The Instigator
Raph
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ishallannoyyo
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Constitutional Monarchy is better Presidential Democracy!

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 3 votes the winner is...
ishallannoyyo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,680 times Debate No: 28545
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (3)

 

Raph

Pro

Presidential democracy is Disgusting and needed to be replaced with constitutional Monarchy because the leaders ideas are inconsistent
ishallannoyyo

Con

I thank my opponent for his extremely concise point. I will now take this time to present some definitions, refute my opponents arguments, and provide some of my own. All I have to do as Con is to show how presidential democracies are on par with or better than constitutional monarchies.

DEFINITIONS:

Constitutional Monarchy - a constitutional monarchy is no different from a presidential democracy, but in a constitutional monarchy the monarch (we will assume it is Britain's monarch, Queen Elizabeth II) is the head of state. As the head of state, she has no real role in government

Presidential Democracy - the system of government we currently have in the United States

OPPONENT'S CASE:

My opponent's entire case rests on the assumption that the "leaders ideas are inconsistent" in a presidential democracy, but fails to realize that the leaders ideas would remain inconsistent even in a constitutional monarchy as the monarch has no power in government. Thus, my opponents entire case is invalid.

CON ARGMENTS:

1. Constitutional Monarchies are less efficient

As my opponent has failed to realize this, the system of government between presidential democracies and constitutional monarchies govern the same way. However, constitutional monarchies are more inefficient as the monarch is the head of state. Thus, royal assent must be granted by the governor-general before a law is passed, making the law-making process longer and more inefficient.

Only one contention seems necessary for this debate. I have refuted my opponent's arguments and provided some of my own.

Debate Round No. 1
Raph

Pro

Raph forfeited this round.
ishallannoyyo

Con

Extend arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
Raph

Pro

I would like to thank the right honourable gentleman for his explaination but as for the debate< i would like to say that Constitutional monarchy is better than presidency because if the head of the government fail to submitt it's promise of certainty then the head of state has the right to call again for another parliament.

another one is this, if the head of state is a bullying tyrant then the people,the parliament and the nation as a whole (with the help of UN) have the right to deposed the monarch.
ishallannoyyo

Con

I thank my opponent for his comments.


I would like to say that Constitutional monarchy is better than presidency because if the head of the government fail to submit it’s promise of certainty than the head of state has the right to call for another parliament.


First of all, I barely understood the point made here. Secondly, there is a branch of government that is designed specifically to keep the government in check (the judicial branch, not sure what it is called in the US but I know every republic has one). Thirdly, the monarch has yet to prorogue government, and to my knowledge that has only been done once in 2008 in Canada when Michael-Jean (the governor-general) prorogued government (if you live in Canada you will know all about this). Fourthly, the monarch cannot just create a new government without a vote of no confidence in which the monarch doesn’t actually do anything, thus this point is flawed.


Another one is his, if the head of state is a bullying tyrant then the people, the parliament ad the nation as a whole (with the help of UN) have the right to deposed the monarch


I didn’t understand this point fully either. However, the monarch has no real power except appointing a governor-general, and this point is completely off topic as the head of state is the queen, and the queen can’t be a bullying tyrant as she has no real role.



Easy VOTE CON.

Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
Just a guess, but I suspect the instigator really wants to debate parliamentary government versus presidential government. Most constitutional monarchies are parliamentary governments.

The guy who put up the challenge joined the site and posted the challenge three days ago, and hasn't returned. I suspect he will forfeit if someone accepts.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
This seems an easy one to knock down. Alas, silly standards prevent me from joining.
Posted by Yarely 4 years ago
Yarely
I would debate with you if you changed your standards
Posted by The_Chaos_Heart 4 years ago
The_Chaos_Heart
I am interested. I wish to accept. My arguments will be strong.
Posted by Bull_Diesel 4 years ago
Bull_Diesel
Cool. I might have taken this but i think i'll watch instead
Posted by brian_eggleston 4 years ago
brian_eggleston
I live under the oppressive yoke of Constitutional Monarchy where many people progress ,not on merit, but according to their family's social status. I might take this one, actually.
Posted by baseballkid 4 years ago
baseballkid
I love how people who have no debates seem to feel entitled and will not let me debate even though i have proven that when I try i am decent.
Posted by lannan13 4 years ago
lannan13
change your criteria and I will accept.
Posted by TheTraditionalist 4 years ago
TheTraditionalist
What is up with these debate standards recently?
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
The Monarch only acts as head of state and a symbol. Nothing else. President is the commander-and-chief. President is better.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by drafterman 4 years ago
drafterman
RaphishallannoyyoTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 4 years ago
Ore_Ele
RaphishallannoyyoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not provide any support for their argument, and with the forfeited round, they were shorthanded to begin with.
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
RaphishallannoyyoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had bad grammar, forfeited a round, and didn't use any support of anaylsis for his arguments while holding the BOP, and failed to provide and outstanding case, or even one minute argument that wasn't a riddled opinion. Every point then, must go to con.