The Instigator
RoyalistTeaParty
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Jifpop09
Con (against)
Winning
72 Points

Should the United States of America join the Commonwealth realms?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 15 votes the winner is...
Jifpop09
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,853 times Debate No: 49741
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (70)
Votes (15)

 

RoyalistTeaParty

Pro

The Royalist Tea Party and the user @Jifpop09 have agreed that our last debate was awful, so we both have agreed to start another debate. The user @Jifpop09 has agreed to not use Google Docs or anything outside debate.org. The user @Jifpop09 has agreed to be kind and respectful this time. The user @Jifpop09 has agreed to actually debate this with us. We thank the user @Jifpop09 for taking responsibility, we don't really see that here on debate.org. Before we begin, we just want to say we have updated our website and Facebook page. We used to be called the 'Royalist Party of America', but due to some copyright issues and other conflict, we decided to protect the peace instead of disputing. Relax, it's not 1212 anymore lol. 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.

Links:
http://royalistparty.us...
https://www.facebook.com...

****Now let this official debate begin!****


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.


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.
Jifpop09

Con

The user @Jifpop09 has agreed to not use Google Docs or anything outside debate.org. The user @Jifpop09 has agreed to be kind and respectful this time. The user @Jifpop09 has agreed to actually debate this with us. We thank the user @Jifpop09 for taking responsibility, we don't really see that here on debate.org.

While I admit my conduct was not exceptional the last debate, I ask you to refrain from throwing all the blame on me. If we are truly to have a good debate, then we must put the past behind us. I will let the audience judge my previous conduct for themselves.




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

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

Now, I wasn't planning on bringing previous conduct into question. But since mine has been attacked, I feel a need to defend my case. It was actually you Molloy, that people were questioning. As you called the voters idiots, and made a false accusations of cheating.

Now since that's out of the way, let us begin the debate.




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.

From what I recall from history class, Britain only controlled a small portion of what is now the United States of America. These colonies, which were largely unattended and autonomous for most of history, are so little of something so big. Were we ever really British, or were we are own nation, free of the authoritarian oppression of the crown, setting examples in religious freedom and liberty?



http://www.worldatlas.com...


Now that brings me to another important point. How are any of the other states connected to Britain in any way? They were the creations of New France, New Spain, New Russia, Mexico, Germans, Irish, Italians, and the Scottish. America was the result of no one empire. I personally, am French- German, as are most people within my region. My state does not want to, or ever will be affiliated with the British. Does this make sense? Just because an extinct empire held a couple of unattended colonies along the east coast, does not give the crown authority over territory 6 times its size. I don't recall the king helping us attain that land, which american soldiers fought and died for.



http://www.city-data.com...


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.

You see, I wouldn't expect a foreigner to understand American culture. By the very nature of America, we are against monarchs. We were the shining haven of refuge for the millions of Italian, Scottish, Irish, Germans, and Mexicans who were fed up with the oppression and injustice monarchs stood for. They didn't want to live in a land where they had to swear blind obedience to a man birthed of privelege. They valued the liberty of choosing who or who not to obey. And that my english friend, is something they valued over death. It is disrespectful to dishonor their sacrifices by proposing a tear up every value America ever stood for, to give some fat hag her own country. Tell me if I'm wrong, but Queen Elizabeth didn't do a damn thing to deserve ruling over the 300 million proud and free willed people that call the states their home.

My advice, is go back to Britain, and take care of the dissidents at home. Currently, an average 25% of the citizens in Britain, based on multiple tests, don't even want a monarch. And they've had one their whole history.

http://republic.org.uk...

All Queen Elizabeth will do, is cause massive amounts of civil unrest and upheaval, for a country already expieriencing these problems from the tea party.



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.


