The Instigator
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ChosenWolff
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

Official Debate: Should the United States became a Commonwealth realm?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
ChosenWolff
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/28/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,826 times Debate No: 58305
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (193)
Votes (5)

 

RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial

Pro

Hello, officially it's the Royalist Tea Party here, it has came to our attention that some people on this site were pretending to be us, for years, starting debates, discrediting us, etc., so we feel conflicted and must make an official debate. We apologise for any inconvenience. I, the real Emily Molloy, am having our vice chairman, Matthew, take control of this debate. For the record, we are American-born citizens. Here's proof that this account is official and legit:

https://www.facebook.com...


Now let's begin with this debate.


________

It’s time for the United States to join the Commonwealth. Membership in the Commonwealth would facilitate the kind of globalisation that is in the American national interest, and it would serve as a hedge against the emergence of a less benign international order based on civilisational power politics. In return, United States membership would offer the Commonwealth a much-needed shot in the arm in terms of resources and ideas that could transform it from a persistent underachiever into a leading model of transcivilisational co-operation.


ELIGIBILITY:
The Commonwealth is an important world organisation. It covers peoples of every religion, every colour, many languages, and every level of wealth. The common link is that all but one of these countries were at some point part of the British Empire. The United States of America therefore qualifies for membership. The United States of America is also not a member (of the Commonwealth), although originating from the 13 British colonies that were once located on the country’s eastern seaboard, and long established cultural, military, and diplomatic ties. There are some suggestions that these 13 states could possibly join the Commonwealth, but under Article 1, Section 10 of the US Constitution, individual states are forbidden from entering into any treaties, alliances, or confederations. If the US is to join the Commonwealth, all fifty states in the country, with most having never been ruled by the UK, will have to join as a whole under the US Federal Government. Such a situation is not without precedent, however, as is shown by the case of Cameroon. The foremost aim of the Royalist Tea Party [RTP] is to petition the Commonwealth of Nations to accept the United States as a member state and to restore the succession of the British Monarchy to the United States through Constitutional Convention (per Article V of the United States Constitution). Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution may be altered. Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments and subsequent ratification.

COMMONWEALTH POSITIVES:
Within the family of nations that is the Commonwealth are Republics such as India and the Republic of South Africa, Monarchies like Fiji, Dominions like Canada and Australia, and emerging third world powers like Nigeria, and commercial centres like Singapore. Her Majesty is not Head of State of all of these countries, but she is Head of the Commonwealth. Mozambique is part of the Commonwealth, even though the British flag never flew there. It came in as a side deal when South Africa rejoined the Commonwealth after South Africa became a full democracy.

ADVANTAGES OF THE COMMONWEALTH:
If a Commonwealth country has an issue on another continent, there are friends on that continent to whom it can turn for friendly advice and sometimes discreet friendly lobbying. As Zimbabwe is finding, and Pakistan and Nigeria before that, the united Commonwealth is a formidable bloc to encourage or discourage certain developments. When a country is criticised by a predominantly non-white Commonwealth it is hard to claim racism or colonialism convincingly.

WHY SHOULD THE USA JOIN?
The USA has slowly realised that it cannot act alone as a world power. Even world powers need friends. And frankly sometimes it has to be your best friend who tells you home truths in a private setting. What goes on the fringes of Commonwealth meetings is hugely significant. Side deals to open markets, grant scholarships, and organise placements and training in advanced countries outside any normal rules all help.

ARE THERE DIFFICULTIES?

The USA may have to understand that in the Commonwealth economic strength and population size and military capacity are all part of the picture. In every family every sibling gets a look in, and the bigger siblings cannot just push everyone around. Britain and India and Nigeria and South Africa earn respect not only for what they contribute but also for how they behave. Americans will be able to learn these new forms of diplomacy. Threatening, destabilising, and encouraging military coups are not the way the Commonwealth does things. Reason, encouragement, and mutual help, being part of a shared family, and like siblings looking out for each others interests are what makes the Commonwealth work. The Americans can learn to behave this way, and might even learn to transfer these techniques and approaches to their diplomacy generally. Are the Americans big enough to join a community of adults? Yes, if they want to.


Our modern Constitutional Monarchy gives us a Queen who is:

  • an impartial symbolic Head of State above politics, commercial and factional interests
  • a focus for national unity, national awards and honours and national institutions
  • a Head of State whom we share with 16 other independent countries because she is their Queen too and that links us all together amazingly and most valuably
  • the Head of the Commonwealth because all 53 countries recognise her as this and so she is a special unifying symbol for them too
  • the centrepiece of colourful non-political ceremonial and national celebrations
  • separate from the Head of Government (the Prime Minister), unlike in some countries where the two are combined, often with difficulty
  • able to give impartial non-political support to the work of a wide range of different types of organisations, faiths, charities, artists, craftsmen etc
  • a Head of State completely under the democratic control of Parliament but not having to change every few years in divisive elections
  • at the head of a Royal Family who can share the duties and represent the Queen
  • a constant, lasting symbolic head of the country with links back through our whole history and assured lines of continuity into the future
  • a worldwide well-known and respected symbol of our country carrying out State Visits and goodwill tours in other countries
  • For more information on the Royal Family visit the Royal website at http://www.royal.gov.uk...

We share so much and Canada also shares the British Monarchy, the United States would be better within the Commonwealth of Nations and looses so much being outside of it. What is the harm in joining? The Commonwealth will be strengthened by adding those in North America who want Queen Elizabeth II and her heirs as their head of state. It will provide political stability by placing the seat of power above that of political expedience. The American Revolution was an illegitimate rebellion and it is time we restored legitimate authority to this land. I would be surprised to see the U.S. ever join because most Americans just love the revolution. Mind you, really we were fighting a move made by the Parliament and not by the King but we paint a different story. We believe the second constitutional flaw that is ultimately responsible for this foul up, is this whole business of separation of powers where the executive and legislature are totally independent of each other, in a Parliamentary democracy, the Prime Minister cannot remain in office if he cannot command the support of the lower house, in the US the President can stay in office whether he has the support of congress or not leading to a great political deficit, if the chief executive cannot even get congress to support his proposals how can he get laws passed? Especially since he himself does not even have a seat in the house (which is of itself another shortsighted move). Clearly there must eventually be some political fallout from such a system. The simple fact is that the Westminster Model with its constitutional monarchy and its parliamentary structure has been proven as the most efficient of all forms of democracy that have been tried. Currently the President of the United States is both Head of Government and Head of State. We believe that the American public would be better served if these positions were separate, with the latter being held by an un-elected, non-partisan monarch.

Sources:

http://royalistpartyusa.tk...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

ChosenWolff

Con

I. Preface

I thank the Royalist Tea Partyfor instigating this debate with me. Since round one for her seems to be more of an introduction, rather than a argumentation round, I was planning on posting acceptance. Although the opposition requests me to go first, so I will. My arguments will be built off of several concepts and beliefs held by the American people, and will be less based around the benefits of democracy over monarchy, but the chaos and ill effects of implimentation. I want to point out now, that the opinionator has the burden of proof, and since this is a single handed affirmative stance, she will be required to prove that implimenting commonwealth status for America will lean 100% net good overall. If there are any signs that proof isn't one hundred percent in her favor, then argument points should be forfeited to me.

II. Criteria for joining the Common Wealth of Nations

To start this debate off, I wish to provide details on the exact criteria for joining the commonwealth. This will help provide a basis for later rounds, and I will warn the audience now, that the criteria lists were copied from wikipedia for the sake of time. Let's begin with the Edinburg declaration, which is the main basis for commonwealth membership.

- accept and comply with the Harare principles.

- be fullysovereign states.recognise Queen Elizabeth II as the Head of the Commonwealth.

- accept theEnglish languageas the means of Commonwealth communication.

