The Instigator
EmilyMolloy
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Tophatdoc
Con (against)
Winning
61 Points

Should the United States join the Commonwealth of Nations and have the Queen as head of state?

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 14 votes the winner is...
Tophatdoc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/2/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,400 times Debate No: 43278
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (111)
Votes (14)

 

EmilyMolloy

Pro

It's time for the United States to join the Commonwealth. Membership in the Commonwealth would facilitate the kind of globalization 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 civilizational 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 transcivilizational co-operation. THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: This is the one and only alternative to the creation of the North American Union, or at the very least, it would serve as a backup method of globalization using natural organic bonds once the Masonic trading blocks of the NAU and EU fail. They will most certainly fail you see, in the most violent ways, once Islam is firmly rooted in Europe and American nationalism becomes mainstream.

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.

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.

ROYALIST PARTY OF AMERICA:
https://www.facebook.com...
http://www.rpofa.weebly.com...

I. THE MONARCH:

I. The foremost aim of the Royalist Party of America [RPOFA] 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).

II. A restructured Executive Branch will incorporate Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and her heirs as the official Head of State.

III. The Monarch's powers and duties include:
a) the right to represent the People of the United States oversees regardless of the political party/parties in power;
b) the right to revoke any law passed by Congress;
c) consenting or withholding consent to a law within one year of it being passed by Congress;
d) the ability to dismiss a President, Cabinet Member, and/or Supreme Court Justice at the Monarch's discretion.

II. GOVERNOR-GENERAL:

I. The Governor-General will act as a plenipotentiary and viceroy appointed by the Monarch and invested with all of the Monarch's powers and duties as the Monarch sees fit to assign.

II. Her Majesty would be represented by a Governor-General who is an American-born citizen. The Governor-General would be appointed at Her Majesty's discretion and the Governor-General's term would last until:
a) their death;
b) their resignation; or
c) they are removed at Her Majesty's discretion.

III. SOCIAL POLICY:

I. In recognizing the United Kingdom as our mother country and the Commonwealth as our brotherhood of nations, the Royalist Party of America acknowledges that cultural, linguistic, political, philosophical, religious, and historical ties to the former British Empire constitute an unbreakable bond that we are obliged and well-advised to cultivate.
IV. ECONOMIC POLICY:

I. Royalist Party of America recognizes the need for a strong national industry and will take a stance that is decisively in favour of encouraging national productivity and rapidly scaling back on dependence on foreign resources and manufacturers. Also, every state will have its own parliament, but no state can deny entry to any American citizen.

II. We will take into consideration the state of human and workers" rights in our economic policy. Egregious human rights violators will be met with American trade sanctions (including embargo).

III. We recognize the agrarian community as the basis of every civilized economy. We also recognize the overwhelming national and local advantages of a reliable, self-sufficient, fresh, and healthy supply of meat, dairy, and produce. As such, we hope to:
a) return American agriculture to a place where local crops and livestock feed as many Americans as possible without straining of our farmers or placing the American economy at risk;
b) encourage local farmers" markets for the mutual benefit of our farmers and consumers;
c) incentive "organization" - tax incentives, tertiary education, and scaled-back imports - in order to make farming and husbandry a viable and desirable livelihood for Americans with no previous experience in agriculture.

IV. Local manufacturing is the key to revitalizing the American economy and ensuring that we can sustain ourselves as a nation in times of crisis. Therefore, the Royalist Party of America resolves to:
a) incentive local manufacturing to encourage competition with foreign markets and large corporations operating in the United States;
b) effectively combat monopoly - in terms of both market domination and hegemony over smaller corporations - to encourage local industry and entrepreneurship, as well as protect the rights of the worker;
c) allow every labourer to own what they produce and sell their product at a rate that is reasonable to them;
d) encourage a guild system, wherein employers and employees can work toward mutual benefit rather than dividing society along class lines, as is the case with modern labour unions;

V. We would see a gradual phasing out of mass private banking in favour of credit unions and stricter laws against usury. Banks which are necessary to state and public good (such as the Federal Reserve) will be nationalized and committed to public scrutiny once yearly.

V. FOREIGN POLICY:

I. In recognizing the United Kingdom as our mother country and the Commonwealth as our brotherhood of nations, the Royalist Party of America acknowledges that cultural, linguistic, political, philosophical, religious, and historical ties to the former British Empire constitute an unbreakable bond that we are obliged and well-advised to cultivate.

