The Instigator
Atheist-Independent
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
JayConar
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

European Constitutional Monarchies Ought to be Dissolved

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 5 votes the winner is...
JayConar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/24/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,028 times Debate No: 63821
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (111)
Votes (5)

 

Atheist-Independent

Pro

ROUND 1

This debate will be about the constitutional monarchies of Europe and whether or not this form of government should be accepted. The premise of this debate is the Constitutional Monarchies of Europe ought to be dissolved. I will take the Pro side of the premise, while my opponent will obviously take the Con side.

For reference, the following European nations still have constitutional monarchs:

Andorra
Belgium
Denmark
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
Monaco*
Vatican City*

This debate will have four rounds, with 10,000 characters per round. Each debater will have 72 hours to post their argument. The first round will be for acceptance only, while the final round will be for concluding statements and any other rebuttals.

As for the rules, I will keep them generic. No trolling, use of semantics, or personal attacks. Also I would like to make it so that Wikipedia is considered a viable source for this debate and ask the voters to consider this when voting.

I have also decided to make this debate impossible to accept, so if you are interested in debating please leave a comment or PM me.

Expecting a great debate and good luck!



*If you consider them "countries".
JayConar

Con

First round - Acceptance only.

- I accept!

I look forward to your argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Atheist-Independent

Pro

ROUND 2

I would like to thank my opponent, JayConar, for accepting my challenge for this debate. I am sure that it will be certainly highly informative as well as fun. Now on to my opening argument.

1. Economic Strains Presented With Monarchies
A major issue presented with the continuation of monarchies, and with it all of their traditions, is that it is extremely expensive to keep up. This is due to the fact that the monarchs and the royal families have an appalling tradition of living in luxury at the expense of their subjects. As Europeans are generally highly motivated to keep tradition alive, seeing that many of the countries have monarchs in office (albeit in a limited role), they are most likely not going to cut any expenses towards keeping the royal families lives in luxury. For example, within the UK this past year the royal family cost taxpayers £35.7 million, which was a £1.9 million increase from 2013 [1]. Graph A shows how this money is being spent within the royal family.

Graph A:

This shows that there was a large increase in cost towards the maintenance of the royal families property (i.e. castles, palaces, estates, etc.) While I understand that it is important to maintain ones culture, is the restoration of a few castles worth £13.3 million of taxpayers money which could be going towards things that would actually effect them? I obviously think not. If we look at the other numbers, one glaring issue is that travel expenses are at £4.2 million. This is an absurd amount of money for the government to be asking the people for given that all it goes to is making sure that the royal family gets luxurious travel arrangements. This number could easily be reduced to a quarter of the size that it is now. However, I would like to ask my opponent if a reform towards the monarchy is worth it, or if it would be better for the UK to simply remove the royal family [2].

However, this debate is not solely regarding the removal of the British monarchy, as it is also about the remainder of the other European countries that still are afflicted with a Constitutional Monarch. Graph B displays the amount of tax money required to maintain the government in all of the European countries with a monarch, while also displaying Germany's expenses, to compare these countries to one without a monarch.

Graph B:

Without closer examination, it appears that their is little difference between Germany and the other countries, and that in fact Germany pays more for their government. This is true, however the category that we should be considering is not the overall cost, but the Per Capita cost and Comparison of Tax burden sections. The reason for this is that due to Germany having a very large country it is inevitable that their government will cost more than smaller countries such as Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, etc. This makes it even more surprising that smaller countries like the UK and the Netherlands still pay more for their government than Germany does, therefore implying that the monarchies their are a huge part of their costs. Anyways, returning to the main focus, in the Per Capita cost section, Germany's is lower than all of the other countries with the exception of Spain and Liechtenstein. The reason for the exceptions of Spain and Liechtenstein is that the royal families do not require as much from the people as they generally rely on their own personal fortunes. However, it proves the point that countries with monarchies generally have a higher taxation on their people to maintain the government. To further support this claim, the Comparison of tax burden section shows that once again Germany's is lower than all of the other countries except Spain and Liechtenstein (for the same reason).