- respect the wishes of the genral populationvis-à-visCommonwealth membership.


Now, following the Kampala review, the commonwealth nations were forced to abide by a new set of rules, known as the principals.I will get to more of those later. For now, I want to focus on my other arguments.

III. It's unconsitutional

I'll be honest. I don't really understand the resolution. It says that "America should join the commmonwealth", but advocates for installing a queen within our nation. This is what I call a dual proposal, and my opponent is advocating for both the US joining the commonwealth, and becoming a constitutional republic. Following the Westminster declaration, all commonwealth attendees must recognize the queen as the head of their nation, or the independent monarch. The updated Harare principles affirm the queen as the head of the commonwealth as well, or in other words, the head of the nations as a collective.

The US constitution, which is quoted in article VI, says that...

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Meaning all US representatives, executives, and judges, are bound by oath to abide by the US constitutional amendments. Which is important, because we also have this other clause, section 10, article I, within the constitution....

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

and....

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

also...

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence."

Now my opponent suggests we can fix this using article V. of the constitution. Which is the following....

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress"

There are several huge problems with my opponents plan. First of which being, that you can not erase an amendment from the constitution. You may only apply new ones. There are circumstances where you can overide another amendment with a new one, but that isn't even really the problem. US officials, as brought up earlier, are bound by the oath of affirmation, that they will support and abide by the constitution. Meaning that an overiding amendment can not be made if it violates another clause in the constitution. My opponent might try to bring up a case where we have overridden a phrase in an amendment, but the key difference, is that we never have cancelled anything from the constitution. We can, in a legal sense, only add to it. For example, the equal rights of all men, a controversial clause, wasn't taken down. It was given additions, such as blacks, women, and things it was lacking.

By overiding an establish law of the land, we are breaking our constitution.

[P1] Things in the constiution may not be overwritten
[P2] Giving office to a noble overwrites the constitution
[C1] Providing official status for the Queen as head of state and the commonwealth is unconstitutional

Now that would be fine, given this is a "should" resolution, but this also leads me to another contention.

[P1] The constitution is a binding document of America's values, traditions, integrity, and sovereignty
[P2] Giving office to a noble is breaking the American constitution
[C2] Making the Queen head of state is violating America's values, traditions, integrity, and sovereignty

III. Kampala Review

The Kampala Review was a look back at the Harame declarations, and a simple revisement. The Kampala Review of the commonwealth, affirms that all nations within must retain sovereignty, and accept the queen as their sovereign lady. Now, back to my last contention. If the US is breaking our constitution, we are officially losing what makes us strong and sovereign. Therefore, I can make this contention.

[P1] Making the Queen head of state is in violation of our sovereingty
[P2] The commonwealth requires all nations to be sovereign
[C3] The US would not be eligible to join the United Nations

IV. Nobillity is not democratic

The citizens of America, while sometimes naive, are very self concious about their liberty and freedom. They hold it true to their hearts. There is one, amazingly simple reason, on why the US can not join the commonwealth. Instating non elected officials is undemocratic. Observe....

de·moc·ra·cynoun\di-G2;mä-krə-sē\

: a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting

By joining the commonwealth, we are answering to a non-democratically elected leader. Therefore, we are subjected to desicions made by someone who was not voted in by the American people. That can't possibly be a good idea, can it? Even if it was, Americans hold their values close to their heart, and are willing to die for them.

[P1] Americans hold democratic values and voting liberty highly, and some are willing to die for them
[P2] Taking orders from an unelected sovereign violates American values
[C1] Giving the Queen sovereignty over America will cause bloodshed

Additionally....

[P1] Americans hold democratic values and voting liberty highly, and some are willing to die for them
[P2] Taking orders from an unelected sovereing violates American values
[P3] Giving the Queen sovereignty will cause Americans to lose self identity.

V. We don't need to join the commonwealth

America is the strongest nation on earth militarily, and has around 100 friendly and cooperative allies. We lead every single alliance were in, as the talking rooms high guy, and have shown that we are able to use that power to enforce cooperation among western democratic states. We are secured diplomatically, militarily, and if the US economy were to eventually tank, financially. This is the benefit of globalization in the modern world, and a superb example of how the US has secured its position.

But if all these partnerships are working in our favor, why would we not want to join the commonwealth? Simple, to many organizations, means to many responcibilities. The commonwealth has everything to take, and nothing that the other 79 international organizations aren't already giving us. We have to many responcibilities, and 80 is crossing the line.

http://www.archives.gov...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.tandfonline.com...
http://www.archives.gov...
http://www.sparknotes.com...



Debate Round No. 1
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial

Pro

Hello, ChosenWolff. It appears that our vice chairman, Matthew, is sick and has asked me to take control of this debate..... So I, Emily Molloy, chairman of the Royalist Tea Party, will take back control of this debate. Sorry about that.
________

Again, I would just like to thank our opponent for taking his time to debate this with us.

III. It's unconsitutional. "I'll be honest. I don't really understand the resolution. It says that "America should join the commmonwealth", but advocates for installing a queen within our nation. This is what I call a dual proposal, and my opponent is advocating for both the US joining the commonwealth, and becoming a constitutional republic. Following the Westminster declaration, all commonwealth attendees must recognize the queen as the head of their nation, or the independent monarch. The updated Harare principles affirm the queen as the head of the commonwealth as well, or in other words, the head of the nations as a collective."

We, the Royalist Tea Party, are a a legally registered non-profit U.S. political party which aims to lawfully amend the Constitution to appoint the British constitutional monarchy to the United States of America. We have a lawful plan to realise the monarchy, and one that is not predicated on winning over a sleeping majority. The United States is already a constitutional republic, "A Constitutional Republic is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens. A Constitutional Republic is the current form of government in the United States." Our opponent continues on saying that the Constitution cannot be overwritten, but the truth is, the US Constitution has been changed 27 times through amendments. That is the purpose of the amendments. And of course its meaning can be changed by the courts who have decided it is a "living document". It is changed by having 2/3 of the House and Senate agree to the change, and then 3/4 of the States through a 2/3 majority have to rattify it. The US Constitution has been successfully amended 27 times since its inception. Under Article 5 of the Constitution, such a convention can be convened when requested by two-thirds of the states, and it is one of two ways to propose amendments to the nation's founding document. The other method -- by which all previous constitutional amendments have been initiated -- requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress. Ratifying amendments then require three-fourths of the States to approve. The Royalist Tea Party has no problem facing the fact that America is a republic and, like it or not, will most likely stay that way. We can though exercise our right to promote our point of view: that monarchy is the best! If an honourable head of state, free of allegiance to political parties and special interest groups appeals to you, then clearly the current system of the United States is broke, and must be fixed.

[P1] Things in the constiution may not be overwritten Article VI, Section 2. "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

[P2] Giving office to a noble overwrites the constitution Article I, Section 9, Clause 8: "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."

[P2] The commonwealth requires all nations to be sovereign. Making the Queen head of state is in violation of our sovereingtyThe United States is an independent nation, governed by the American people, that controls its own affairs. Having the Queen of Head of State wouldn't violate our sovereingty. In Canada, the Queen, and in her absence the Governor General is the Head of State in Canada. Canada is however an independent and sovereign nation, best described as a Constitutional Monarchy. There were a number of events in Canada's history that led to this, the final one being the patriation of the Constitution in 1982. As an independent nation, Canada has no ties with Britain with the exception of sharing the same Head of State. Queen Elizabeth II in her role of Head of State is the Queen of Canada. The Prime Minister is appointed by the Head of State, who by convention selects the leader of the party with the most seats in Parliament. The Head of State in turn acts on the advice of the Prime Minister.