II. We insist that preferential trade, security, and diplomatic considerations should be given to Commonwealth nations.

III. We abhor any notion of "Wars of Democracy" and would not impose a certain form of government on any other people through military or economic measures.

IV. We recognize the right for the United States to act in its best economic interests but believe that we must honourably execute all contracts made with foreign powers at least to the point of their termination.

Constitutional Monarchy: Anybody that bothers studying history will discover monarchism is humanity's most successful and enduring system of governance. They'll also realize that republics, invented in ancient Greece, are a fatally flawed system that ultimately destroys every nation stupid enough to become a republic. Look no further than the way the United States and modern Greece are both falling apart politically, economically and societally like train wrecks in slow motion for proof of that.
Tophatdoc

Con

I would like to thank Pro for hosting this debate. As Con I will be arguing the United States should not join the Commonwealth of Nations. The burden of proof is on Pro since this is a proposal for the United States to join the Commonwealth of Nations.

“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.”

This is not a positive for the United States. The United States will be hooked into the responsibilities of countries across the globe. Only one of which borders the United States, that is Canada. The United States does not need this “family.” I go into further reasons later when I address Pro's points. The United States will not be the beneficiary of his sort of agreement.

“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....the united Commonwealth is a formidable bloc to encourage or discourage certain developments”

The United States has friends all over the globe. The United States shouldn't be reduced to the Commonwealth. The United States is stronger than a bloc. The United States is responsible for the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank[1]. The United States is the leader of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The United States has more influence than all of the Commonwealth countries. There is no need for the United States to join such an organization.

[1]http://www.imf.org...
[1]http://www.worldbank.org...

“WHY SHOULD THE USA JOIN:USA has slowly realised that it cannot act alone as a world power. ven 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. “

The United States does not act alone. That is why the United States is the head of international affairs throughout the world. The United States helped to create the United Nations[2]. In times of war, the United States has used multilateralism in Iraq and Afghanistan[3]. To suggest the United States acts a lone is a mistake. It is not true.

[2]https://www.un.org...
[3]http://dspace.cigilibrary.org...
[3]http://politicalviolenceataglance.org...

“ARE THERE DIFFICULTIES: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 United States if far superior to the Commonwealth countries in diplomacy. People want the United States' help not the Commonwealth's. As the Syrian Civil War rages, Israel, Jordan, and Turkey were asking the United States to intervene to stop the conflict. The Commonwealth countries were not asked. As genocide, was sweeping Darfur, people were pleading for the United States' help[5]. No one pleaded for the Commonwealth countries' help. Then when Joseph Kony was exposed for being a ruthless warlord. International organizations wanted the United States to intervene[6]. Again, the Commonwealth countries were not asked to come in and help. The United States' help is desired while the Commonwealth is barely mentioned by comparison. Individually, the United Kingdom may be asked but there influence is incomparable to the United States' influence.

[4]
[5]http://www.theguardian.com...
[6]http://content.usatoday.com...

“Are the Americans big enough to join a community of adults? Yes, if they want to.”

The United States does not need to join a community. The United States is the international community. For the reasons I have provided and the evidence that I will provide later in this debate.

“The Monarchy & the Governor-General”

The United States of America never had a king. It does not need one now. In the American Declaration of Independence there is this small minor line that says “all men are created equal[7].” The founding document is inherently antagonistic towards any monarchy and nepotism. To have a monarch is a revolt against the countries' values. Americans should never subordinate themselves to a monarch appointments by a monarch. This is an insult to America's Founding Fathers.

[7]http://www.archives.gov...

“SOCIAL POLICY: Royalist Party of America recognizes the need for a strong national industry and will take a stance that is decisively in favour of encouraging national productivity and rapidly scaling back on dependence on foreign resources and manufacturers. Also, every state will have its own parliament, but no state can deny entry to any American citizen....return American agriculture to a place where local crops and livestock feed as many Americans as possible without straining of our farmers or placing the American economy at risk....encourage local farmers" markets for the mutual benefit of our farmers and consumers.....Local manufacturing is the key to revitalizing the American economy and ensuring that we can sustain ourselves as a nation in times of crisis.”

First, the United States already has many strong national industries. There is no need to join the Commonwealth for this.