2. Lack of Political Importance

It is no secret that the kings and queens of Europe are no more than figureheads established so that their respective countries can increase tourism. While some may argue that the monarchs do technically have official duties that they can do, however I would like to ask you if it is at all possible for these apparently insignificant chores to be done by some one else, preferably not of "noble" blood? My point here, in its essence, is that the monarchs of Europe have a very limited role in government and that they are in the end a highly unnecessary part of the government in their country. Taking into account the fact that the monarchies cost so much, how does it make any sense to keep them as a part of the government given that they do next to nothing?

To clarify this point of view, I would like to create a similar situation. For example, someone has been told that their pet was inevitably going to die within a year. Now they could chose to put the animal down, in the process saving their pet an enormous amount of pain. Or they could chose to keep the animal alive for another year, having to pay an obscene amount of money on medicines to maintain their pets physical state. Logic tells us that the first option makes the most sense here. This is surprisingly a very similar situation to the monarchy issue in Europe. The countries are presented with a dilemma, remove the monarchy and save themselves a boatload of money that could be used on other things or keep the monarchy which will do absolutely nothing for their own well being while taking up huge sums of their money so that they can live in luxury. Similarly to the first scenario, logic tells us that the first option is the better option.

To finish off this argument, I would like to quote CNN opinion writer Graham Smith who stated about the British monarchy that "After 60 years who can quote a famous speech or point to a moment of crisis or celebration when the queen offered leadership and inspiration?" [3]. While this is in the context of the British Monarchy alone, it can be interpreted similarly for other European countries. In essence, Smith is saying that the age of the Monarch as the inspiring figure to rally behind has ended and therefore their is little purpose of keeping them a part of the government any longer.

Back over to you, Con.

Sources
[1] http://www.independent.co.uk...
[2] http://facthai.wordpress.com...
[3] http://www.cnn.com...

JayConar

Con

Round 2

I, too, would like to show my appreciation to my opponent for challenging me to this debate - it is greatly... appreciated. I'm sure we can fit some fun into what I hope shall be an eye-opening and interesting debate.

Economic benefits of the Monarchy

It is integral to my side of this debate to stress that the monarchy is not, as is often claimed, a cause of net economic loss. I hope my opponent will not mind if I reference his graph (A). Interestingly, the graph suggests that in 2013/2014 the royal family cost the British Taxpayer the equivalent of 56 pence per person. This is, in fact, very close to the estimate that I have in a separate source [1] which suggests 53 pence per British person between 2012/2013. So we can assume that, currently, the royal family costs around 50-60 pence per person every year. This totals out at around £33.3 million a year (if using the 53 pence estimate). Admittedly, this is more money than I have in my bank account, but what if we factor in how much the presence of a royal family in the UK actually brings in via the tourist industry? Interestingly, my source [2] suggests that the tourism brought in by the royal family more than makes up for their expenses. Here is a direct quote:

"The Royal family generate close to £500 million every year for British tourism with The Tower of London, Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace the most popular Royal destinations."

So if we detract £33.3 million from £500 million, we get £467 million, a sizable sum leftover!

To address my opponents question as to whether or not I think a 'reform' of the British royal family is worth it, my answer is no. Let them keep the money flooding in!

Now I'm going to address an argument that I know will rear it's ugly head at some point, and can also only be deemed to be a matter of eternal debate. Would tourists keep visiting the Palaces, Tower of London and other monarchy-associated sites even if the royal family themselves had been dissolved? The answer to this question is maybe, but nowhere near as many. Having said that, why should the UK take the risk anyway, as we have proved that the Royal Family more than make up for themselves economically!

Now, this is a question of European Constitutional Monarchies, as my opponent has stated, so let's look at his graph too! Sorry about the use of your own sources against you, pro, but I feel the need to analyze all the available data!



Now, it appears that, in some places, the monarchy is incredibly costly per person. A good example of this is Luxembourg's $22.20 per person. That is an incredible amount at face value. However, if you consider the fact that Luxembourg has the second highest GDP of any other country in the world [2] and the average citizen of Luxembourg earns twice the average salary of an American citizen, as well as its relatively small population size, perhaps we can explain that inflated value. It is noticeable that Spain only spends $0.23 per capita, which is lower than non-monarchic Germany's $0.46. This suggests that the difference per capita is not due to the status of the country as a monarchic or non-monarchic country, but more to do with the actions of the individuals who actually rule it. When it comes down to trust, I'd rather give my pin number to Queen Elizabeth II than this guy:



Anyway, that's enough talk of economics, let's move on!