This whole paragraph is ignorant to history. You know who had to build the great wall and pyramids?
Poor serfs and slaves forced against their will to serve their "precious"emperor. You can't blame them though. Its all they knew back then. Born with a need to be led, and monarchs exploited this. In fact, the whole reason WW1 started, was because of monarchy and imperialism, based on Austria and Germanys ignorant kings. 68 million soldiers were forced to survive in the worst conditions in history, due
to the whims of power hungry monarchs. In fact, ancient greece flourished under the republic era, and the leadership of Pericles.




http://www.perseus.tufts.edu...


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.

Oh, this isn't true. The queen of Britain takes public stances all the time. Back when the guy from the British conservative party issued a racist speech, and half of britain went under strike, guess who issued a vocal statement supporting the speech? Queen Elizabeth!!! Here's the speech for rivers and blood, which the queen was more then responcible for a number of the riots that took place. The monarch can be as corrupt or misguided as any president.


https://www.youtube.com...

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.

Must I provide a list of nations where monarchy has failed. To be honest, in history, the monarch has used its power to abolish democracy more then once. In a republic, parties can peacefully exchange power through a fair vote. Not civil war or revolution, but a peaceful election. A good example is the PRI. A party which took full control of every office in Mexico, and rebuilt the country. But when the party was no longer in Mexicos best intrests, the people voted in a new party. This is the power of a republic. Peaceful exchanges of power based on the will of the people. Probably the most beautiful system ever invented. Now you keep saying that political parties are bad, but I say, that they stop over priveleged monarchs and military regimes from taking hold.


http://www.iop.harvard.edu...

The sad fact is, that almost every country a monarch has taken power, that same monarch was later overthrown for a republic.


Nations that once had a monarch: Everyone of them




Places that now have a monarch:






http://mattstil.es...

Maybe this is a clear sign that monarchies don't work? And the nations it does work in, the monarch has litterally no power. In my opponents previous debates, she proposed giving the monarch power to

A. Kick out any elected official.


B. Remove any law

C. Assign the President.

Now this is just pure dictatorship, and many Americans would rather die then live under such a powerful old hag, who can alter the developments that we produced over 200 years. There is a reason we are so powerful and rich, so why change anything?



Round 1 Conclusion
---------------------------------


- My opponent has not made a single argument involving the commonwealth, instead choosing to argue the monarch.

- There is no immediate need to give some hag across the atlantic, powers that even the president doesn't have.

- It stands against every anti-imperial value that America has ever had. Like the song says, people would rather die then give up their freedom and liberties.


- Only a portion of the current states have any connection to Great Britain.

- Even if a monarch was better, the ensuing civil unrest and violence would have her packing in a week. Accompanied by the 1000's that would die ousting her.

Debate Round No. 1
RoyalistTeaParty

Pro

"From what I recall from history class, Britain only controlled a small portion of what is now the United States of America. These colonies, which were largely unattended and autonomous for most of history, are so little of something so big. Were we ever really British, or were we are own nation, free of the authoritarian oppression of the crown, setting examples in religious freedom and liberty?"

No, Many of the names have changed from the days of the British Empire, but this is the list: Antigua and Barbuda; Australia; The Bahamas; Bangladesh; Barbados; Belize; Botswana; Brunei Darussalam; Cameroon; Canada; Cyprus; Dominica; Fiji Islands; The Gambia; Ghana; Grenada; Guyana; India; Jamaica; Kenya; Kiribati; Lesotho; Malawi; Malaysia; Maldives; Malta; Mauritius; Mozambique; Namibia; Nauru; New Zealand; Nigeria; Pakistan; Papua New Guinea; St Kitts and Nevis; St Lucia; St Vincent and the Grenadines; Samoa; Seychelles; Sierra Leone; Singapore; Solomon Islands; South Africa; Sri Lanka; Swaziland; Tonga; Trinidad and Tobago; Tuvalu; Uganda; United Republic of Tanzania; USA; Vanuatu; Zambia. The USA left the Empire in 1776. Ireland left the UK in 1922. Neither joined the Commonwealth.