The United States has no need for a parliament. The United States has a two party system which leads to higher efficiency. Unlike, parliamentary politics where parties have to negotiate in order to build a coalition. That is not an efficient government.

It is numerically impossible for American agriculture to feed Americans[8]. Nevertheless the cost would be significantly higher. So poor people would suffer.
[8]http://www.inspirationgreen.com...

The United States economy is the largest in the world. It need not be revitalized[9].

[9]http://databank.worldbank.org...

“FOREIGN POLICY:the United Kingdom as our mother country and the Commonwealth as our brotherhood of nations...We insist that preferential trade, security, and diplomatic considerations should be given to Commonwealth nations.....We abhor any notion of "Wars of Democracy" and would not impose a certain form of government on any other people through military or economic measures”

The United States should not succumb to tactics from inferior countries. The United States is the international community as I pointed previously. The United States is larger than any economy within the Commonwealth. The United States has a larger military than any Commonwealth country[10]. To suggest the United States to join the Commonwealth is to suggest a Americans to commit suicide. The United States leads the world as the Commonwealth follows.

[10]http://247wallst.com...

“Constitutional Monarchy: Anybody that bothers studying history will discover monarchism is humanity's most successful and enduring system of governance. They'll also realize that republics, invented in ancient Greece, are a fatally flawed system that ultimately destroys every nation stupid enough to become a republic. Look no further than the way the United States and modern Greece are both falling apart politically, economically and societally like train wrecks in slow motion for proof of that.”

The United States is not falling apart. I have provided evidence to the contrary. It is alive and thriving. After all the United States defeated this one Constitutional Monarchy who called itself Great Britain. The United States defeated it twice. The United States has surpassed this country in many areas. The evidence speaks for itself.
Debate Round No. 1
EmilyMolloy