Role in Society

Alas, I thought we had finished with talk of economics, but it was not to be so! A fleeting mention shall suffice, however, to say that as I have proved that the royal family does not, in fact, cost a huge amount more than it brings in, we do not have to worry about any obscene vet bills or, indeed, any dying dogs (cats, or other animals) in the foreseeable future. In other words, the traditions of the royal family (in Britain at least) are not harming anybody (either physically, mentally, or economically) in their upkeep, so pro's argument that we should dispense with them due to the logic that we should put 'a dying dog down.' is negated, as there is no dying dog. In fact, the situation would be more akin to the putting down of a healthy sheepdog, simply because the sheep all ran away and therefore the sheepdog no longer has to perform the same duties as it used to, but is still perfectly able to run across the fields and participate as a good family pet! Such an action would simply be a ridiculous route to head down.

Ok, enough with the analogies, there shall be no more sad puppy talk here! Pro rightly questions, what does the Royal Family actually do? Well, as quoted from my source [3]:

"The Royal Family is apolitical, so they can represent their country’s culture without being a stand-in for controversial policies."

In other words, nobody would accuse the King or Queen of ordering the recent invasion of their country. It would be a ridiculous notion as that King or Queen is a constitutional monarch. This is where having very little political power can actually come in handy. The serving constitutional monarch is able to talk to international leaders in a way that the monarch's Prime Minister may have a hard time doing.

But surely that's not all the monarch does to service their country? No, not in the slightest. [4]The Charities Aid Foundation estimated that the Queen brings in £1.4 Billion a year to charities collectively, in which she is patron. That, I hope pro will admit, is quite an impressive figure in itself. The Queen supports over 3000 charities worldwide, and that is just the Queen. Other members of the royal family, such as Princes Harry and William who have been known to support 16 charities, have done sterling work in helping those who need it most.

What about other European Royal Families? Well, they certainly appear to be keeping their people happy in one way or another, as King Harald V of Norway [4] enjoys a 93% approval rating with the Norwegian people! I do not suggest that attempting to take their monarchy from them will be a particularly popular movement.

Perhaps, in order to truly understand whether or not dissolving the monarchy is the key to making a country happy and successful, we should ask a country which has already done that! According to a poll taken in the USA, [5] Queen Elizabeth II held a 61% approval rating with. If this is compared to Barrack Obama's 45.5% approval rating, it's entirely possible that America might soon be petitioning their government for a Royal Family of their own!

Queen Elizabeth II has seen through 11 US Presidents, 12 British Prime Ministers, 14 New Zealand Prime Ministers, 13 Australian Prime Ministers, and 11 Canadian Prime Ministers. She has been a symbol of Britain for 62 years and in that time she has served her realm with care and respect for others. She has been an incredible role model for her citizens and, whilst urging him to take these factors, as well as those listed above, into consideration, I pass the mic over to Pro!


[1]http://www.theatlantic.com...
[2]http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
[3]http://www.toptenz.net...
[4]http://www.examiner.com...
[5]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
Atheist-Independent

Pro

ROUND 3

I would first off like to apologise for the delay for my response. Procrastination for my Biology lab resulted in procrastination for this debate. I am stuck in the everlasting circle of procrastination. Oh well.

Anyways, let us return to the debate!

ECONOMIC BENIFITS OF A MONARCHY
The major flaw with my opponents argument is that it is not the royal family itself that produces tourism, but the historical attractions that do. Therefore it is plausible to remove the royal family and the monarchy, without damaging the tourism. This was described well by journalist Hamilton Nolan, who was quoted [1]:

"The Royal Family does not "work" for that money. The Royal Family does not sit inside Buckingham Palace from 9-5 every day, posing for pictures with tourists for $25 a pop. And even if they were, we certainly wouldn't pay them $50 million a year for that".

