of Ministers which comprises the first and second deputy prime ministers and 23 ministers with portfolio and five ministers of state. There is also a 150-member Consultative Assembly, appointed by the King, which can propose legislation to the King but has no legislative powers itself, including no role in budget formation.[1] Such concentration of power has shown us devastating outcomes. My adversary advocates for monarchy in the United Kingdom alone, but I should bring to his notice that UK isn’t the only country that is run by a monarch. History would tell us about how the concentration of power on a single person has turned for the worse. But let’s not go so back, shall we. Only a few decades back in the 1970’s was the rule of Pol Pot, the ruler of Combodia.

‘During his ruling period his government made urban dwellers move to the countryside to work in collective farms and on forced labour projects. The combined effects of executions, strenuous working conditions, malnutrition and poor medical care caused the deaths of approximately 25 percent of the Cambodian population.’[1]In all, an estimated 1 to 3 million people (out of a population of slightly over 8 million) died due to the policies of his four-year premiership.’

Even though this might seem like an extreme case example the point to be understood is simple and rational: When power is levied on a single person, the possibility of decisions taken for the country, being influenced by selfish motives or gains, is unavoidable. Saying that it doesn’t happen now doesn’t nullify its existence nor does it establish that it won’t happen again in the future.

A2) Monarchy establishes a class system and undermines the proper recognition of merit.

No matter how you see it, monarchy is discrimination. Monarchy is the discrimination based on birth, just like the caste system that is now banned in many countries. It is a poor structure for society since it classifies people based on an externality that they have no control over. I ask my adversary these questions, what does a monarch have that gives him the right to wield power and control over other people? Extreme luck? Is luck the only qualification required to rule a nation and take major decisions on the behalf of the people in the country? What rational explanation can you give for a society that chooses its leaders based on chance?

A lottery game can depend upon chance but not the future of a country. A just society should ensure that merit becomes the factor in authorizing leadership to a person and not birth.

A3) Lack of Democratic Accountability


Elected leaders are subject to scrutiny and their position depends upon how well they perform in their term in power. Elections thus make such leaders accountable to the people and the incentive of continuing their leadership makes them weigh the decisions they make for the country more carefully. And moreover, elections provide the people the power to weed out ineffective leaders, thus letting them chose the rightful people to rule their country. Monarchs on the other hand though are not held accountable to people through ballot boxes. This gives them the freedom to exercise power to their whims and fancies. Even though such freedom is not used, openly nowadays, it cannot be assumed that it isn’t, and wouldn’t be, done.

A4) It is not flexible and limits the country’s progress.

In monarchies, especially strong ones where power is centralized in the position of the monarch, the major issue is that the whole system depends on the monarch being competent. If the monarch becomes an ineffective or poor leader over time, the system makes it difficult for others around him to remove him out of his position or get him replaced with a leader who is more effective. This undeniably can lead to wrong judgements or inefficient decisions and can even deter the country from possible progress. An elected oligarchy though, do not share the same problem, since they are subjected to elections and those who are ineffective can be prevented by the people from acquiring power again.

A5) It imposes an unjustifiable public expense

The costs of monarchy are unjustifiable. Typically monarchs and their immediate family receive substantial amounts of money from the state to maintain luxurious lifestyles, complete with servants, expensive holidays and hobbies. The state also spends a great deal to maintain and run palaces and other royal residences, which are seldom accessible to the general public who support them through their taxes. In the UK what is officially termed as 'Head of State Expenditure' amounted to £40 million in the 2007-8 financial year. However, this excludes the cost of security for the numerous family members and residences. Although the security costs have not been confirmed, it is estimated that it exceeds £50 million a year![3] So, if monarchy does nothing as PRO claims then why should such a huge expenditure be spent on it, when it could be used elsewhere?