[C3] The US would not be eligible to join the United Nations Well, we actually still could as the United Nations is an intergovernmental organization established on 24 October 1945 to promote international co-operation. Either way, the United Nations should be abolished. I use their failings in Srebrenica and Rwanda as evidence of their failure to protect human rights. The fact that the UN has failed in its mission to address the problems in Syria and in supporting the surrounding countries in looking after the refugees from Syria. I also use the deaths of thousands of Haitians as a result of cholera originating from UN peacekeepers.

IV. Nobillity is not democratic No Republic, on the face of the earth, comes close to displaying the liberty, prosperity and continuity of the Christian Constitutional Monarchies. It is also yet to be proved that an Australian Republic would provide greater liberty, prosperity and continuity for the people of Australia. Australia's Westminster System of Government is the envy of the world. No one has had to flee a civil war on Australia's shores, nor fight for their life to escape political tyranny. Yet, this is the plight of many who suffer under Republican rule. A constitutional monarchy is preferable to the alternative; an elected Presidency. It avoids the partisan nature of a Presidency, inevitably associated with one of the political parties, and thus incapable of uniting the nation as monarchy can. In all countries public trust of politicians is sinking to new lows, another reason why an elected Presidency fails to provide a focus for national feeling. A constitutional monarchy is also a more effective system of government, vesting real power clearly in the hands of democratically accountable leaders with a mandate to govern, without all the dangers of political gridlock that can result from conflict between two differently elected bodies (e.g. in the USA or France).

[P3] Giving the Queen sovereignty will cause Americans to lose self identity No, if anything it would cause more Americans to gain self-identity. The most stable nations are monarchies. Monarchy has an interest in keeping its subordinates healthy and productive where democracy is unstable and self destructive. Kings know they will last for lifetime so they feel the need to be magnanimous and benevolent. Temporary governors on the contrary accumulate as much as they can during their term knowing that is coming to an end. Changing government every five years prevents a nation from achieving anything. Monarchs, knowing that the country is a personal possession will always act with good judgment rather than wasting resources. In democracy by contrast, the government will grab as much as it can, without regard to the future. In contrast to a king, a president will want to maximize not total government wealth but current income even at the risk of decreasing the national principal value. Monarchies allow life to go on without fear of a malevolent politician grabbing the power. A feat which allows the citizenry the comfort of knowing that their government will not be hijacked. This comfort allows people more time to focus on other things, instead of always watching the government. They can thus focus on things which boost their moral, and subsequently increase the amount of work they are willing to do, thereby improving the economy. An improved economy means a higher standard of living for the masses.

V. We don't need to join the commonwealth The Commonwealth offers the United States an idea that has worked. It has figured out how to conduct relations across the cleavages of wealth, religion, and race in an era in which international politics are characterized by intensifying economic interdependence and cultural assertiveness. This has been achieved by a combination of soft power and quiet diplomacy. The Commonwealth has very few hardpower resources at its disposal; just modest sums of money and a few peacekeepers where circumstances permit. It proceeds, as the Harare Declaration expresses it, ‘through consultation and the sharing of experience.’ Members like to see themselves, in the words of the former secretary general, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, as an ‘organic community of states,’ bound by mutual understanding, if not always by mutual agreement. Indeed, one of the most common terms used by those who participate in its operations is that of a family.

Sources:
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
ChosenWolff

Con

I. Understanding of Constitutional Overwriting

I think my opponent misunderstands how the US legislative process works. You can not overide an amendment. Just overwrite or add on to it. The 27 revisements the opposition was referring to were additional clauses. The constitution is bound for life. I stated that the oath of affirmation requires representatives to be bound by the constitution and to fully support it. The US has never been able to override a whole amendment besides the prohibition act, but that was due to a tricky catch we had around the system. Since representatives are bound by the constitution to support this document, votes that are in favor of violating a constitutional amendment are not allowed technically. While it still could happen, and although it's technically not legal, it would still be in favor of my contentions. I will reaffirm, that you may not vote to remove an amendment, only rewrite it on the grounds the vote wasn't based on intent of violating said amendment.

While the US "interpreters" will likely overlook the oath of affirmation like they always do, there will be many Americans who wont. Not to mention, we are still damaging several integral parts regarding the US bill of rights. That's never a good thing.

II. Constitutinal Underlines

Let me explain these to my opponent, because she read them wrong. I don't know if this was an accident, but the first part of the clause was suspiciously ommited from the oppositions quotation. No worries. I'll fix it...

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The constitution is the law of the land. Joining the commonwealth is not. Audience, I would like to clear something up. This debate is not about America accepting a queen, joining the commonwealth, AND accepting a new amendment. That was not part of the resolution, and while my opponent can argue it's possible, she has not stated that it will be a part of the OP plan. Therefore, her refutation regarding how this proposal is unconstitutional can not be disregarded by proving it's possible. They stand as unconstitutional regardless.

: "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."

Notice there is a hyphen between "no title of nobillity" and "no person holding office". I suspect the opposition simply read this wrong. It explicitly states that no title of nobility shall be granted, and the part you underlines was a seperate clause not subjected to the first. Here, I'll highlight the colon mark.

III. Understanding of Sovereignty

My opponent misunderstands. By following your resolution, which I will remind you, is the only thing were debating (no, you can't win this debate by proving a vote may be taken). By joining the commowealth, as the OP suggests, we would be commiting in something unconstitutional. If we cannot abide by our own constitution, then we can't truly be sovereign. Therefore, even if we were still somehow eligible, we would be at net harm, due to the loss we incurred from violating said constitution.

IV. UN can't join the UN WTF!!!!

I don't know what the fvck my opponent is talking about. The United Nations claim is a complete straw man. Read through everything. Where did I say this? This was a straw man to scape goat the US and play the blame game. I will remind the opposition, this is a debate on the overall net benefit of the US joining the commonwealth. The UN or Syria are not of importance.

V. Nobillity is apparently democratic

You dropped most of my contentions. I will remind my opponent, that bipartisian and tripartisian politics exist in every single nation. Not only in constitutional monarchies. Most of my points have been dropped, and I'm fathomed on why my opponent would think that an unelected official is more democratic that an elected one. Australia, the one nation she mentioned, is confirmed for having all the same problems faced in the US and France. Actually, there is constant in fighting among conservative and liberals in Australia. The political grid lock she claims exists in France hurts her own arguments. France is ruled by a majority party with a notable gap compared to the opposite party. The Socialist party are undisputed leaders of France at the moment.

This isn't the bad part about this rebuttal though. She says the monarchy constitutes "democratically accountable leaders". This is false. They are not accountable in the slightest. They are automatically given cushy seats eating up tax payer dollars. Real democratically accountable leaders are elected for a 4-5 year term, and then refaced by the population after said term to determine how well they fought for their nation. That's real democracy. My opponent is advocating for political authoritarianism and passing it off shallowly as democracy.

She has also not proven that a monarch embodies more national spirit than a president, and she must prove this happens on net average.

VI. Cultural Embodiment of the United States

A couple things to state here. There were absolutely no definitive examples or supporting evidence on all the claims she made on monarchy. They are simply claims. She says that under a monarchy, we will no longer have to fear "manevolent politicians" snatching power. Have you ever read Saint Augustine? He once brought up a theme called "pirates and emperors". The idea was that a robber and a corrupt dictator are the same things essentially. This applies here. Worrying about a politician grabbing power is somehow preferrable to handing it over freely to a monarch that's supposedly better? No, she broke the SRR rule, or selective reasoning. She is cherry picking arguments that apply to both sides, to her favor. This is not proper debate.

As for self identity, I wholly disagree. We have only 200 yeats of history, and it's built on sentiments of liberty, democracy, fraternity, and ideals that completely disenvow the institution of a monarch. Queen Elizabeth is a part of YOUR self identity. Not ours, and that's where your BOP collapses. You are trying to unsuccesfully employ credentiality with not exumative logic. For example, you continue to say "this works here, but that fails there". I could just as easily reverse that claim. There has been no proof for the millions of claims given.