"You see, I wouldn't expect a foreigner to understand American culture. By the very nature of America, we are against monarchs. We were the shining haven of refuge for the millions of Italian, Scottish, Irish, Germans, and Mexicans who were fed up with the oppression and injustice monarchs stood for. They didn't want to live in a land where they had to swear blind obedience to a man birthed of privelege. They valued the liberty of choosing who or who not to obey. And that my english friend, is something they valued over death. It is disrespectful to dishonor their sacrifices by proposing a tear up every value America ever stood for, to give some fat hag her own country. Tell me if I'm wrong, but Queen Elizabeth didn't do a damn thing to deserve ruling over the 300 million proud and free willed people that call the states their home."

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 programs, 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 emphasize 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.

"My advice, is go back to Britain, and take care of the dissidents at home. Currently, an average 25% of the citizens in Britain, based on multiple tests, don't even want a monarch. And they've had one their whole history."

72% of Britons support the monarchy while 18% want a republic. The BBC ran an article on it a while ago which contained that statistic. I can't seem to find it though... Interestingly, only 60% of Welshmen support the Prince of Wales and apparently only 16% think he's actually done anything for Wales. Her Majesty is also the de jure head of state in all the countries of the Commonwealth as well. You can read about how some of the Commonwealth countries view Her Majesty in this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk... I certainly admire Her Majesty. She stands for so much-- over 1000 years of British tradition. I would be disappointed if the UK ever were to abolish the This whole paragraph is ignorant to history.

"In fact, the whole reason WW1 started, was because of monarchy and imperialism, based on Austria and Germanys ignorant kings. 68 million soldiers were forced to survive in the worst conditions in history, due to the whims of power hungry monarchs. In fact, ancient greece flourished under the republic era, and the leadership of Pericles.
"

That's not true, A quarter of the world's countries are Constitutional Monarchies, and that is the better quarter by a long way. In every part of the world Constitutional Monarchy is better than any other system of government, especially Republics. Look at Europe. Britain has 3 and a half centuries of stable democracy. And look at the other long lasting, respectable democracies like the Netherlands and Norway and Sweden and Denmark and Belgium and Luxembourg and Spain (a fairly recent Constitutional Monarchy). Compare that with, say, Germany. Germany has only been a Republic for 90 years and has already had the single most evil, despotic, tyrannical military dictator the world has ever seen. Hitler became Head Of State aswell as being the leader of Parliament, and that made him an irremovable dictator, something that can't happen in a Constitutional Monarchy. Look at the rest of the world too. What's a better democracy, Japan or the People's Republic Of China, under Hu Jintao, a 1 party communist regime? Jordan or the Republic of Iran under Mahmoud Ahmedinejad? Morrocco or any African Republic like Zimbabwe, under Mugabe? Thailand or the Republic of Vietnam? Canada, or any other North or South American country? In every single part of the world Constitutional Monarchy is better in terms of political stability and accountability. Also, every year the UN publishes a list of the best countries to live in the world based on the quality of life of the citizens. And every year, despite the fact that there are more Republics in the world, the top 20 are always mostly Constitutional Monarchies, and the top 10 are always mostly Constitutional Monarchies, and the top of the list is always a Constitutional Monarchy. Evidently having a permanent, unpolitical Head Of State is a billion times better than having a politician as Head Of State.

"This is the power of a republic. Peaceful exchanges of power based on the will of the people. Probably the most beautiful system ever invented. Now you keep saying that political parties are bad, but I say, that they stop over priveleged monarchs and military regimes from taking hold."