Rebuttals:

So before I begin I would like to point out the fact of how PRO has been comparing republic political parties with monarchy and trying to show that the latter is better. I should hence again remind him that the resolution he is supporting isn’t ‘Monarchy is better than a republic’. PRO is supposed to show that ‘A monarchy is a good thing’ and such arguments add little strength to his case because showing something is better than something else doesn’t necessarily mean it’s good, for example, pickpockets may be better than bank robbers in a way but showing as such doesn’t make the pickpocket innocent. So I hope PRO brings in more arguments that actually show how monarchy is a good thing and does justice to his position, in this debate.

Before addressing directly the points made by PRO, I would like to point out some errors in the logic used by PRO to support his case.

Correlation without causation:

PRO has shown that a few countries that follow monarchism are developed and are in good shape. But correlation does not imply causation i.e, a relation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other. Let’s take an example of ice creams and murders. During a detailed analysis by a reporter, he found that all countries that have high murder rates have high ice cream sales too, thus from his observation he concludes that ice cream sales increase murder rate. So is the reporter logically correct in coming to such a conclusion? Certainly not. Similarly, PRO has to show that Monarchism has been the sole factor in causing prosperity in these countries.

The gambler’s fallacy:

PRO has assumed that since no monarch has turned out to be any sort of a tyrant in recent years, monarchy itself would be good. So to analyse this let’s take a scenario where say in twenty consecutive tosses of a fair coin, all the results turn out to be heads, but still it would erroneous to conclude that the twenty-first toss would also be a head because, the outcome isn’t decided by pattern but by chance. Similarly just because no one who is a monarch right now, is evil or is a tyrant doesn’t guarantee that the monarchs of the future won’t be such!

Cherry picking:

PRO has made the majority of his arguments basing it on UK. Countries like Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emrites, Monaco etc. levy a huge amount of power to their monarchs and thus make PRO’s arguments of monarchs having no power fall flat to the ground. Also he has picked constitutional monarchy, a dimmed down version of monarchy to make his entire case. It might be easier given PRO’s position to argue for constitutional monarchy but I should again remind him that in order for him to win the debate he should address monarchy as a whole not a single part of it!


Addressing PRO’s arguments;

He claims that Monarchy promotes a conservative atmosphere and prevents extremist political ideas.

But he hasn’t provided any rational evidence to either of these claims and until he has done so, such assertions will be considered empty.

He asserts that In the UK, the monarchy does absolutely nothing politically. Also the monarch yields absolutely no power the democratically elected head of government has the power

But we see him as I had mentioned earlier, taking the easier route out by arguing for constitutional monarchies and the UK. I ask PRO to stick to his burden of proof.

Having a monarch represents a connection with the past and a preservation of the nation"s past culture and way of life.

I fail to see the logic here and ask PRO to defend this statement, but anyhow, conversely, it could be argued that instead of protecting the Nation's heritage, the Monarchy has largely become an embarrassment. In an age of mass-media monarchies are no longer able to maintain the mystique which once set them apart from the common man.

Over to you PRO!




Ref:

1: https://en.wikipedia.org...

2: https://en.wikipedia.org...

3: http://www.centreforcitizenship.org...

Debate Round No. 3
Debatasaurus

Pro

My opponent seems to be a bit confused on a number of my arguments. So I would like to clarify: what I was trying to say is that monarchy does not automatically equal totalitarianism. One cannot argue that a monarchy is oppressive because not all of them are. Equally, one cannot argue that monarchies are good because they are

My opponent seems confused concerning my arguments, so I better clarify. Some of my arguments were to show that monarchy does not equal totalitarianism, using successful European monarchies as an example of how monarchies can be democratic, and saying how republican governments can be dictatorships. I explained that monarchy and democracy are not mutually exclusive. So, with that in mind, what are the advantages of a monarchy that make monarchy a good thing? Political stability and cultural preservation.

So, what example is there of a monarch keeping political stability? The El Tejerazo coup in Spain 1981 was quashed by the King of Spain, Juan Carlos I, by a television address denouncing the coup. Similarly, a coup in Thailand in the very same year was crushed by a royal statement of support for the government, allowing the army to halt the coup. Both times, the monarchs were the safeguard for stability and democracy in their country. Monarchies can do this, while republican governments can"t simply because the head of state does not enjoy the same level of support and wide recognition as a monarch has. Monarchies may or may not hold any power, but they certainly do have an identity that republican heads of state can only dream of. In a way, a royal family can be thought of as a family representing the nation: if they were presented as all "mystique" then they would have less of an intimate connection with the nation and ordinary people.