This quote addresses several issues with the tourism argument. For one, it is not the Royal Family that is working to produce the tourism money. It is mainly the actual landmarks themselves (i.e. Big Ben, Tower of London, British Museum) that produce the money. The other is that the British people pay the royal family $50 million a year for what? To restore the historical landmarks? This can be considered a legitimate argument, however if we are going to look back at Graph A from round one it is shown that only about 1/4 of that tax money actually goes towards the upkeep of castles and such. Instead, the remaining 3/4 of the taxes go towards keeping the royal family in luxury. Nolan also notes that even if the royal family did work in the tourism business they still wouldn't be worth $50 million a year.

Generally I do not quote my opponents, however in this scenario I would like to dissect a particular quote from my opponents opening argument. My opponent also is quoted saying:

"Would tourists keep visiting the Palaces, Tower of London and other monarchy-associated sites even if the royal family themselves had been dissolved? The answer to this question is maybe, but nowhere near as many. Having said that, why should the UK take the risk anyway, as we have proved that the Royal Family more than make up for themselves economically!"

There are several flaws with this claim. For one, how can my opponent possibly know that less tourists will be drawn to the tourist destination if there is no longer a royal family? In my mind, the connection between a tourist destination and the royal family is nearly nonexistent and therefore will hardly affect the tourist industry. For example, if, hypothetically of course, Peru changed its government to a communist system as opposed to a republic, would people stop visiting Machu Pichu? Absolutely not. Therefore I would like to conclude that the UK can gain more money by abollishing the royal family because they would get all of the tax money designated to the queen while the tourism industry would hardly suffer at all.

However, it is important to note that this debate is not solely about the British royal family, as it is also about the rest of Europe's monarchies. To get an accurate sense of the effect of royal families on tourism, let us look at the top ten countries in the world in money generated from tourism in graph C. (appologies for the overly large graph)

Graph C





If we look at these countries, only two of them currently has an active monarch, which is the UK and Australia. For Australia, however, the connection between the monarch and the tourism industry is completely nonexistent given that the queen is never even in Australia anyways. This shows that having a monarch does not necessarily mean that your country will have a brilliant tourism industry. To further support this, in the Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report in 2013 only four countries with monarchies listed in the top 30 [2]. Therefore it can be concluded that it will not harm the majority of countries with monarchies tourism industry hardly at all if the monarchy is abolished.

Now on to the rebuttal about my graph from the first round. I acknowledge the argument about Luxembourg and agree with my opponent full heatedly, and therefore will not rebut his points. However, the comparison between Spain and Germany is a separate situation entirely. My opponent claims that the monarchies have no impact on taxes due to the fact that Spain's per capita cost is lower than that of the non-monarchical Germany. The error with this claim is that the Spanish government has been maniacally cutting taxes so that they can halt their economic down spiral and bring the country back on track [3]. Had Spain had a normal economy (or whatever is normal for Europe) I predict that the per capita cost would be higher than that of Germany's in order to compensate for the unnecessary monarchy.

ROLE IN SOCIETY

My opponent claims that my analogy with the monarchy and the dying dog is irrelevant due to the fact that the monarchy is not actually harming the UK in any way. I have rebutted this claim successfully and therefore must conclude that we must be killing some dogs during this section of the rebuttals (sadly). The monarchy in the UK is costing them an additional $50 million for largely unnecessary things such as travel, paying servants, etc. This is similar to the dog analogy as it is costing the owner large amounts of money to simply keep their pet alive, despite its impracticality.

My opponents next point about foreign affairs is equally flawed. While it is true that the Queen may speak with foreign countries without political consequence, it is unlikely that she will actually get anything done due to the fact that she has absolutely zero political influence. Thus the proposition is highly illogical.

I will acknowledge that the royal family can do some good, through the work of charity and what not. However, I would like to ask my opponent if they could not do so without getting the lofty titles of Queen, or Prince, or Duke, etc. Essentially, my point is that since the royal family has an ungodly sum of money, and not to mention fame, they would easily be able to continue their charity work without still having any technical political role.

And finally, onto the satisfaction ratings. The reason why monarchs are inevitably going to have higher satisfaction ratings is because they themselves never do anything or make any decisions that affect the people. Therefore the comparison to Obama is illogical because he actually represents the American people while Elizabeth and Harald simply look pretty (or as pretty as they can be) on their thrones.

