The Instigator
RPOFA
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Jifpop09
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

Should the United States of America join the Commonwealth Realms?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 10 votes the winner is...
Jifpop09
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,299 times Debate No: 45686
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (131)
Votes (10)

 

RPOFA

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.

Patriotism:
Monarchs, by their very nature, are more patriotic than either Prime Ministers or Presidents. They hold great affection for their respective countries: a Prime Minister or President may be at the same post in other countries but Monarchs never have this conflict of interest. So, fundamentally, it is in the interest of any monarch to work towards greater patriotism. Every monarch makes a considerable contribution in the building of his or her nation. One who contributes or invests in anything has more affection for the result - and thus Monarchs love their countries. So Monarchy serves the interest of patriotism far better than a Republican system.

Civilization:
World history proves that the civilization of any country is built by the monarchy; It is difficult to imagine civilization growing in India without the influence of Muhgal Emperors Ashok and Akbar. Whether the Great Wall of China or the Pyramids of Egypt, Monarchy builds great things. There is no civilization living today which did not originate in the work and effort of Monarchy. Thus, Monarchy is a force for civilisation. Conversely, Republics are founded upon destruction. They are established following the deaths of thousands of people. The destruction of Monarchy in Cambodia resulted in the death of 1.7 million people. The existing unrest in Iran, Iraq, Serbia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, throughout the former Soviet Union and the African Continent is due to the destruction of monarchy.

Qualification:
Monarchs are generally born to be Monarchs. They are born in the palace, which becomes both a home and a school. They are trained for good governance, taught to be polite, calm, patient, obedient and helpful and hence a healthy lifestyle is established. Eventually a monarch becomes mature enough to rule the nation, even at a young age. By contrast, Prime Ministers and Presidents start their political activities from a certain age, and end their careers while still learning. Thus, a Monarch is more qualified than a Prime Minister or a President and hence Monarchy is a far better system in terms of experience.

Efficiency:
If a monarch is in power, decisions concerning the response or reaction to a crisis are quickly determined without any delay from legislative or external governing bodies. But in a Democracy or a Republic, each and every issue goes through a process which cannot be implemented quickly.

Impartiality:
Presidents and Prime Ministers come to power after expensive and difficult elections, and are accountable to the voters. They have many commitments to the voters who bring them to power. Thus, an elected official must satisfy a populist "mob rule". But a monarch is not accountable to lobby groups, political parties or institutions. Neither have the gained the position with the help of individuals. Monarchs are above the influence of any group or party. They are free, and every citizen is equal in their eyes. Their hands are not tied by political debts or appeals to popularity, thus a monarchy is better than a Republic regarding impartiality.

Corruption:
A President or Prime Minister may be corrupt. They are approved by a particular group and thus have a commitment to please them. Next, they have to take part in the election process. When resources are not sufficient to fulfill their requirements, politicians become corrupt and may also become involved in organised crime. But a monarch has no such obligation or political debt, and hence is beyond corruption.

Representative:
A President or Prime Minister represents a minority group or political party, whereas a Monarch represents a whole society or nation. Until the head of the state represents the whole nation, the actions thereof cannot reflect the will of the people.

Political stability:
Political stability is essential to solve long-term issues. The primary issue of one political party may be a secondary issue to others. If the party fails in the next election, the long term project may not succeed. But a Monarchical government does not have this problem as a Monarch reigns for life. Thus monarchy gives continuity over a long period of time.

Conservation of democracy:
History has proved that democracy is safe only in nations with reigning Monarchs. In a Military Dictatorship, the army holds power, and in a Presidential Republic power is held by a political minority. Monarchy, however, provides equal opportunities to all citizens because a Monarch does not belong to any party or group.

Check & Balance:
Most countries in the world today have two or more political parties. Each has its own set of values and policies. Any party which forms a government has no means to control the actions of others, and thus no means to reach a settlement. A monarch is required to balance the interests of all political parties.

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.



Debate Round No. 1
Debate Round No. 2
Debate Round No. 3
Jifpop09

Con

I have decided not to use google drive this round, due to an incident that had occured between me and my opponent. My computer will hate me for it, but the show must go on.

My opponents argument for the round have consisted of 22 long pages of anti-american themes and strong conservative bias. I know the readers did not dare to read her almost 50 pages of writing,so I will not bother rebutting anymore points. I have already stated that until my opponent brings new arguments that support the burden of proof she requires, I will not rebutt anything else. So far she has debated the existence of a monarchy, but has done little to actually convince people that it would suit America. The question is if America should join the commonwealth, and since round 3, I have hardly heard the word commonwealth mentioned.