My opponent"s arguments are largely baseless because he is concentrating on the vices of an unconstitutional monarchy. As I said, a monarchy can be both libertarian and authoritarian, so one cannot say that a monarchy isn"t good because they have too much power when in fact it is possible to have a monarchy with no power. So, in some cases, they may not need to be democratically accountable simply because they don"t have any power. In cases of authoritarian monarchies, well, republican dictatorships aren"t democratically accountable either if no elections are taking place. An example of a republican dictatorship would be Pol Pot of Cambodia (or, for some, Combodia?), who was actually not a monarch (I think my opponent ought to do his research a bit more carefully).

My opponent, however, has a couple of arguments that I consider more serious. Firstly, cost. My opponent has quoted massive figures of royal expenditure and has said that this is unjustified. Well, I suggest not looking at it by overall figures but by how much a monarchy costs a taxpayer. And, for the UK, this is estimated to be 62p per person per year. Sixty two pence! Considering that a monarchy provides political stability and cultural unity, this is a bargain! Furthermore, some republican head of states can spend a lot of public money, for example President Erdogan of Turkey. Regarding what I quoted regarding the political stability of European monarchies, this is a published quote and I can do nothing about it but say that it seems more likely than not that monarchy has played a part in creating the stability of these countries. On other arguments, it is clear that my opponent has failed to understand my argument that both monarchies and republics can be dictatorships or democracies; a country"s freedom is not dependent on whether its head of state is a monarch or an elected president.

In conclusion, my argument is based on two aspects. First, that a monarchy is not automatically authoritarian or libertarian; and both a republic and a monarchy can be dictatorships or liberal. And second, now that it is established that monarchism and republicanism are, so to speak, "even", a monarchy provides political stability and cultural unity. The fact that many associate monarchy with authoritarianism is, I think, down to the fact that for most of the history of mankind, we have been ruled by non-democratic monarchies. But the events of the last century show that it is not just monarchies that can be non-democratic. I urge those reading this debate to realise this and realise that, while voting against monarchy may seem the most immediate answer, there is more to the question than is generally assumed.
Cotton_Candy

Con

So now that we have reached the ultimate round of this debate, I will sum up everything in my case and tie up loose ends, if there are any.

PRO’s failure to meet the BOP:

As the person making the claim PRO had the entirety of the Burden of proof to uphold the resolution ‘Monarchy is a good thing’. But what he has done is argue for constitutional monarchy, a dimmed down version and something that has a very different structure from actual absolute monarchy. If PRO wanted to do this he should have clarified it in the resolution or in the first round clearly but, unfortunately, he didn’t. Ergo, PRO has an unfulfilled BOP currently in his hand.

PRO has also not properly addressed most of my arguments claiming them to be baseless. But the fact remains that this debate is about monarchy and my arguments hold perfect ground. As a matter of fact, the arguments that PRO has failed to address adequately, should be considered by default, as him conceding to them.

A1) Monarchy gives extensive, unaccountable power to the executive.

PRO has dismissed this argument by claiming that the example I have given is false. But what he fails to address is the perfect reasoning behind the argument. He also failed to address my example showing the power of the king of Saudi Arabia. Thus my statement:

When power is levied on a single person, the possibility of decisions taken for the country, being influenced by selfish motives or gains, is unavoidable. Saying that it doesn’t happen now doesn’t nullify its existence nor does it establish that it won’t happen again in the future.”

remains uncontested and firm.

A2) Monarchy establishes a class system and undermines the proper recognition of merit.

PRO has conveniently skipped this whole argument stating that the argument doesn’t apply for a democratic monarchy. But even in a democratic or constitutional monarchy, the issue of discrimination based on birth doesn’t vanish. The questions I posed to my opponent:

what does a monarch have that gives him the right to wield power and control over other people? Extreme luck? Is luck the only qualification required to rule a nation and take major decisions on the behalf of the people in the country? What rational explanation can you give for a society that chooses its leaders based on chance?

remain un-addressed and it is a clear sign that PRO is trying to avoid this argument.