CONCLUSION
In this debate I have shown that monarchies overall are expensive and do not pay for themselves through the tourism industry. Due to their expense and their complete lack of political power I would like to conclude that their role in "power" is unnecessary and therefore should end. On a side note, I would like to thank my opponent for a fun and intellectual debate.

SOURCES

[1] http://www.theatlantic.com...
[2] http://www3.weforum.org...
[3] http://www.ft.com...
JayConar

Con

Round 3

Rebuttals

I would like to start off by mentioning the journalist my opponent quoted. Hamilton Nolan can also be quoted as saying this about the monarchy, (it should be noted that he is talking about all members of the monarchy here, including the elderly Queen and the baby Prince George):

"Confiscate their wealth, sell off their possessions, lock them up for theft, and strike all appropriations for the Royal Family from the public budget. Auction off the crown jewels, use the money to buy gasoline, and burn the queen's home to ground during a grand national celebration." [1]

Apparently, Hamilton Nolan is an advocate of extreme measures, such as arson, against people he disagrees with, no matter how elderly they may be. I would question how far we should follow the advice of somebody who holds such extreme views.

Despite this, Hamilton Nolan is also an American. This does not, in itself, mean that he is not entitled to his own opinion about the monarchy, but it does mean that his views will be subject to American ideals, one of those ideals being anti-monarchic. There is a good chance that he would not, on principal, understand the pride that some British people (some not all) have in their monarchy. Thus, the accuracy of his views on the matter are, at the best, questionable.

Anyhow, onto my opponents argument, but first I would like to start with a counter quote:

[2]"Tourists spend A LOT of cash on Great Britain each and every year! Sure not everything they come to see is royal, but the most expensive stuff is. Americans fly across an ocean to see a land filled with Castles that aren't plastic. Of course they could visit France & Germany who have also had monarchs, but that's exactly why the don't. They HAD monarchs where as the UK HAS monarchs living today in their real castles. The Royal Crests you see across London, on Royal Palaces, Government Departments and even the Guardsmen uniforms are all REAL and embody [the] living and breathing Queen of today."

This quote explains why getting rid of the Royal Family would affect the British tourist industry. If we did not have a REAL monarchy, then what would set us apart from France and Germany, who also HAD a monarchy, but do not any more.

I would like to point out a very large flaw in one of my opponents arguments:

'For one, how can my opponent possibly know that less tourists will be drawn to the tourist destination if there is no longer a royal family?'

I do not claim to know for certain if less tourists will be drawn to monarchical tourist destinations if the royal family is dissolved. However, my opponent also can not know whether or not the dissolution of the monarchy would result in a fall in tourism. However, realistically, it is likely as, despite what my opponent claims when he asserts that there is no connection between a monarchical tourist destination and the royal family itself (a questionable claim that baffles me), the presence of an actual royal family in Britain is likely to incite more people, whom may not have a monarchy in their country, to wish to travel to Britain. This may be due to the fact that the monarchical tourist destinations are, in fact, still used by the Royal Family in some cases (such as the palaces), or it may be due to the fact that there is a slight chance of actually seeing a member of the royal family, which is an opportunity to see the culmination of the British monarchical history which is represented in our Royal Family. After all, the Queen is related to all those Kings and Queens that you read about in the History books.

Let's look at my opponents graph (C for him B for us) again:



Now, my opponent claims that only two of these countries have a monarchy. This is incorrect. Spain, also has a monarchy, not just UK and Australia, and you can see that Spain has the second highest tourist income in billions of dollars, it is only beaten by the USA, which is a considerably larger country and therefore has a lot more tourist destinations in general, so is likelier to receive a larger income in terms of tourism. This graph does not actually prove anything, however, as there are many factors which may determine the income of a country via tourism, including average cost of attractions and number of attractions, we can not use this graph to assume the popularity of individual attractions, such as monarchical ones, so this does not help our debate a great deal.