I will put some faith into the readers, that they have seen through my opponents hate themes and ramblings. I was expecting a debate on whether the commonwealth would be a good fit for the US, but all i have heard was " The US is bad,but queen Elizabeth is good". I urge you to not vote for such radical changes. Changes that go against every value our nation has set since its founding. Do not vote for them, until my opponent can come back with the burden of proof. Thank you for reading to round 4, and I know it was no easy task.
Debate Round No. 4
RPOFA

Pro

I would like to thank my opponen for saving me the time and doing the debate on debate.org (how it's meant to be), even though we feel he is overreacting to the misunderstanding, which is now fixed (on my end). But this debate will continue regardless...

Our opponent: "My opponents argument for the round have consisted of 22 long pages of anti-american themes and strong conservative bias."

First of all, it's not anti-American, it's the truth. Second of all, bias means "prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair." I do agree, the truth can be a bit bias, but it is what is is.

Our opponent: "I know the readers did not dare to read her almost 50 pages of writing,so I will not bother rebutting anymore points."

Well first of all, I worked really hard on this debate, so if that is the case, then proper votes would ceased to exist, which would cause me a lot of stress.

Our opponent: "I have already stated that until my opponent brings new arguments that support the burden of proof she requires, I will not rebutt anything else."

First of all, we did bring in a lot of new arguments, with proof, I even asked my opponent questions but it seems he has failed to even answer us correctly. We assume he didn't read EVERYTHING.

Our opponent: "So far she has debated the existence of a monarchy, but has done little to actually convince people that it would suit America."

We feel that we did a pretty good job, we feel that we did our best even though our opponent has refused to answer our questions and has refused to ACTUALLY properly debate this with us.

Our opponent: A279;"The question is if America should join the commonwealth, and since round 3, I have hardly heard the word commonwealth mentioned."

Maybe if our opponent read EVERYTHING, then he would see the word "Commonwealth" lol.

Our opponent: A279;"I will put some faith into the readers, that they have seen through my opponents hate themes and ramblings. I was expecting a debate on whether the commonwealth would be a good fit for the US.

We feel sorry if you think it was "hate themes and ramblings", you say you was expecting a debate on whether the British Commonwealth would be a good fit for the US? Well maybe if you actually were to read EVERYTHING and ACTUALLY try to debate this with us, then you would have felt that success.
Our opponent: "but all i have heard was " The US is bad,but queen Elizabeth is good".

First of all, if that was all you heard, then you have some serious truble.... I do urge everyone to not vote for Con, he has done pretty much nothing too deserve to win.

Our opponent: "Changes that go against every value our nation has set since its founding."

Well mistakes happen, we are only human and sometimes we have to do what is right for our country... and not what "it should of been".

Our opponent: "I Do not vote for them, until my opponent can come back with the burden of proof. Thank you for reading to round 4, and I know it was no easy task."

This has nothing to do with voting for "them", Me coming back with the burden of proof? That means the obligation to prove one's assertion, again, we think we did pretty good with convincing people that this is the right government system for this country. I mean after all, you failed to convince people why the United States should continue with it's current government system.

Thank you! Please vote 'Pro', common sense just makes more sense.... This was no easy debate!
Jifpop09

Con

I did read the R.P.O.F.A's arguments, but I did not feel they warranted a new response. I trust the audience could see through the in-fallacies the R.P.O.F.A has wrote. Tell me if I'm crazy, but I believe the US is the last place a monarchy will work . I did not need to argue that a republic is better, as the burden of proof relies solely on Pro. I am of the opinion that I had made my arguments clear by round 3, so I decided to stop, as I realized this debate would consist of back and forth rebutting of the same topic for 5 rounds. I did not feel my opponent had done a good enough job of convincing people that replacing a system of government that has been developed on for over 200 years, would be a good thing. If monarchy had been effective, then 3/4th s of the world would not of been rid of them for more sensible systems. Even the monarchs of today are virtually powerless. They only serve a constitutional role. Most countries only retain monarchs just to avoid upsetting traditionalist and royalist minority's within their country. Royalists in America probably could not even be counted as a minority. They are near nonexistent, because of 313 million people, nearly none of them think this will work. We Americans, native to our lands, know how to run our country better then your queen ever will. I thank the R.P.O.F.A for debating me, and I wish us both luck.
Debate Round No. 5
131 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
I'm not to sure. Her 3 Facebook pages have all been hacked multiple times, so she seems pretty loony.

https://www.youtube.com...
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
EmilyMolloy, are you really so blind as to try to take the high ground in a debate where you made a baseless accusation of cheating...that you were forced to admit had no basis in reality and was you jumping to conclusions? And where you claim voters haven't read a debate based wholly, apparently, on them voting against you?