A3) Lack of Democratic Accountability

PRO states that:
“So, in some cases, they may not need to be democratically accountable simply because they don’t have any power.”

Primarily, ‘Some’ doesn’t mean ‘all’ so PRO has conceded to my argument that monarchy indeed does reduces democratic accountability because there are no elections. Second, it is false to say that they don’t have any power at all, it may be said that ‘some’ don’t use the power they have. Anyhow, my point is that ‘not using’ power is very much different from ‘not having’ power.

“In cases of authoritarian monarchies, well, republican dictatorships aren’t democratically accountable either if no elections are taking place.”

I’m not sure why PRO is bringing in republican dictatorships. The whole point of the argument was that, without elections there would be a lack of democratic accountability. The fact that PRO doesn’t deny this argument implies that he concedes to it.

A4) It is not flexible and limits the country’s progress.

This argument is not even addressed by PRO and him ignoring it, only serves to strengthen my case.

A5) It imposes an unjustifiable public expense

PRO makes a “The ends justify the means” type of argument to counter this assertion. But the virtues of monarchy that PRO has argued for are only shaky, at best. For example, he asserts that monarchy offers political stability but he hasn’t provided any logical ground to support this claim. Instead he has chosen to quote a few examples that could have very well happened because of the influence of other factors. And what proper right or qualification does the monarch have to use the money of the taxpayers?

PRO also states that monarchy preserves culture, but how effectively does it do that? He doesn’t offer any conclusively evidence of monarchy doing as such. By his statement, does it mean that monarchies preserve culture better than other non-monarchic countries? If yes, then where is the proof? In fact with the increase in exposure of the royalty to the public through the means of media, kings, queens, princes and princesses are revealed to be mortal, fallible and sometimes foolish creatures. Their lives have become a constant source for media scrutiny, and their role in preserving cultural heritage has been reduced to the point of being insignificant. One key example from the U.K. member of the Monarchy Prince Harry, was his decision to attend a fancy-dress party dressed as a Nazi.[1] Not only was this a horrific lack of judgement but it also under-minded the fact that opposing the Nazis was arguably one of the finest moments of British National Heritage. So as I asserted before the position of a monarch is powerful and influential, the idea of handing it over to someone whose only qualification is ‘luck by birth’ is indeed preposterous.

Concluding Statements:

So to conclude:

1) Monarchy gives extensive, unaccountable power to a certain specific individual and the possibility of decisions taken for the country, being influenced by selfish motives or gains, is unavoidable. Saying that it doesn’t happen now doesn’t nullify its existence (cause it very well could be happening discreetly/secretly) nor does it establish that it won’t happen again in the future.”

2) Monarchy establishes a class system and undermines the proper recognition of merit. What does a monarch have that gives him the right to wield power and control over other people? Extreme luck? Is luck the only qualification required to rule a nation and take major decisions on the behalf of the people in the country? What rational explanation can one give for a society that chooses its leaders based on chance? I hope the point is clear.

3) There exists a lack of Democratic Accountability in monarch since there are no elections and the monarch doesn’t have to worry about losing his position over unsatisfactory decisions he might end up making.

4) It is not a flexible system and limits the country’s progress since a monarch is chosen by chance and not merit. People who might be more deserving would never be able to reach the position of a monarch.

5) It imposes an unjustifiable public expense since a great chunk of the taxpayer’s money gets used for the sake of the monarch including private requirements. And what proper right or qualification does the monarch have to use the money of the taxpayers?

I hence, through my case and by rebutting PRO’s arguments, have necessarily negated the resolution. And as agreed, this round will be the last round of this debate and the next round may be used for exchanging pleasantries or any other affair not concerning the debate, whichever PRO may deem as fit.

Citations:

1: http://news.bbc.co.uk...