Role in Society

My opponent claims that the monarchy costs the British taxpayer $50 Million, I think as we're talking about the UK we should deal with the British monetary system. Therefore, my opponents new figure on how much the monarchy costs the British yearly is: £30,942,988. He claims that this is largely for travel, which we can see from this graph:



is an incorrect claim. When dealing with a larger sum of money than is suggested (£33.3 million) total cost for travel is only £4.5 million. A large amount of the money is actually for property maintenance, payroll and other staff costs. In reality, this sum of money would be necessary with, or without, a monarchy as the payroll would mostly be used to pay the staff who actually maintain the palaces etc. Some staff could be gotten rid of, such as cooks etc. However this would not reduce the payroll costs by a great amount. Thus, around £28.6 million would still have to be paid if the UK dissolved the monarchy, making the actual cost of the monarchy £4.7 million, or $7.5 Million. Thus, if the dissolution of the monarchy saw a £4.7 million loss in the tourist industry, then the UK would have lost, not only a great part of their cultural heritage, but also, they would have lost out economically as well.

My opponent also asserts thus:

'I will acknowledge that the royal family can do some good, through the work of charity and what not. However, I would like to ask my opponent if they could not do so without getting the lofty titles of Queen, or Prince, or Duke, etc.'

If I were to offer my support to a charity, and to clarify I do not have any titles or peerages and I am most certainly not a celebrity, then I may be able to raise a few pounds. However, when the Queen offers her support to a charity, just by the virtue of her being Queen, thousands more follow her lead and wish to support the charity that she represents, that is how she is able to help raise £1.2 Billion for a charity. I'm afraid, no, if she was not a Queen, she could not do anywhere near as much good in terms of charity work. In a perfect world this would not be the case, but the world is not perfect, thus it is the case.

Conclusion:
In this debate I have shown that the monarchy are a great source of tourism for Britain, as well as being a source of pride for many monarchical countries. Their position as role models to the rest of their country allows them to make great achievements in the name of charity and they can cost as little as £4.7 million a year. They are also great representatives of national culture and heritage, and are generally very popular within the country themselves. [3]'According to polling data from Ipsos Mori, support for a republic was 18% in 1969, 18% in 1993, 19% in 2002 and 18% last year. Three-quarters of the population want Britain to remain a monarchy.' So what would be the point in destroying an institution which is incredibly popular in its country, to satisfy the whims of those who often don't even live in monarchical countries themselves(for example, Hamilton Nolan).

Support the peoples choice. Vote con!

P.S. Thank you to pro for an enjoyable, intellectual debate!

Sources:
[1]http://gawker.com...
[2]http://relentlesslife.wordpress.com...
[3]http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 3
111 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JayConar 2 years ago
JayConar
The votes have changed around a lot and I'm unsure of why exactly that is.
Posted by Artur 2 years ago
Artur
What is going on here? If I am not mistaken, I remember like it was something like 11-11, some votes have been deleted or am I remembering uncorrectly?
Posted by moneystacker 2 years ago
moneystacker
both of you guys are real smart was fun to watch
Posted by JayConar 2 years ago
JayConar
Oooh we're tied, this is getting tense ;)
Posted by JayConar 2 years ago
JayConar
This debate is still incredibly close, I wouldn't be surprised if you can still win, A-I
Posted by Atheist-Independent 2 years ago
Atheist-Independent
Thanks Bluesteel, I was just looking for a few extra votes that's all. I appreciate the RFD.
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
RFD (part 2)

Sorry Pro. I know you posted this to the "close debates" thread hoping that you could come from behind, but I think you mishandled the $1.2 billon raised for charities, which is a really big impact. Had you done a bit more there, I think you would have won this debate. Overall, your rebuttals to all the other stuff were better than Con and you came off as more reasonable. But I can't just ignore $1.2 billion raised for charities. That money could do a lot of good.
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
RFD (part 1)

I think Pro does a good job in this debate on the tourism point. Pro successfully proves to me that people go to see the landmarks, not the Queen. His source makes a good point: if you actually go to Buckingham Palace, you never even get to see the Queen. If you never see her in the flesh, what is the difference between going to a country that has a current monarch and one that does not? Nothing.

The approval rating point, also, Pro rebutted well. The Queen is just a celebrity. I'm sure Miley Cyrus has better approval ratings that Obama, despite her controversies in the media.