VII. Membership

My opponent seemingly dropped all my points and conceded that the commonwealth has little more to offer than "fraternity". We have diplomatic relations with all these nations. There is no need to take another babysitting job. We are a part of 79 different "organic community of states", and the commonwealth doesn't need to be another. Our GDP is higher than all 53 nations combined. Our military is more formidable than all 53 nations combined. Commowealth = More responciblity, and when were tying to be a peaceful and fiscally responcible nation, it's things like these that can wreck all of that. Next thing you know, were choosing sides in a war with Pakistan.

Sources

[Educational Video on American Self Identity and Anti Monarchy Sentiment]

[Educational Video on the Pirates and Robbers theory]

[Educational Video on the importance of the US constitution]
Debate Round No. 2
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial

Pro

I. Understanding of Constitutional Overwriting Here my opponent tries to claim that I misunderstand how U.S. legislative process works, I am quite aware of how it works. Let's say the Congress didn't allow the Queen to have the tittle, or office, "Queen America", we could create an amendment referendum to the U.S. Constitution to allow the Queen to be Head of State, then the people of the States would vote on it, and if the referendum wins, then it wins... Keep in mind, the U.S. Constitution has 27 Amendments with the first 10 constituting the Bill of Rights. In addition, there are places in the main text that are no longer enforced. For example, Article 4 Section 2, Clause 3 (the fugitive slave clause) is no longer enforced. Seventeen Amendments have been added to the United States Constitution since it was origonally Ratified in 1788, the first 10 Amendmend comprise the Bill of Rights & has been Amended 17 times since, the 18th Amendment, which made the Prohibition legal was ratified in 1919 & repealed in 1933. The most recent Amendment to the US Constitution was in 1992 when the 27th Amendment was Ratified in 1992, it prohibits any law that increases or decreases the salary of members of the Congress from taking effect until the start of the next set of terms of office for Representatives. And to be honest? If the referendum were to be rejected, even if the people elected the Royalist Tea Party, it was Thomas Jefferson himself who said "“Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness] it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government...”

II. Constitutinal Underlines Audience, this debate is about accepting the Queen and joining the Commonwealth as a constitutional monarchy. My opponent is trying to say that this was not part of the resolution, which it has been all along. And again, I have stated this is the plan. My opponent can argue that it's unconstiutional, but the facts stand "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state." Meaning Congress could allow it, but without Congress allowing it, the Queen cannot have the office, nor tittle, "Queen of America".

IV. UN can't join the UN WTF!!!! In Round One my opponent said "The US would not be eligible to join the United Nations". So I then disputed his claim, as well informing my opponent that the United States would still be eligible, but as well stated why the United Nations should be abolished. In the comment section, me and my opponent agreed on being respectful and to follow the rules of this debate, I will remind our opponent to continue on being respectful and not to be rude. He has already broken the rule to not use profanity.

V. Nobillity is apparently democratic I have only dropped some of your claims due to me disputing the claims that were linked to your other claims. It is true that bipartisan will always be an issue, but my opponent seems to think this is about having an unelected official being more democratic that an elected one. Again, this is about having an apolitical Head of State so the United States can become stable. My opponent says "Australia is confirmed for having all the same problems faced in the US and France. France is ruled by a majority party with a notable gap compared to the opposite party. The Socialist party are undisputed leaders of France at the moment." First of all, my opponent did not provide any proof that Australia is confirmed for having all the same problems facred in the US and France, second of all, France’s ruling Socialists lose big in recent local elections, I will provide proof of that. The facts are, Australia is more stable than the United States because they have the Queen as Head of State, which is an apolitical head of state. My opponent states "She says the monarchy constitutes "democratically accountable leaders". This is false. They are not accountable in the slightest. They are automatically given cushy seats eating up tax payer dollars. Real democratically accountable leaders are elected for a 4-5 year term, and then refaced by the population after said term to determine how well they fought for their nation. That's real democracy. My opponent is advocating for political authoritarianism and passing it off shallowly as democracy. She has also not proven that a monarch embodies more national spirit than a president, and she must prove this happens on net average." Again, my opponent yet again failed to provide proof. The monarchy is cheap than the U.S. and France republic, and The Queen is far more popular in America than President Obama. Also According to the Democracy Index, many of the most democratic nations in the world are Constitutional Monarchies and many of the least democratic nations in the world are republics. Again, I will provide proof of these at the bottom page.

VI. Cultural Embodiment of the United States . 01. You can read more for yourself. http://goo.gl... 02. Theirs a difference Between Dictatorship and Monarchy, you can read more for yourself. http://goo.gl... And if you like you can read more about the Role of the Sovereign and the Role of the Monarchy from the official British Monarchy Website.
http://goo.gl... | http://goo.gl...

Why should the United States become a constitutional monarchy and to join the Commonwealth? Theirs a lot of reasons, put let me put like this and maybe you will understand. Throughout history, embassies have been the centre for the building of mutual relationships between foreign governments, and have also, sadly, been the centre for turmoil, Benghazi, Iranian revolution hostage crisis, to name a few. In general however, the idea of an embassy is to bring foreign nations closer together, culturally, economically, and in politics. It is what allows people to connect with a nation, in a way, as the values and traditions of a nation are typically made known at a particular embassy. This is why embassies, all over the world maintain different building design, interior layout, special exchange programmes, and through the attitudes of diplomats. The Commonwealth of Nations and each of its member nations enjoy a special form of diplomatic missions, known as High Commissions. A high Commission is, in most aspects, an embassy, with some differences. First, each Commonwealth nation shares a special bond, through language, rule of law, values, and history. This means that they do not have a “foreign” viewpoint of one another. The ambassador takes another name, as a High Commissioner. A High Commission has its history set during the Days of the British Empire, where a High Commissioners job was to manage protectorates, that were not under full control of the Crown. However, the idea of High Commissions evolved over time into what now allows nations like Canada and Australia to maintain special cultural, and political ties together that you would not see in an embassy. Put it like this, embassies focus on “foreign” relations, and High Commissions emphasise the special Commonwealth bond, by means of easier access, occasionally shared High Commission buildings, as was the case for Canada and the United Kingdom, allowing for efficient diplomatic missions, a bond that, while it has a certain emotional aspects to it, also functions with a manner that encourages citizens of the Commonwealth to interact, and communicate with one another, having a common interest. Common interests is why they do not have a foreign view of each other. The United States was founded on many principles shared by many of these nations, particularly Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Common law, the English language, and our heritage rooted in the British Empire gives us the opportunity to maintain a High Commission, and develop a much closer cultural, economic and political bond with our true family. We need to cast aside our 1776 prejudices towards a king from 238 years ago, and embrace nations which share much more in common with us then many of our citizens may think. It’s an uphill climb, but it is well worth it. Why? Why should the United States continue to be a republic and continue to have the United States fail... Again, I will provide links so don't worry, right now, as in currently speaking, I may be arguing from passion, but unconstitutional or not, I'm not going to let Congress, Obama, and all these politicians destroy this county for their own greed and benefits. And again, I will provide links. So answer this for me, why should the United States continue on it's path? We need a leader that will do what is right. One who is not afraid to do what must be done for the sake of the nation, and to rid the country of it’s corrupt two party “republic” that has failed consistently over the last 50 years. We help fulfil the growing need for an alternative political solution in a climate where so many individuals are turning their back on politics altogether. The supreme goal of the Royalist Tea Party is not the restoration of a medieval political theory, but a reinvention of a proven and successful form of governance. A form of government wherein the bickering, stagnation and consistent corruption inherent in democratic and republican forms of government is absent. So on that, I just want to make myself clear and ask for you to respectfully answer my questions.