Republicans are traitors by the very name "republic", if people really want a republic, instead of making another one, move to one of the many ones there are out there already, they don't work, and never will, you give one person total power, that's not a democracy, that's a dictatorship and before long that's exactly what you have, we would happily live under a monarchy than a dictatorship, or a republic, we are lucky to have the Monarchy we have today, there is no need to change it, it's not broke so don't try and fix it, the Royal Family understands the people more than they are given credit for, no doubt we will get many nasty comments from the haters that plague these Royal sites, but we don't care.
Jifpop09

Con

No, Many of the names have changed from the days of the British Empire, but this is the list:Antigua and Barbuda; Australia; The Bahamas; Bangladesh; Barbados; Belize; Botswana; Brunei Darussalam; Cameroon; Canada; Cyprus; Dominica; Fiji Islands; The Gambia; Ghana; Grenada; Guyana; India; Jamaica; Kenya; Kiribati; Lesotho; Malawi; Malaysia; Maldives; Malta; Mauritius; Mozambique; Namibia; Nauru; New Zealand; Nigeria; Pakistan; Papua New Guinea; St Kitts and Nevis; St Lucia; St Vincent and the Grenadines; Samoa; Seychelles; Sierra Leone; Singapore; Solomon Islands; South Africa; Sri Lanka; Swaziland; Tonga; Trinidad and Tobago; Tuvalu; Uganda; United Republic of Tanzania; USA; Vanuatu; Zambia. The USA left the Empire in 1776. Ireland left the UK in 1922. Neither joined the Commonwealth.

I actually meant within the borders of modern day america.

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 programs, 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.

This is great and all, but the United States has embassies as well. I don't see this as a strong enough perk for throwing away democracy for a old haggish queen. America is already the strongest nation on earth, both diplomatically and militarily. A high commision is hardly a justifiable benefit. From my current understanding, I think that the risk highly outweighs the reward, if any. I believe our system of diplomacy is superior as well, as far as calculated votes go.

http://www.state.gov...

72% of Britons support the monarchy while 18% want a republic. The BBC ran an article on it a while ago which contained that statistic. I can't seem to find it though... Interestingly, only 60% of Welshmen support the Prince of Wales and apparently only 16% think he's actually done anything for Wales. Her Majesty is also the de jure head of state in all the countries of the Commonwealth as well. You can read about how some of the Commonwealth countries view Her Majesty in this article:http://news.bbc.co.uk... certainly admire Her Majesty. She stands for so much-- over 1000 years of British tradition. I would be disappointed if the UK ever were to abolish the

According to that specific poll, but on a average calculation of the overall amount of polls, it is 25%. I think the highest was a little under 40%?

That's not true, A quarter of the world's countries are Constitutional Monarchies, and that is the better quarter by a long way.


I had to tell you that this was false last debate, so please don't use it again. Only a 1/5 of the worlds countries are constitutional monarchies, and some of them are serious $hitholes. Take the 195 recognized UN states, and divide it by 37 and you get a little over 5. It's even less if you look at the unrecognized defacto states, which raises the number to 206. Are you saying that all of the 158 countries that aren't monarchies, are insuperior? Here is a list of highly successful democracies with high economies, HDI, and democratic standards. And in most of those countries, the government gives no power of formal authority to the monarch, like Japan, were the monarch is only recognized in the constitution.

http://www.un.org...
http://www.kolki.com...



1. The United States.

2. France

3. Germany

4. Brazil

5. Iceland

6. Ireland

7. ROK

8. Poland

9. Switzerland

10. Turkey

Ect.........

Anyways, you offer no evidence that a correlation exists between the monarch and the success of a nation. Show me proof, that the monarch directly attributes to the success of the nation, and would be worth the undoubtable challenges, burdens, and unrest.

Look at Europe. Britain has 3 anda half centuries of stable democracy. And look at the other long lasting, respectable democracies like the Netherlands and Norway and Sweden and Denmark and Belgium and Luxembourg and Spain (a fairly recent Constitutional Monarchy).

Britain also has one of the slowest economic growth rates per economic potential. The economy is more then failing, and it might have something to do with the lavish life style of Her Old Haginess.



http://www.theguardian.com...




https://www.google.com...

I don't think the UK's 1% growth rate is helping your case. As this year alone, they were passed in nominal GDP by two countries.