Pro

I would like to thank Con for accepting my debate. Membership in the Commonwealth would facilitate the kind of globalization 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 civilizational 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 transcivilizational co-operation. At the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting (CHOGM) in Durban, South Africa, in November 1999, Britain's prime minister, Tony Blair, called for new thinking about modernizing the Commonwealth to make it more effective. A critical element in this new thinking should be a discussion of United States membership, so that it can be on the agenda of the next CHOGM in Australia in November 2001. Before any such discussion can take place, however, two important emotional roadblocks have to be clared out of the way. On the American side is what may be termed '1776 and all that.' The Commonwealth, like the Empire before it, is seen as a British operation, and a monarchical one too. Much as they enjoy the activities of the British Royal Family as a spectator sport, for the citizens of a country conceived in liberty and republican virtue, bowing, scraping and dressing up at their behest is out of the question. There can be no going back. On the Commonwealth side are fears about their own version of le defi Americain. The United States, it is suggested, would become impatient with the consensual and pragmatic way in which the Commonwealth moves towards modest achievements. Americans have never known an international organization they did not create or aspire to own, and their tendency to deal in moral absolutes, of both right and left, would lead them to wreck the Commonwealth by trying to get their way. The Commonwealth, say its keenest supporters, is really a self-help organization of developing states that, for historical reasons, just happens to have some medium-sized developed members. The United States is too big and rich to be one of the former and lacks the historical links and experience to be one of the latter. Doubts on both sides are fuelled by strong emotions, but they lack foundation in the world of facts. The Commonwealth is not a British operation and no one, including Britain, wants it to be. British influence in the Commonwealth today rests on the wealth and power that it, as one of several wealthy members, is prepared to commit to the organization. The Foreign Policy Institute, a think tank close to the present Labour government, has suggested that the Commonwealth secretariat might be moved from London, and the British government has severed its final links with the Commonwealth Institute, making the latter fully independent. Nor is the Commonwealth a monarchical organization in any significant sense. The CHOGM in Durban celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the London Declaration, which, prompted by India's decision to abandon its dominion status and become a republic, made it possible for republics to retain their Commonwealth membership after independence. From that point on, the British monarch served only as a 'symbol of the free association' of its independent members in what is known as the modern Commonwealth. Membership has not compromised the identities of the 33 republics that are already members of the Commonwealth, many of whom had a much rougher experience than the United States at the hands of British colonialism. Similarly, membership would not entangle the United States in the monarchial intimacies and imperial ambitions of London. On the contrary, Commonwealth membership would place it in an organization in which it was equipped to do well. he Commonwealth is an association of sovereign nations which support each other and work together towards international goals. It is also a "family" of peoples. With their common heritage in language, culture, law, education and democratic traditions, among other things, Commonwealth countries are able to work together in an atmosphere of greater trust and understanding than generally prevails among nations. There are 54 member countries in the Commonwealth... United States... Four of the constituent states of the United States of America officially use the name "Commonwealth". These states are Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. All four are among the first 15 states to join the Union... The word commonwealth in this context refers to the common "wealth", or welfare, of the public and is derived from a loose translation of the Latin term res publica ( the 17th-century Commonwealth of England)... Besides the four aforementioned states, other states may also, on occasion, use the term "commonwealth" to refer to themselves. The State of Vermont, for instance, uses the term "Commonwealth" three times in its constitution, interchangeably with the term "State"... Delaware also called itself a "Commonwealth" in its 1776 constitution... The use of the term also derives from the use of English common law in the North American colonies. Some vestiges of the influence of common law can still be found in some legal concepts and principles in the Commonwealths, particularly in Virginia with its independent cities, which have their origin in the old English shire system, which was a part of how early Virginia was organized. The term is also used for the U.S. territories of Puerto Rico ("John is his name") Notably by withholding a single-star from the United States banner of 50 stars... Another noteworthy state is Hawaii, who holds a state flag of Britain in union with the United States... In Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, criminal prosecutions are brought in the name of the "Commonwealth". In California, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, and New York, they are brought in the name of the "People". In all the other U.S. states, criminal prosecutions are brought in the name of the "State" while federal criminal prosecutions are brought in the name of the "United States of America". Japan... Friday 11 March 2011, a tsunami caused nuclear accidents, primarily the level 7 meltdowns at three reactors in the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant complex, and the associated evacuation zones affecting hundreds of thousands of residents... Many electrical generators were taken down, and at least three nuclear reactors suffered explosions due to hydrogen gas that had built up within their outer containment buildings after cooling system failure. Residents within a 20 km (12 mi) radius of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant and a 10 km (6.2 mi) radius of the Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Plant were evacuated. In addition, the U.S. recommended that its citizens evacuate up to 80 km (50 mi) of the plant... 16:59, 3 July 2011, Japan entered Commonwealth Status by eligibility, by applied status... Japan is the third largest economy by GDP status, globally. "Therefore do not be anxious, saying, "What shall we eat?" or "What shall we drink?" or "What shall we wear?" For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you." My opponent thinks that the United States is not failing, I point for him to read this article on the facts that the United States is indeed failing. http://topinfopost.com... 9/11 and how many government shutdowns? This is completely unacceptable! A constitutional monarchy is the most stable form of government because its head of state is representative of the nation and responsible to its people, not to a party. A presidency divides people because he is the head of a party and is voted by its members, meaning those whom did not vote are not fully represented. Clintion tried to get him and requested the funding but was denied. Bush ignored everything to do with the previous administration and they actually were counting on some sort of attack. They got everything that they wanted and over one hundred thousand people died as a result. But Bush can now sleep at night knowing that he has supported his friends and contributed to the Republican / Nazi plan. He even got a Library in his name, with the wold largest collection of pop-up books. It is hard to understand why we are so interested in Syria when our own former President killed a 1000X more people for no reason than just revenge on his father's failure. Iraq had no value and our men and women died in vein. Complete loss. My opponent also thinks that the Americans defeated the English twice, which is not true. The second was the War of 1812 and the English won as they set file to the White House because the Americans took over part of Canada but then set fire to it (hence why the English had to stop the American Army as they were out of control). A constitutional monarchy is a form of government in which a monarch acts as head of state within the parameters of a written (i.e., codified), unwritten (i.e., uncodified) or blended constitution. It differs from absolute monarchy in that an absolute monarch serves as the sole source of political power in the state and is not legally bound by any constitution. (Kind of like the Egyptian Soicial Pyramid) So to answer your question: Yes, a constitutional monarchy is a democratic country. In fact, the top 7 most democratic countries in the world (According to the Democracy Index) are constitutional monarchies (Norway, Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands). 01. President (Leader of the country). So as I have explained, joining the Commonwealth of Nations and having the Queen as head of state would be really good for the United States of America and the other nations.
Tophatdoc

Con

"Membership in the Commonwealth would facilitate the kind of globalization 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 civilizational power politics. "

The United States is the leader of globalization as was pointed out in Round 1. To join the Commonwealth would further entangle the United States into the affairs of Commonwealth countries for the worse.