Sources:
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
ChosenWolff

Con

I. Constitution

Alright, I think me and the opposition are on the same page now. I thought seh was refering to hosting a vote for a new law, without making a new amendment. Although I have to say, this is not the resolution. We are not debating whether the US should change its constitution or not. That is a wholly different debate topic, and while she can argue it, nothing within the argument can accomplish her BOP. You see, originally I thought see was arguing for the simple vote, and that would somehow just bypass all the laws of the constitution. Although the point on the oath of affirmation is absolutely true, and you can not legally overwrite a law based on non-constitutional intentions. Technically the Supreme Court can enforce the oath of affirmation in cases of constitutional amendments. There are only so many things we are "allowed" to change.

Although I would like to move on to a more relevant point, as this wasn't the crux of the contention. The resolution only says that the United States should join the commonwealth. She can't argue the X factor, before she has proven her BOP. Think of her arguments like outliers. Joining the commonwealth is violating the constitution, for now. Her making an argument that says we can host a V amendment vote is an outlier point. It's true, but still doesn't change my argument that the resolution alone is violating the Bill of Rights.

Imagine my resolution was "I should eat tacos". My opponent could say, "You shouldn't eat tacos because your poor". With me finishing my rebutals by saying "Well, I can make the money". This is a simpler version of the fallacy we just witnessed. The points don't connect into one overarching contention. Having an outlier argument removes a lot of credibillity from your argument. This is currently what were looking at. "We can join the commonwealth by holding x, and repeal law (yes, there are also laws against this) y, and we finish by holding another vote to abolish c, so we can get around g,h,j". Otherwise, holding a complicated process of holding about 10 legislative votes just for the installation of one act we don't want.

II. Constitutional Underlines

This is the last time I will clarify these for my opponent. If you read them very carefully, I hope you'll see my interpretation rather than hers.

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."

I bolded and made the colon larger this time. No, the resolution isn't that we should host an amendment vote. I will restate, this is an outlier point. Currently, her resolution in raw format is unconstitutional.


III. United Nations

I greatfully conceded that I had said this. I meant to say commonwealth in my contention, but I slipped and didn't notice it while reading back. Still, this point has nothing to do with the debate. We should move on from this as it is irrelavant, and my opponents contentions on Syria and Rwanda remain as scape goats/blame game.

IV. Democratic

Still, I'm not seeing the correlation between the queen being more democratic than a elected official. This was my original conention. Americans pride themselves on democracy, and are willing to kill for it. The queen is not democratic, and never will be democratic. The oppositions only contention is that the queen would be a national symbol for americans. The queen is THEIR national symbol. You can't seriously expect to win this point? By your logic, we can instate the Dalai Lama as our ruler. Right? Why Queen Elizabeth? The Dalai Lama is more relevant to our culture than the hag living across the Atlantic. Hell, that new John Oliver (British) on HBO is trashing her all the time.

This debate is not about logical reasoning or natural anaylisis. It is about an illusion of granduer centered around the idea of placing a British queen to be an American leader. We are simply not British, and if the queen were to be head of state, she wouldn't be a national symbol of our values (which monarchy itself is against them), but a constant scapegoat of hate for our people. Australia has 100% British roots. Only 5% of our population is ethnically British. The recent polls in Australia show that nearly 60% of the population want the monarchy gone. In the UK, where monarchy has existed forever, 25% of the population want her gone. If the queen was in America, why would she think we would be any different than Australia, or ever worse? I can easily invision 95% of the country wanting her gone. That's the real debate. The people simply don't want her. It doesn't matter if she somehow could give us some additional benefit. If the people don't want her, then she has nothing to give us, and everything to take.

As for Bi-Partisian politics, here is three articles revealed by a simple googlle search on Asian Bi Partisian politics. Didn't even have to say Australia.

http://www.theguardian.com...
https://torrentfreak.com...
http://www.theguardian.com...

VI. Cultural Embodiment

Great, but this doesn't have to do with the above premise. There is little difference between a "constitutional monarch" and a "constitutional dictator. The pirates and empires theory still stands. Politicians (dictators) take power, and the queen is given power. If it quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it's a duck.

VII. Why should the US join the commonwealth

The opposition has brought up several points here. Actually, just two. A completely unrelated point on embassies, and that we apparently share common things among the actual anglo saxon states. No, we are only connected to Britain in the slight sense that we speak english, and that they once had claimed a strip of our land constitution 1/6 of the mainland, which they never actually sent troops or governors to reside in. We have no connection to the british. More ingrained in European, African, and South American immigration. We were founded on 12 different nations, empires, ect. We can't claim a british connection like the other 53 commonwealth states can. To Americans, the queen is an old hag that we do not care or take time to worry about. Which is actually the same theme we see among Britain's youth. She is a old woman who was handed power, nothing more or less.

Now, if the opposition wants to bring up an actual point on why we need another baby sitting job, then that would be great. She conceded earlier the commonwealth has little resources to give us besides friendship. We are already friends with these nations. Hell, the only reason the commonwealth exists is to hold their quad-annual games, and that's coming from the British delegate, lol.
Debate Round No. 3
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial

Pro

I. Constitution The whole point of this debate is to argue the United States joining the Commonwealth of Nations as a constitutional monarchy, I assure you it's not "another debate", nor am I wanting to fully change the United States' constitution. I have already stated why joining is not unconstitutional, and technically speaking, with just joining the Commonwealth of Nations itself as a republic, being Head of the Commonwealth is not being Head of State. The Head of the Commonwealth is the figurehead and "symbol of the free association of the independent member nations" of the Commonwealth of Nations, an intergovernmental organisation which currently comprises 53 sovereign states. There is no set term of office or term limit and the role itself involves no part in the day-to-day governance of any of the member states within the Commonwealth of Nations.The title was created for King George VI, due to India's desire to become a republic but not depart the Commonwealth of Nations. The title is currently held by George's daughter, Queen Elizabeth II. There is no agreement concerning who will succeed her as the Head of the Commonwealth. I will provide links at te bottom of the page. So again, and technically speaking, we are not giving her Title, nor Office, of whatever kind, of the United States.


II. Constitutional Underlines This is why I am interpreting the quote, "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state." Either way, this is up for interpretation, and because of it not being 100% clear, this not only becomes irrelevant, but non-applicable as a force of something being "unconstitutional" or not. The odds of royality being unconstitutional is low, unless stated clearly.

IV. Democratic Again, I will repeat myself, this not between how the Queen is being more democratic than an elected official. We do pride ourselves on democracy, but we must have an apolitical Head of State because the Head of Government must be separate than the Head of State. We can elect anyone we want, like Canada. In the United States, the president has more power than a Monarch. I will provide links on how the separation of powers are leading to a monarchical presidency. Which again, is dangerous, really dangerous. Don't worry, I will provide links. And again, as for the Queen being a natitional symbol, I will repeat: Our modern Constitutional Monarchy gives us a Queen who is: an impartial symbolic Head of State above politics, commercial and factional interests a focus for national unity, national awards and honours and national institutions a Head of State whom we share with 16 other independent countries because she is their Queen too and that links us all together amazingly and most valuably the Head of the Commonwealth because all 53 countries recognise her as this and so she is a special unifying symbol for them too the centrepiece of colourful non-political ceremonial and national celebrations separate from the Head of Government (the Prime Minister), unlike in some countries where the two are combined, often with difficulty able to give impartial non-political support to the work of a wide range of different types of organisations, faiths, charities, artists, craftsmen etc a Head of State completely under the democratic control of Parliament but not having to change every few years in divisive elections at the head of a Royal Family who can share the duties and represent the Queen a constant, lasting symbolic head of the country with links back through our whole history and assured lines of continuity into the future a worldwide well-known and respected symbol of our country carrying out State Visits and goodwill tours in other countries For more information on the Royal Family visit the Royal website at www.royal.gov.uk


"This debate is not about logical reasoning or natural anaylisis. It is about an illusion of granduer centered around the idea of placing a British queen to be an American leader. We are simply not British, and if the queen were to be head of state, she wouldn't be a national symbol of our values (which monarchy itself is against them), but a constant scapegoat of hate for our people. Australia has 100% British roots. Only 5% of our population is ethnically British. The recent polls in Australia show that nearly 60% of the population want the monarchy gone. In the UK, where monarchy has existed forever, 25% of the population want her gone. If the queen was in America, why would she think we would be any different than Australia, or ever worse? I can easily invision 95% of the country wanting her gone. That's the real debate. The people simply don't want her. It doesn't matter if she somehow could give us some additional benefit. If the people don't want her, then she has nothing to give us, and everything to take."