I think Pro also successfully rebutted the foreign affairs point. Sending to the Queen to talk to a foreign leader is probably about has helpful as sending Dennis Rodman to talk to North Korean leaders. She's just a celebrity, and not one that is particularly adept at politics.

However, Pro made a huge mistake not dealing more seriously with the money raised for charity. $1.2 billion is a lot of money. Way more than the millions it costs to upkeep the royal family. I think Con also does a good job showing that a lot of the expenses Pro cites are actually for building and staff that would be needed anyway. So the few million dollars a year it takes to upkeep the royals it ouweighed by their charity efforts.

I don't think Pro's rebuttal is adequate. The Queen wouldn't really have celebrity status if ripped of her title, and when she dies, the next generation even less so.

I question how Con got the $1.2 billion figure. He makes it seem like the Queen herself raised that money, but I suspect that's how much was raised by "charities she's associated with," and if she only endorses "popular" charities (like Susan B. Kolmein in the US), they probably would have raised that money anyway. Pro should have looked into this figure more.

If the money issue were closer, Con would have needed to do a better job impacting the "happiness" that monarchs impart on their peopl
Posted by Atheist-Independent 2 years ago
Atheist-Independent
Over 100 comments :D
Posted by Atheist-Independent 2 years ago
Atheist-Independent
Meh.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Atheist-IndependentJayConarTied
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: There's a lot of speculation and detached inference going on in this debate. Both sides make conjectures as to what is currently happening and with regards to the "what if" scenarios of what happens if these monarchies are dissolved. I don't know if I fully buy, for example, Pro's claims that the costs of monarchies are major determining factors in the costs a country incurs, nor am I given a lot of reason to believe that monarchs are themselves a tourist attraction. Be that as it may, I am given more convincing evidence. Pro shows me quite clearly that the monarchy does cost many countries exorbitantly. However, Con also presents a clear story for why their lofty titles afford their efforts for charity more weight. For Pro, I'm not really given much weight on that cost - it's substantial, to be sure, but not nearly so substantial as the loss to charities, which Pro unfortunately spent little time rebutting. Hence, I vote on charities.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Atheist-IndependentJayConarTied
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: Amazing first page debate between the decent debater A-I and an unknown purple circle JayConar. RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
Atheist-IndependentJayConarTied
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 in comments
Vote Placed by Artur 2 years ago
Artur
Atheist-IndependentJayConarTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO's arguements were based on fact(statistic) while con's were assumption. He asserted that it costed UK ?0?535 million to keep Royal family in luxury, this is a fact backed up by a source. As a reply to this, CON says monarchy attracts tourists, it is just his or somebody else's opinion, not fact. For ex: I never wanted to see that historical places just because they belong to somebody, no matter even if that belonged to government/president/richman/king/queen/army boss, I would still visit it. That is why I say that is assumption. 2. PRO quoted a journalist wjo said "RF does not weork to gain tourists, even if they worked we would not have paid them 50 million dollars in a year", even though the second part is an assumption, first part of this sentence is true. They do not wokr there, this shows us RF has almost nothing with tourism, as reply to this CON said: that journalist is american and not trustworthy. Arguement is arguement no matter asserted by whom. And e.t.c reasons are f
Vote Placed by donald.keller 2 years ago
donald.keller
Atheist-IndependentJayConarTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: While this seemed rather focused on "the British monarchy" instead of "European Monarchies," both sides did great. However, Pro's chart in Round 3 was not only irrelevant and shows nothing (as Con points out,) trying to compare nations instead of attractions, but Pro's own interpretation of it was wrong, as Con also showed (Spain being a monarchy). This lost Pro a lot of ground in R3. In the first round, Pro pointed out costs. He might have proven Luxembourg's case, but when discussing all European Nations, Con won this argument by bringing up incomes and charities. The British Queen alone brings in more revenue than what all the Monarchies spent. Pro didn't focus on Luxembourg, and lost a lot of ground here. The Queen also brought in 1.4 billion pounds a year (or $2.3 billion) for charity. Pro lost ground on each case, and Con proved an overall positive effect of the Monarchy. Con also won ground when discussing the approval ratings of the monarchy.