As Pro pointed out:"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 transcivilizational co-operation. "

The United States would have to be paying for the Commonwealth countries. The United States receives the worst end of this deal of joining the Commonwealth.

"The Commonwealth is not a British operation and no one, including Britain, wants it to be."

In the first round, Pro stated that the monarch was the head of state of the Commonwealth. That monarch is Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom[1]. To claim that it is not a British operation is dismissive in many respects. The Commonwealth is made up of English speaking countries that were formerly part of the British Empire.

[1]http://www.royal.gov.uk...

"Four of the constituent states of the United States of America officially use the name "Commonwealth". These states are Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. All four are among the first 15 states to join the Union"

Those states joined the Union when America was still developing its' identity. That is why no states later are called Commonwealths. Only states that joined the Union early called themselves Commonwealths.

"My opponent thinks that the United States is not failing, I point for him to read this article on the facts that the United States is indeed failing. http://topinfopost.com...... 9/11 and how many government shutdowns? This is completely unacceptable!"

Not one single time in the article that Pro provided was there a citation. If this were another debate, I would take the time to debunk the entire article. The article should not be taken seriously because it is anonymously written without valid evidence, citations, or anything of similar nature. The article is so horrible it would not even fall under the category of an Opinion Editorial.

The American government was made to shutdown. The Founding Fathers wanted gridlock and stagnation in order to prevent radical changes to the system[2]. That is often taught in many schools across America. Gridlock is acceptable because it was what was intended when he framers created the Constitution.

[2]http://www.theblaze.com...
[2]http://www.cato.org...

" A constitutional monarchy is the most stable form of government because its head of state is representative of the nation and responsible to its people, not to a party. "

Monarchy exalts certain human beings above other human beings because they were born with privelege. These people end up being the Royal family. That is not a system that serves the people. Instead it inherently believes some human beings are superior to others by birth right not talent or abilities. The parties are elected by the people. T King or Queen are not elected by the people. Instead the people must submit to people of privelege. That is not fair or acceptable in the United States. Once again the Declaration of Independence said that small often forgotten line "all men are created equal." As the saying goes "One man, One vote." That is the American way where every human being is respected without titles or other royalties.

" Clintion tried to get him and requested the funding but was denied. Bush ignored everything to do with the previous administration and they actually were counting on some sort of attack. They got everything that they wanted and over one hundred thousand people died as a result. But Bush can now sleep at night knowing that he has supported his friends and contributed to the Republican / Nazi plan. He even got a Library in his name, with the wold largest collection of pop-up books. It is hard to understand why we are so interested in Syria when our own former President killed a 1000X more people for no reason than just revenge on his father's failure. Iraq had no value and our men and women died in vein. Complete loss. "

This is completely irrelevant to the debate at hand. I will debate American foreign policy on another occasion. Unless this somehow relates to the Commonwealth. But Pro did not show how it did. There are too many fallacies in here as well rangng from appeal to emotion to ad hominems.

" A presidency divides people because he is the head of a party and is voted by its members, meaning those whom did not vote are not fully represented. My opponent also thinks that the Americans defeated the English twice, which is not true. The second was the War of 1812 and the English won as they set file to the White House because the Americans took over part of Canada but then set fire to it (hence why the English had to stop the American Army as they were out of control)."

The United States did win twice because it was on the defensive. It was Great Britain who was the aggressor and provoked the wars on both occasions. And it failed on both occasions in 1776 and 1812. We can have our own opinions but not our own set of facts. The burning of the capital did not end the war contrary to what Pro would have you believe.