You are absolutely right, we are not British, but placing the Queen, not as the American leader, but as Head of State, not only unites us with hisotry, but also is a impartial symbolic Head of State above politics, commercial and factional interests a focus for national unity, we can still elect a pressidant, but he/she would be equivalent to a prime minister. And again, my opponent has failed to provide links. It's a fact that according to American Community Survey in 2009, Americans reporting British ancestry are 40,234,652, or 13.0% of the total U.S. population, for my opponent to say only 5%, is quite an insult. Don't worry, I will provide links, Now as for the recents polls in Australia,
51 per cent of Australians do not want to become a republic - See more at: http://www.georgianewsday.com...

41.6% of people oppose the country becoming a republic and the remaining 19% have no opinion. Again, I will provide links. Now as for the United Kingdom, only 17 per cent wan a republic. There is a big difference between being Head of State in a republic and a Monarch in a constitutional monarchy. The Queen would certainly not stand to be a President and it is highly unlikely that other members of the Royal Family would either. An election would politicalise the office of Head of State and make it far harder for them to represent the whole nation. Politicians will usually always dominate any election as all political parties descend into fighting for party advantage rather than what is best for the nation. An election is not needed to prove the popularity of the Queen as it is clearly demonstrated throughout the country by people’s actions. A political president will usually appeal to people who share that persons political beliefs and would put off people with opposing views. This is very different to the Queen and our constitutional monarchy which serve as a symbol of our heritage and national unity. According to polls, the monarchy has support from a majority of people in all different age groups, all parts of the country, and by a majority of supporters of the 3 main UK political parties that secured almost 90% of the vote in May 2010. The monarchy is clearly more unifying than a President which makes it easier for the Queen to represent the nation, as does the fact Monarchs reign for far longer than a President who would usually serve for just a few years. For example, on Remembrance Sunday the Queen leads the whole nation in remembrance of those who have fallen in war whilst the political party leaders line up alongside each other and pay their respects more as equals. In a republic, the political Head of State would often lead the nation and be the focus of attention which can be divisive for their political opponents especially if it is near election time when such a position can be exploited.

VI. Cultural Embodiment There's no such thing as a "constitutional dictator". The Queen doesn't just "take powers", and abuses it. She doesn't "quack like a duck", doesn't "look like a dock", she isn't a "duck", nor a politician who cares only about money and power. And if you can prove to me that she is acting like a dictator, and "taking powers", and "abusing them as such", that would be appreciative.

VII. Why should the US join the commonwealth You clearly didn't understand what I said then. We do have a lot of connections with the British, as I have proved. Not just Europeans. The Queen is not an old hag, and for you to speak on behalf of all Americans is quite disturbing, as I have proved that the Queen is more liked in our country than the president. She is not just an old woman who has "handed power", and "nothing more or less". As for the Commonwealth being just a "baby sitting job", I will provide you will a link on why the Commonwealth offers a bright future, maybe that will help you understand. You are making false claims and being really rude and disrespectful, when I have been nothing but nice to you, so I shall remind you again the rules of this debate which you agreed to follow via the comment section before we begun this debate. "ChosenWolff, please follow our following rules: No use of profanities or swear words. No personal attacks against other members or a member's opinions. No use of racial, sexual or religious slurs. No threats or implications thereof. Please be respectful and nice. Please do not be rude", which you replied "Ugh............... yeah. Sure."

Sources:
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
ChosenWolff

Con

I. Plagiarism

There was a huge PM controversy where my opponent admitted to copy and pasting text into her arguments. She conceded to doing so. The copy and pasted material was in the form of huge blocks of text. Litterally 75% of her arguments have been C&P'd. She sourced which sites she copy and pasted from, and used it in her defense. I created a forum to ask others if this was allowed, and contacted the mod. Apparently this is extremely ill conduct, and the voters should disregard pretty much ALL of her arguments up to this point. It does not matter if you cited where you copy and pasted from. The simple fact remains, that you must paraphrase your sources. You can't just scroll over a paragraph and post it as an argument.

http://www.debate.org...

Do to my opponents plagiarism, and that the users of DDO advised me to not refute plagiarised content (I did much investigating into the matter, before scrapping it as terrible conduct), I will not be refuting the oppositions arguments for a third time. Entirely new arguments have been prepared for this round. Here is what some DDO users advised doing for this debate. BTW, my opponent keeps claiming it was only one paragraph, but these are lies. She pagiarized from nearly every source she cited. I have identified 10 plagiarized paragraphs at this point.

- Scrap conduct for Pro

- Ignore all of Pro's arguments after R1 (which she didn't make any)

- Give Con source points.

Of course, the choice is entirely up to you. This is simply what others said they would do, and I'm only putting this out there for those who don't know how to deal with plagiarism. Now, I want to get to something more relevant. I was told by a user, that the Royalist Tea Party has been accused of cheating on four different debates.

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

Apparently, cheating is a reoccuring trend with my opponent. I bring this up, so voters will be alert of any attempts at cheating I may of missed. Hopefully the voters will strike this ill conduct appropriately.


II. Idealism embodiment

The monarchy, stated by my opponent, is a national symbol that represents the ideals of the people. I was reminded by a debate I had with someone regarding humanism. The opposition has commited to the SAR fallacy. Or in other words, leads us to believe that one man or woman, can represent the intrests of an entire populace. This is how dictators and tyrants justified their power. It turns out that a non democratically elected leader will always represent a minority view of someone. This is a constant rule.

If you didn't understand what I just said, then I'll reiterate. A monarch, like my opponent says, is supposed to represent the values of an entire nation. The problem, is that do to the monarch being unelected, it is almost virtually impossible for this ruler to embodie the values of our culture. That's not how democracies work. Also, something that hasn't been considered, is that the queen is symbolic for the culture and values of Britain. Not the United States. It would not work in America, given the queen does not embody American culture, history, or values.

In fact, the queen actually goes against two of our values. Democracy and modesty. Most of America is comprised of simple protestant families. Not royal extravagant churches and non democratic leaders. My opponents ONE good contention actually turns out to be terrible.

III. Abuse of Power

A commonwealth realm comprises three components. The queen, the governor general, and the general assembly below. The problem with a commonwealth realm, is that despite what people say, the queen appoints the person who makes all the desicions in a nation. People often claim that... "Oh, if the queen abused her powers of military and appointment we would overthrow her". This is a foolish belief held by foolish people. If we are to assume that we can just overthrow a head of state who abuses their power, then we are making the same mistake that millions before us have made as well. The fact of life, is that you put yourself in situations where you are safe. You don't intentionally put yourself into a situation where you can be abused.

The Queen, is like any constitutional dictator, as I pointed out. The queen is bound by a contitution that her family approved. And a dictator is bound by a constitution that his party approved. They are the same thing, and it's 100% true that the queen has unchecked power in both military and politics. She can royally mandate the marines and must give assent to every law. Whomever thought this was a good idea? Well, who? ..........................

The Royal family themselves. This is an undeniable truth. Just as a dictator gives himself powers within a constitution, the royal family gave themselves powers within a constitution. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck. Just as Augustine of Hippo argued.