Debate Round No. 4
Debatasaurus

Pro

Debatasaurus forfeited this round.
Cotton_Candy

Con

My opponent has forfeited this round but since this round was essentially meant to be skipped I'll use this round to thank him for a wonderful debate.
Debate Round No. 5
43 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by YYW 1 year ago
YYW
In the second round of argumentation, PRO tells me that monarchy is awesome because it leads to stability, and that monarchy isn't necessarily mutually exclusive with democracy. He does not, however, counter the notion that monarchy is a threat to equality; it is by definition. Stability is a new argument, and I am so far weighing it against social equality and arbitrary power.

CON returns with arbitrary power more directly ("extensive, unaccountable power to the executive"), and gives some examples of how bad that can be. CON talks about the social impact of class systems on a society, and what is lost when they exist. CON emphasizes a lack of democratic accountability, and makes a not especially strong argument regarding "unjustifiable public expense." (All governments are expensive; this is not strong argument because it's not unique to monarchy.)

PRO concludes that monarchy does not imply totalitarianism. This is weak, because something not being bad doesn't mean that it's good, meaning that this doesn't impact the resolution. There really isn't much more that PRO ends with. CON correctly notes that PRO fails to meaningfully advance his burden, even though CON incorrectly claimed that the BOP was solely on PRO. CON explains reasons for that being the case in his final round, and concludes with sufficient rebuttals while reiterating aforesaid points I don't feel like retyping.

The win for CON is objectively clear. As always, I encourage both PRO and CON to continue to make strides in the way of improving their ability to write clearly and effectively, and I am happy to help them to a reasonable extent if they so desire my help.
Posted by YYW 1 year ago
YYW
This is a normative resolution, therefore the BOP is evenly divided. No side bears more of a burden than another. This is because the resolution is normative (not about fact), rather than positive (question of fact; what "is" empirically the case). Imposing a heavier burden on one side in this type of circumstance is to begin from a position of bias, which is unacceptable in any debate.

The resolution is whether a monarchy is a good thing. I need to know what "good" is, and what both sides agree is a "monarchy." PRO has to show that a monarchy is a good thing; CON has to show that a monarchy is not a good thing.

PRO wastes time and character space making me read a preemptive rebuttal in his opening argumentative round. It's not enough for him to argue that certain criticisms that some people have of the British monarchy are, in his view, ill founded. He has to defend monarchy as "a type of government" which is "good." He does not define either "monarchy" or "good" so I will impose a plain language understanding of both, so as to ensure fairness to both debaters.

Implicitly, CON attacks the legitimacy of monarchal rule on the basis that it is inconsistent with social equality and that monarchal rule is (again implicitly) arbitrary in that it does not consider the merit of a person for a leadership position. These are reasons that directly impact the resolution, and are consistent with CON's progression at PRO's expense.
Posted by Cotton_Candy 1 year ago
Cotton_Candy
Sure! Ignorance is bliss is what they say. Let's see who's laughing after the voting begins :)
Posted by Debatasaurus 1 year ago
Debatasaurus
I'm sorry, but your arguments kind of made me laugh.
Posted by Cotton_Candy 1 year ago
Cotton_Candy
Yep!
Posted by Debatasaurus 1 year ago
Debatasaurus
So, we've got one round left.
Posted by Cotton_Candy 1 year ago
Cotton_Candy
;D
nac
Posted by Cotton_Candy 1 year ago
Cotton_Candy
Debatasaurus, the rhetorical monster. Rawrr!
Posted by Cotton_Candy 1 year ago
Cotton_Candy
There you go ignoring me all over again. T_T
Posted by Debatasaurus 1 year ago
Debatasaurus
Just a note for anyone interested in this topic or reading the debate. Please feel free to make comments and say what you think of the debate - I like having off-stage discussions of the topic!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by YYW 1 year ago
YYW
DebatasaurusCotton_CandyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD is in the comments. There is no reason to award any points other than arguments; anyone who disagrees is wrong. Conduct was good on both sides, spelling and grammar were relatively even; there was no material difference in source quality.
Vote Placed by Death23 1 year ago
Death23
DebatasaurusCotton_CandyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: .