I can only *hope* that you're a desperate, sad troll. Otherwise it's actually worse.
Posted by EmilyMolloy 3 years ago
EmilyMolloy
won*
Posted by EmilyMolloy 3 years ago
EmilyMolloy
Really? Jifpop09? You have disrespected me since the start, while I did not until you kept going...... You only once because there's other idiots who there, simple as that........., they didn't even read the debate fully 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 Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
Emily, I really wish we of handled this debate like gentlemen, but it seems you're intent on fighting for some sort of greater good. While I disagree with you, I respect and admire your passion and drive. I encourage you to direct such youthful energy into other fields. There is a lot more evident and serious problems at the moment. Thank you for the debate, and I hope this is not what drove you off this site. I'm sure your debating skill would make you quite popular around here.
Posted by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
Hahaha Jifpop finally learnt the lesson not to post in Google docs. Well played Pro Damn well played.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
I highly doubt we will see her anymore.
Posted by Cheetah 3 years ago
Cheetah
Hey Molly, please keep in mind that there's no shame in losing a debate, win ratios aren't supposed to reflect the individual's debating ability anyway. Additionally, winning a debate doesn't necessarily mean that your opinion is correct either, so basically, winning is useless, only a placebo for self-esteem most of the time. I think you would have higher wining chance if your arguments weren't 50 pages long because even though you have good arguments, people aren't going to read something that would literally take hours. I hope you consider this as a friendly advise and revisit DDO in a more polite manner.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
This one is better...
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Jevinigh 3 years ago
Jevinigh
RPOFAJifpop09Tied
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 Checkmark-1 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: RPOFA makes good points about needed globalization of the U.S. and the benefits that a Common wealth United States would offer to the world at large. Con spent too much effort making a scene over Pro's Anti-nationalist sentiments. Pro established the good not just to the U.S. but to the multiple nations in the common wealth, Con focused on the implications for the U.S.
Vote Placed by rakovsky 3 years ago
rakovsky
RPOFAJifpop09Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Jif used perhaps 7 sources in one of his/her files, while Pro used about 2 in one that I saw. I read a few of each of their files, so those points tend to go to Con. If Pro wants to highlight his/her sources, they should be listed in endnotes. Otherwise there were not many spelling errors. As as for arguments, they are both a draw. I thought PRO laid out his ideas well, made them well organize. But PRO bears the burden and it's really a far fetched idea at this point to subject America to Britain's monarchy. I understand that logical arguments can be made, but they can also be rebutted, making it "whataboutery". Both sides descended into requiring us to open Google Documents, and I don't agree with that procedure. Linking people to google documents has only a bit more authority than things they never wrote themselves, because the debate should be on the website. I really can't give those arguments much weight. PRO had a better style, & was more organized, but CON rebutted alot.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
RPOFAJifpop09Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate is a great example of why I don't think posting google docs is a good idea. Both debaters exceeded their character limits substantially. The reason for the conduct vote mainly has to do with that, since while Jifpop went over, RPOFA was dramatically over on multiple occasions, with the last google doc post being over 7 times the maximum character limit. I get that it takes a lot of work to produce something of that length, but to expect voters to go through and read all of this is just a cruel joke. As such, I don't feel I can adequately judge this debate based on arguments. Having read through a couple of rounds of argumentation, I can say that I'm leaning Con, mainly because Pro's arguments are so often unwarranted and badly linked, but given that I can't read through it all, this will have to suffice.
Vote Placed by YewRose19298 3 years ago
YewRose19298
RPOFAJifpop09Tied
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: I believe con back up his sources better, and stuck to the argument better as well. I do not think pro touched on real reasons on how America would do better by joining the common wealth nations, but instead stated her opinions on how America should change.
Vote Placed by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
RPOFAJifpop09Tied
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: I think both debaters did very well, but I think Con did the best because he showed how monarchs and colonies in the past didn't do so well when joined by Great Britain.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 3 years ago
Seeginomikata
RPOFAJifpop09Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has the burden of proof wich means Con has the responsibility of at least making the total weight of the arguments even (a tie). Con had dropped several Pro arguments and not analyzed them fully. I think the Pro wins in terms of weight.
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 3 years ago
Buckethead31594
RPOFAJifpop09Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had superior arguments. Con was the first to use an outside source for his arguments, so he loses conduct. Either way, I would advise both debaters to please remain within the character limit next time. Even though Pro has ad hominem attacks, Con only rubs this in Pro's face. An ad hominem attack, in my opinion.
Vote Placed by progressivedem22 3 years ago
progressivedem22
RPOFAJifpop09Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used Google Docs to far surpass the character limit, and issued several ad hominem attacks in the comments section.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
RPOFAJifpop09Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: In all honesty I think arguments were virtually equal in this. Both did a great job. The only thing I can do is award conduct to Con. One of pros extensions noticeably went wayyyyyyy over the 10k limit that ddo permits per site rules.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
RPOFAJifpop09Tied
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: "No preview available." I highly suggest either debating on google docs, or debating here; but not this half and half thing full of errors. Also I highly suggest avoiding phrases about having the truth on your side, as if you obviously have the truth there is nothing to debate... Also calling the other side's opinions biased; the point is to disagree, of course they will no matter what be biased against your case.