A queen with unchecked power is no different than a president with unchecked power (dictator).

http://marginalrevolution.com...
Debate Round No. 4
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial

Pro

I. Plagiarism My opponent claims that 75% of my arguments have been plagiarized, that is not true. I didn't doing anything wrong, sure I made a few mistakes and didn't use quotations and all that, but I didn't plagiarize. The fact of the matter is, I still gave credit. Therefore I didn't "take it as my own". I gave credit to all my sources. Again, my opponent is making a big deal out of nothing.... If I wanted to plagiarize, I wouldn't have gave credit. I'm new on debate.org so forgive me for my mistakes. My opponent states "it does not matter if you cited where you copy and pasted from. The simple fact remains, that you must paraphrase your sources. You can't just scroll over a paragraph and post it as an argument." Which is not true, did I say I wrote everything in my debate? No, I didn't. Therefore he cannot say it was my intent to plagiarize anything. Again, tt's not plagiarism, plagerism is only if you copy something word for word that was made from another person, but if you do copy it word for word, as long as you give credit to the site or author, and don't claim the words to be yours, then your ok. That's what I've always been told. The fact of the matter remians, I gave credit. So I didn't plagiarize anything.... It was my opponent who said "To start this debate off, I wish to provide details on the exact criteria for joining the commonwealth. This will help provide a basis for later rounds, and I will warn the audience now, that the criteria lists were copied from wikipedia for the sake of time. Let's begin with the Edinburg declaration, which is the main basis for commonwealth membership." For my opponent to use this is a sad excuse because he knows he cannot answer my questions, it wouldn't be fair to scrap as this was just one big innocent mistake, and I'm sorry. My opponent has also adviced for everyone to ignore all my arguments after R1, which I did write most of my arguments. My opponent says "Of course, the choice is entirely up to you. This is simply what others said they would do, and I'm only putting this out there for those who don't know how to deal with plagiarism. Now, I want to get to something more relevant. I was told by a user, that the Royalist Tea Party has been accused of cheating on four different debates." And I agree on that, but as for the previous "debates", I have stated from the beginning that "for years, some people on this site were pretending to be us, starting debates, discrediting us, etc., so we feel conflicted and must make an official debate" although I guess that wasn't really smart considering the heat I have at the moment. Earlier I have asked my opponent what he meant by making a new case of arguments, he replied "I think I'll keep them to myself. Someone delivered an infathomable idea to me, and it's being implimented asap." And now he is trying to jeopardize my debate and refuses to answer my arguments. He has also just recently sent me this messages saying "BTW, have you guessed my real identity?", I have no idea what he is talking about.

II. Idealism embodiment Here my opponent tries to argue that one man or woman, cannot represent the intrests of an entire populace because how dictators and tyrants justified their power. It I have provided my opponent with the Constitutional Powers of the Queen and have also proved that she has been representing the intrests of an entire populace, as well with 16 countries. And all of which, according to the Democracy Index, are more democratic than republics... But my opponent has also ignored that fact, even though I showed him proof.

III. Abuse of Power Here my oponent tries to argue that the Queen is like a "constitutional dictator", and I have already proven to him that this is not true, but he has ignored that fact. A dictator will always be a dictator regardless of the form, a constitutional Queen and King will be a Monach, strictly bound by a constitution. My oponent has tried to argue that "A queen with unchecked power is no different than a president with unchecked power (dictator).", but the link directly goes to short story of the
Saint Augustine on Pirates
Saint Augustine on Pirates, which is not proof. I have provided proof that a president is more powerful than a Monach.


Now, as for more reasons to join the Commonwealth of Nations:
"Membership in the Commonwealth would offer the United States a much better way of finessing or pre-empting civilizational power politics. Commonwealth members are sympathetic to marketization and democratization, and none of them, with the possible exception of India, sees the United States as an obstacle to its ambitions, let alone as a rival. A fully democratized and marketized Commonwealth enjoying United States participation would be a value in itself. It would advance the material interests of the United States. But perhaps most importantly of all, it would demonstrate the universal quality of values to which the United States subscribes far more eloquently than any hunkered down rich person’s club could. The Commonwealth has long been engaged in what the administration of Bill Clinton calls ‘democratic enlargement,’ most notably in the case of ending apartheid, but more recently in Nigeria and some of its smaller neighbours in west Africa. Membership for South Africa, Nigeria, Fiji, and now Pakistan became issues because of the undemocratic activities of their governments. South Africa left in 1961 and was only let back in after apartheid ended. Nigeria’s membership was suspended in 1995 and only reinstated this year. Pakistan’s recent coup was followed by the suspension of its membership. And, as the recent CHOGM in Durban made clear, there is a strong move to strengthen the ability of the organization to monitor the domestic conduct of its members through a system of kitemarks for good behaviour and ‘at risk’ lists -- and suspension for those who fail." You can actually read more from our website: http://goo.gl... I ask my opponent to argue why the United States shouldn't join the Commonwealth of Nations, besides saying it's "unconstitutional", as I've already proven it's not. I also ask my opponent to state why he doesn't like a Monarch as his Head of State, after all, she did serve in WW2. http://goo.gl...;

My opponent has failed to state why he's against nobility, with facts. My opponent has also dropped my points on the Queen being more popular than the President. I have provided more facts on why becoming a Commonwealth realm would be good for the United States, but it seems my opponent has also failed to state why we should stay as a republic, I ask again for him to provide facts of why we should remain a republic, with no political stability. I also request for him to keep in mind that it's just going to get worse. Monarchy is the oldest institution and the best form of governance. We can not afford to elect people from unknown family members to bankrupt our country's wealth, start civil wars and poor service delivery. We have learnt from King David from Prince of Emden, the heirs to the British crown, and Napoleon Bonaparte the third descendants. We must have a constitutional monarchy, because without it, theirs no stability. And pretty soon we (the United States) won't even be a country. Just a complete war zone, though if anything. My opponent has dropped my points on the fact that Monarchy is cheaper than a republic, and the facts I've provided on how the Monarchy is better than a republic. At this point my opponent has not only broken the rules of this debate, but has also dropped most of my points, not just the other linked points. If my opponent thinks it's all right to grant nobility in the past, and not in the future, I could argue that this would be hypocritical behaviour, which is unacceptable.

























I ask my opponent these two questions, "What do you get when you don't have political stability?", "What do you get when a country lacks patriotism?" The answer is 'war'. And without the Queen, our country has no sort of stability if anything were to happen. In fact, we are at war now because most of us can't look up to Obama. So who can we look up to? No one, we are divided, and that's what republics do to us. Everything Obama says or does has to do with politics, and quite frankly the public is getting sick of politics. It would just be 'war'. Now here is the final question, is it really worth fighting against her? She knows what to do, she was born into this job of being Head of State, remember? She does a lot of good, and her love is strongly real, which I have already proven, but in case you missed it: http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl.... Unless you are power-hungry and money-hungry, this is the best form of government mankind knows. Here's proof of that: http://goo.gl...



A vote for Pro is a vote for a better and secure future for We, the American People. We hope to replace the office of Head of State with our Sovereign Queen. Her Majesty, or her representative in the United States, the Governor-General, would assume the original, Constitutional powers of the President of the United States, and would serve as a non-partisan and impartial arbiter of our Constitutional government. The Royalist Tea Party would also see the United States join the Commonwealth of Nations, in the interest of forming stronger cultural, trade, and political bonds with nations who share our heritage in the English language, British liberty, and peace among nations. Again, I would just like to thank Con for debating this with me. We ask everyone to vote wisely and on good judgement. Thank you! We hope you enjoyed this debate.