" So to answer your question: Yes, a constitutional monarchy is a democratic country. In fact, the top 7 most democratic countries in the world (According to the Democracy Index) are constitutional monarchies (Norway, Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands). 01. President (Leader of the country). So as I have explained, joining the Commonwealth of Nations and having the Queen as head of state would be really good for the United States of America and the other nations. "

The American founding documents are clear and concise about the problems with monarchy. No nobility of any kind has been desired. Nor shall it be desired now.
Debate Round No. 2
EmilyMolloy

Pro

I would like to thank Con for responding back, even though he has little knowledge on this subject. My opponent thinks that the United States would be paying for the other contires which is not true, nor would the United States reveive the worst end of this deal. My opponent also thinks that the United States was never part of the British Empire, even though it was. My opponent thinks the article I listed is not true, even though it is. He also thinks that the US government didn't allow 9/11 to happen, I point for him to read: http://whatreallyhappened.com... My opponent thinks that a government shutdown is good because it would prevent radical changes in the system, even though any government shutdown is unacceptable. Also my opponent still refuses to understand, A constitutional monarchy acts as a guardian of a nation's heritage, a living reminder of the events and personalities that have shaped it. As such it is a powerful focus for loyalty and a source of strength in times of crisis, for example World War II, and a reminder of enduring values and traditions. Separating the positions of Head of State and Head of Government also makes great practical sense; the monarchy undertakes much of the ceremonial work at home and abroad, leaving the Prime Minister free to focus more effectively upon governing. My opponent thinks that Great Britain is the aggressor and provoked both wars. The American Revolution began in 1775 as open conflict between the united thirteen colonies and Great Britain. By the Treaty of Paris that ended the war in 1783, the colonies had won their independence. While no one event can be pointed to as the actual cause of the revolution, the war began as a disagreement over the way in which Great Britain treated the colonies versus the way the colonies felt they should be treated. Americans felt they deserved all the rights of Englishmen. The British, on the other hand, felt that the colonies were created to be used in the way that best suited the crown and parliament. This conflict is embodied in one of the rallying cries of the American Revolution: No Taxation Without Representation. http://americanhistory.about.com... as for the other war, The War of 1812 was a 32-month military conflict between the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, its North American colonies and its Indian allies. The outcome resolved many issues which remained from the American War of Independence, but involved no boundary changes. The United States declared war in 1812 for several reasons, including trade restrictions brought about by Britain's continuing war with France, the impressment of American merchant sailors into the Royal Navy, British support of American Indian tribes against American expansion, outrage over insults to national honour after humiliations on the high seas, and possible American interest in annexing British North American territory (part of modern day Canada) which had been denied to them in the settlement ending the American Revolutionary War. http://en.wikipedia.org... 01. President (Leader of the country).
02. Congress (Legislative, or lawmaking, branch of America's national government).
03. Her Majesty (Head of State).
04. Parliaments (Every state controls its own state). III. The Monarch's powers and duties include: a) the right to represent the People of the United States oversees regardless of the political party/parties in power; b) the right to revoke any law passed by Congress; c) consenting or withholding consent to a law within one year of it being passed by Congress; d) the ability to dismiss a President, Cabinet Member, and/or Supreme Court Justice at the Monarch's discretion. The Sovereign has, under a constitutional monarchy such as ours, three rights--the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn. And a king or queen of great sense and sagacity would want no others. A constitutional monarchy is a very effective political system. A hereditary Head of State acts as an important element of continuity within a democratic system. The real powers (as opposed to purely theoretical ones - no British ruler has actually vetoed an Act of Parliament since c1720) of European monarchs are negligible. But as unelected figures above the political conflicts of the day, they retain an important symbolic role as a focus for national unity (very important in Belgium, for example). In Britain our right "to advise, encourage and warn" the Prime Minister of the day has acted as a check against overly radical policies, in Spain King Juan Carlos actually faced down a military coup in the 1980s. Royalism, Loyalism, and Toryism won't sit well with most Americans today. But if we believe the Royalist Party of America stands for what is true and good for this nation, we have no choice but to stretch out our necks and say what is right. We may not win over every American heart and mind right away, but we'll fight for a good cause, and perhaps earn our countrymen's respect. Once we can be respected, we can be admired; once we can be admired, we will find the support we need to bring the United States back to her roots.

The Queen can be said to have three main roles: Constitutional, Ceremonial and Ambassadorial.