(My Country, 'Tis of Thee) https://www.youtube.com... Grand Union Flag: For Queen and Country, for King and Country! "Honour all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honour the King." - 1 Peter 2:17.
ChosenWolff

Con

I. Plagiarization

Oh man, I cracked up laughing. The first thing I did before reading the oppositions arguments, is plug her text into google to check for plagiarization. You would not believe it. She copy and pasted text AGAIN. I will inform my opponent, that you MUST either quotate or paraphrase an argument. My opponent conceded she forgot to quote or paraphrase, which is BS within itself, as she never specifically linked the blocks of text with her arguments. I cannot believe I accepted this debate, to have my opponent plagiarize. Even worst? She continues to plagiarize even after being called out. This is extremely ill conduct. Either my opponent thinks she can pull the wool over are eyes or genuinely believes that posting other peoples writing in huge block of text is ok.

I accepted this debate under the impression we could have a legitimate debate. Instead, she decides to plagiarise and cheat. I asked her to stop, about 7 people have told her what she did was cheating, while conceding she made a mistake. Yet she CONTINUES to plagiarise. This is outrageous. This is a sick joke. I will refute the oppositions text regardless of the fact that it was stolen!!! How sad it is that I went three rounds of arguing someone elses writing. My opponent obviously has a huge misunderstanding of what plagiarism is. Every university has the same guidelines. If you're going to post someones work, it must either be paraphrased or quotated. Putting the source at the bottom doesn't excuse copy and pasting a block of text into your argument.

If anyone so much as gives her arguments, sources, or conduct at this point, I might just blow my stack. She has cheated this whole debate, and continues after being called out. Also, that is a complete lie that the other 4 debates were your impersonators. They were you with different accounts. Don't BS the audience. You pulled the same tricks in the other debates.

II. Abuse of power

My opponent either did not understand my argument or intentionally dropped my points. The monarchy is bound to a constitution the monarchy wrote. Queen Elizabeth still has unchecked power. She can veto any law, has executive authority over the military, and royal preogative. These are powers that the US president has, yet she is not elected, or can her royal assent be overturned. There is no difference between a constitutionally bound monarch and a constitutionally bound dictator. They both have power that no one can check, and that isn't ok for any nation.

Only a fool would put himself into a situation where he knows he can be abused,

III. Idealism Embodiment

Still, my opponent fails to live up to her BOP. She is commiting the SAR fallacy. Or, if I wasn't clear last time, the attempt at subjectifying values. That's what my opponent claimed. That the queen represents strong integrity and values that Americans hold dear. This is fallacious, as this is implying that the every person in America has the same moral and ethical code. Another dropped point. If you count all the points she dropped so far, this would of been the seventh.

IV. Why America should become a commonwealth realm

This is where she started plagiarizing. Almost all of the text under this contention was copy and pasted from other sites, and not quotated. Therefore, it is plagiarism, and I'm following the advice of others when they tell me to ignore arguments in which Pro stole others work. If my opponent refuses to write her own work, then I will as well. Although there are several points I want to bring up.

- The opposition has dropped many points, and therefore not lived up to the BOP. Even if she did not drop points, many of her own were weak and not sufficient proof for a debate of this quality.

- My opponent has not sufficiently correlated the institution of a monarch with the success of a nation

- It has been shown 100% clearly now that having a monarch is against the constitution, therefore, goes against American values

- The opposition failed to show that joining a group of monarchs would benefit us

- Pro has plagiarized almost all of her work. Although it was cited, it did not match university standards for plagiarization.

- If for some wild reason Pro didn't plagiarize, which she did, she still failed to make any arguments of her own (They all were copy and pasted from other sites)

- It has been proven with 100% certainty that the Queen does not allign with american values, and therefore can not be a national symbol of said values

- My opponent dropped many points regarding how the queen has unchecked powers equivalent to the presidency. Therefore, has unintentionally conceded that a constitutional mmonarch is no different than a constitutional dictator.

- Pretty much this whole debate was about how America is unstable, corrupt, and a terrible place, but has shown not one reasonable bit of proof that a queen will make things better, besides opinion.

Thank you for your time audience, and I hope you will realize my opponent had no intrest in debating this, before you cast your vote.
Debate Round No. 5
193 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial 2 years ago
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial
I feel I didn't plagiarise as I gave credit by providing the links. but can someone please explain to me how my arguments are being ignored for 1 point, yet all 5 votes giving to Con as a result of this tiny mistake?
Posted by RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial 2 years ago
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial
I still don't understand how I lost just because of plagiarism. That should be just conduct, I am waiting for someone to explain to me how this is fantasy?
Posted by RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial 2 years ago
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial
I have talked to Playallin, she has adviced me to leave but I have decided to not leave. At the moment she says she will not continue with debate.org, but I on the other hand will. I have not plagiarized, I have not votebombed, I have not created any fake accounts. This account right here is the only account I signed up for, any other accounts are not from me. I will give this site a last chance and try to reach out to Airmax once again. I dismiss the recent slander that was aimed at me as false. Please disregard the previous link. I also dismiss the "restraining order" on the grounds of it having no effect and legal standing.
Posted by RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial 2 years ago
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial
I do not accept defeat on this debate. This debate has been ruined and will be redoing it.
Posted by RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial 2 years ago
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial
Even though I did.
Posted by jh1234l 2 years ago
jh1234l
Even though you didn't?
Posted by RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial 2 years ago
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial
"Con was the only one who made actual arguments, as pro's arguments aren't even his own. Plagiarism also costs sources." I'm a girl, but since when did plagiarism cost people all the points? You know, I still gave credit, but appreantly that's not eough for people to understand the facts, my opponent should of disputed my arguments, but he didn't. So I should be winning. You people are sad, finding such lame excuses to vote against me. Oh well. Like I said, I apologise and in the process of redoing this debate.
Posted by RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial 2 years ago
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial
LogicalLunatic? The Queen's liberal policies? Lol she doesn't get involved in politics. It's the leaders of our country who would still be in charge, the Queen would just be Head of State.
Posted by LogicalLunatic 2 years ago
LogicalLunatic
If you're actually serious about this Royalist Tea Party thing, here's one objection to it:
A monarchy would uncompromisingly move America in one direction. In case you haven't been paying attention to the news for the past several decades, America has a large Conservative population that would be furious with the queen's liberal policies. It's not fair to completely ignore the voice of a relatively large percentage of the population and push in a direction without their consent, no matter how wrong you think they are.
The UK is, after all, quite Liberal.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 2 years ago
jh1234l
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficialChosenWolffTied
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: Vote removed.
Vote Placed by neutral 2 years ago
neutral
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficialChosenWolffTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Plagiarism aside, Pro's arguments are essentially appeals to fantasy. There are other institutions that bring better diplomatic benefits like the UN, like the various trade block, like NATO and other regional security apparatus, etc. Pro fails to identify even a single diplomatic benefit that we do not already enjoy. We are also supposed to engage in some kind of economic benefit, but as we are the largest economy in the world, and our financial institutions already are at the core of global finance, there is not a single tangible benefit. Round one also spoke of a 'military' boost? One better than NATO, which is already underwritten by US logistics? And we would be returning the very monarchy we through off in our own revolution ... because ... its never really spelled out. We barely allow our troops to be placed on foreign generals over seas (even outside war) and somehow, for no tangible benefit, we supplicate our entire nation? The bait and switch was unhelpful as well.
Vote Placed by Manastacious 2 years ago
Manastacious
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficialChosenWolffTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro plagiarized. Honestly that is enough. But, further, the arguments the Pro provides don't satisfactorily rebut the Con.
Vote Placed by GOP 2 years ago
GOP
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficialChosenWolffTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro plagiarized. I know this because I copied and pasted her arguments into Google and I examined how her words were the same as the ones from other websites.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficialChosenWolffTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Plagerism isn't cool dude. Your sourcing for the works was incorrect so that excuse does not work. This debate goes to con. Pro next time MLA it or put it in quotes if you're going to use it.