Constitutionally the Queen is suppose to be kept informed, advise and warn the government of the day. Her actual Constitutional Powers (reserve powers) are:

-Call and dismiss parliament/elections
-Appoint the Prime Minister
-Sack the Government
-Refuse Royal Assent to Acts of Parliament so they can not become law and Orders-in-Council and Royal Proclamations which are drawn up by the government of the day so they can exercise the Royal Prerogatives which covers:

In domestic matters,

* the issuing and withdrawal of passports
* the appointment and dismissal of ministers
* the appointment of Queen's Counsel
* the granting of honours
* the appointment and regulation of the civil service
* the commissioning of officers in the armed forces

In foreign affairs, it covers

* the declaration of war
* the making of treaties
* the recognition of foreign states
* the accreditation of diplomats

"Prerogative powers were formerly exercised by the monarch acting alone. Since the 19th century, the advice of the prime minister or the cabinet"who are then accountable to Parliament for the decision"has been required in order for the prerogative to be exercised. The monarch is constitutionally empowered to exercise the Royal Prerogative against the advice of the prime minister or the cabinet, but does so only in emergencies or where existing precedent does not adequately apply to the circumstances in question."

The Queen also fulfils ceremonial duties and ambassadorial ones as Head of State.

The rest of the Royal family fill in for the Queen when she can not be in two places at once. This can be useful especially when you have 16 realms you reign over. This allows for the other Royals to start to learn how to perform many of the Queen's duties for if/when they inherit the throne.

This is my first debate, so I apologize if I said or done anything wrong, as for Con; he as failed to properly argue why the United States should stay with its current government system.
Other links to read:
http://www.politico.com...
http://www.womensgroup.org...
Please vote Pro. Together we can restore the United States of America! The basis of any civilized economy is agriculture. The United States has decided to invest in other means of income-corporate management, banking, vote jockeying, and others-but let's not be caught off-guard when the economy shifts and we need our own resources to feed our families. To say we don't need agrarianism because 'economics is more evolved' is like saying we don't need to cultivate our minds because we have computers. We'll always need our farmers, and the Royalist Party of America is committed to treating them fairly and giving them the central role in our economy they deserve-and that we, the American people, need.
I thank Con for his time!
Tophatdoc

Con

I will make a few replies to Pro before I sum up my points.

"My opponent also thinks that the United States was never part of the British Empire, even though it was."

I never said this. Readers you can go back and re-read the debate to search for this claim.

"My opponent thinks the article I listed is not true, even though it is. "

Pro did not provide any evidence how it was true. The source has zero citations and it is written anonymously. This is a questionable source.

" He also thinks that the US government didn't allow 9/11 to happen, I point for him to read: http://whatreallyhappened.com...... "

Where did I make this claim? I never even discussed the topic. It is irrelevant to this debate entirely.

Let us compare he arguments that have been presented to show how I, as Con have provided a strong nd valid argument.
Let's some up the arguments made by Pro.
1.America has fallen apart
2."Membership in the Commonwealth would facilitate the kind of globalization that is in the American national interest."
3.Constitutional Monarchy is better then a democratic republic

Now let's some up the arguments that I have presented as Con.
1.The United States is the most dominant country in the world leading in the World Trade Orgaization, the IMF, the Word Bank, and NATO.

2. The United States would not benefit from joining the Commonwealth. Instead the United States would be entangled with theses countries.

3. The founding document of the United States, the Declaration of Independence said resolutely "all men are created equal." Therefore no monarchy or nobility of any sort.

4.The two party system is more efficient than the parliamentary system.

5.There are more problems by joining the Commonwealth.

6.The United States is superior to any Commonwealth country.

7. Many organizations and countries across the world want the United States' help, not the Commonwealth's.

The burden of proof was on Pro since this was a proposal for the United States to join the Commonwealth. From what I observed Pro has provided little reasoning to join the Commonwealth. Pro has gone on various tangents ignoring the points I have provided throughout the debate. Pro has also engaged in smear tactics and employing farcical claims asserting statements that I did not say. This is libel. Pro has also committed at least thirteen fallacies ranging from appeal to emotion to appeal to popularity and ad hominems. Pro also used Godwin's Law. Admittedly, my patience wore thin by round 3 from observing this behavior. If you believe that I as Con showed the United States shouldn't join the Commonwealth, Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
111 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
Your comment got deleted because you told us to f off. You lost, fair and square, evident by my debate and his. Maybe you're arguments truly are not strong enough yet? Maybe you can reach some middle ground? The problem isn't joining the commonwealth, but giving the queen complete control, thats just lunacy. I'm truly sorry that you do not yet realize this.
Posted by EmilyMolloy 3 years ago
EmilyMolloy
You two must work together or something, and no I didn't disappear, although someone must of deleted my comment....... Mmm. This site is bias, aprrently. Anyway, you two only won because there's other idiots out there, simple as that........., they didn't even read the debate fully and they debated it in a bias way, which means the vote does NOT count. As for the Royalist Party of America, I have swiched it to https://www.facebook.com...... Even though deep down I know I won, I'm really done making this a big deal......... It's honestly not worth dealing with you ignorant Yanks. I hope you have a great life, I also hope you grow up someday. Take care! And God Save the Queen of America.
Posted by Tophatdoc 3 years ago
Tophatdoc
Is this 11th time he has disappeared and reappeared? Why doesn't he just stay off of this website.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
HA, shes gone. Goodbye..... farewell, and we really wish you well :)
Posted by Tophatdoc 3 years ago
Tophatdoc
You have been reported for violating the TOS.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
Not including the three times she quit on the debate below.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
6th time she has come back.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by jwcmcorbin 3 years ago
jwcmcorbin
EmilyMolloyTophatdocTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I felt empty with the Pro on how joining the Commonwealth would be so beneficial to the U.S. What hurt most was I never saw how the change would be so beneficial to the U.S. and how the Commonwealth is today so "productive" as the Pro attempts to say. Overall I was left with the side of the status Quo which in this case was the Con.
Vote Placed by HenryGBR 3 years ago
HenryGBR
EmilyMolloyTophatdocTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe that Con's arguments were unstructured and based in pure nationalism. He presumes that the US is the first stop for 'diplomacy' for people such as the Turks and the Syrians. However, he doesn't take into account the fact that these people know the US can simply flex it's military muscle, which isn't diplomacy. As far as diplomacy is concerned, Pro has proven Con as incorrect. Although Con's was more spaced out, Pro seemed to have a more logical structure and many of Pro's points were made by herself, rather than almost pure rebuttal on Con's half. Pro made better points, Con's were based on nationalism which is great for getting votes from your fellow Americans, but it destroys the quality of one's debate. Before the debate I agreed with Con, however I now must say that Pro has managed to sway my opinion to the US joining the Commonwealth and sharing our crown. The US should move closer to Canada, Australia and Britain and away from imperialism.
Vote Placed by Spamkybones 3 years ago
Spamkybones
EmilyMolloyTophatdocTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Con dominated
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
EmilyMolloyTophatdocTied
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: Con was able to state his case better and was able to easily refute Pro's. This was an easy debate win for Con.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
EmilyMolloyTophatdocTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Con refuted Pro's points better while Pro accused him of making ridiculous claims he never did (9/11 never happened, America wasn't part of the British Empire) in order to make him look like a denialist.
Vote Placed by Cheetah 3 years ago
Cheetah
EmilyMolloyTophatdocTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Emily is seen posting on DDO's Facebook page and even Yahoo Answers fishing for votes for her stance and whining that she won it "fair and square"; I find this dishonorable. Many of facts that are constructed by Pro lacks proving citations, however, some analysis is exhibited. At one point, Pro said: "even though he has little knowledge on this subject" Even if he really exhibit ignorance in the subject, you don't say that in a Debate. As for Con, Con has organised his rebuttals well and kept sources appropriately next to each new fact; this is one essential thing Pro could really adapt and learn from for numerous reasons. There are many voters here that just look at organisation and how 'neat' it looks (even though this is vote bombing). For the arguments, both sides show similar efficiency in the use of syntax, however, Con showed superior use of Rhetorics and diction. In conclusion, Pro would have gotten a lot more votes if she could have successfully back up the facts. (NC)
Vote Placed by Anjou 3 years ago
Anjou
EmilyMolloyTophatdocTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Undoubtedly con won this debate. I didn't even personally agree with pro at first but I attempted to leave my prior biases out of the debate. Con had better grammar and didn't use as many run-ons. Con gets grammar because pro used ad hominen attacks on con. Can't really dispute this one, con wins unanimously
Vote Placed by debate339 3 years ago
debate339
EmilyMolloyTophatdocTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: I was impressed with both sides but the pro seemed to be unsure of herself in her typing
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
EmilyMolloyTophatdocTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: lol, ridiculous resolution.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
EmilyMolloyTophatdocTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made personal attacks not relevant to the debate, therefore loses conduct points. Pro also did not meet her burden of proof that America is better off as a common wealth and did not adequately address con's rebuttals. I had an issue with reading pro's arguments as well because of run on paragraphs so pro lost points for grammer.