And Francoist Spain, you are aware was a monarchy? Not only that, but it is one of the most corrupt nations in Europe. In addition, had some of the most severe organized rioting the world had ever seen in 2011. On the same scale as the Euro Maidan. Note that many of the countries below are constitutional monarchies.

http://www.transparency.org...




Republicans are traitors by the very name "republic", if people really want a republic, instead of making another one, move to one of the many ones there are out there already, they don't work, and never will, you give one person total power, that's not a democracy, that's a dictatorship and before long that's exactly what you have, we would happily live under a monarchy than a dictatorship, or a republic, we are lucky to have the Monarchy we have today, there is no need to change it, it's not broke so don't try and fix it, the Royal Family understands the people more than they are given credit for, no doubt we will get many nasty comments from the haters that plague these Royal sites, but we don't care.






Alright, I'm just going to come out and say it.


THE KING AND QUEEN OF BRITAIN AND SPAIN DONT DO A DAMN THING, BUT SIT AROUND ON THEIR DAMN ARSES.

Now that I've let out that bit of pent up frustration, I can move on to my conclusion...

- My opponent has the BOP, and currently, it has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that this is what the US needs.

- My opponent has failed to show the correlation between a Monarch and the success of a nation.

- My opponent has once again, failed to provide a single bit of reasoning on how joining the commonwealth would be beneficial, besides having a useless high commisioner. Most people even agree, that the commonwealth only exists to host the commonwealth games....



http://www.thecgf.com...
Debate Round No. 2
RoyalistTeaParty

Pro

"I had to tell you that this was false last debate, so please don't use it again. Only a 1/5 of the worlds countries"

No, a constitutional monarchy is the best form of government that humanity has yet tried. It has yielded rich, healthy nations whose regime transitions are almost always due to elections and whose heads of state are capable of being truly apolitical. The U.S. would do well to adopt it, as well as parliamentary democracy. 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. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.norepublic.com.au...

http://listdose.com...

"According to that specific poll, but on a average calculation of the overall amount of polls, it is 25%. I think the highest was a little under 40%?"

Well according to this poll, http://www.smh.com.au... Voters' support for republic hits 20-year low.

Also FYI:

Economic Growth:
  • European constitutional monarchies rank very high on the CIA's measure of Purchasing Power Parity, or PPP. Liechtenstein ranked first, Luxembourg ranked third, and Norway was number sixth. Seven out of the 10 richest countries in the world in 2003 were constitutional monarchies, measured by per capital ross domestic product, according to the Brussels Almanac. More than half of the top 30 countries were constitutional monarchies. The two richest countries in the Middle East, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, are constitutional monarchies, as is Japan, the richest country in Asia.

Less Corruption:

  • The International Commission on Nobility and Royalty says that constitutional monarchies have less crime on average than countries with other types of governments. Transparency International's 2010 Corruption Perception Index showed that the top 10 least corrupt nations on earth were mostly constitutional monarchies. TI defines corruption as "the abuse of entrusted power for private gain." The Corruption Perception Index ranks countries based on the perception of corruption in the public sector. It is specifically based on such things as the bribery of public officials, embezzlement of public funds and political kickbacks.

Freedom:

  • The Central Intelligence Agency's World Factbook explains that monarchs in a constitutional monarchy must follow a constitution that spells out his or her rights, duties and responsibilities. Constitutional democracies have excellent records of democracy, according to libertarian columnist Quentin Langley. He says that constitutional monarchies are some of the best examples of effective parliamentary democracies. Langley points to the examples of the former British territories in Africa, which, when they moved away from the constitutional monarchy, subsequently took away political freedoms.

Benevolence:

  • Dr. Walter Block, professor of economics at Loyola University, argues that rulers in a monarchy have a strong incentive to take a long-term view of their kingdom and pursue policies that benefit subjects. In a typical liberal democracy, politicians typically pursue self-serving policies regardless of long-term consequences because they will be out of office before they have to face them. Also, politicians can confuse the citizens by blaming one another endlessly for the harm done by their own policies.

  • Constitutional monarchs are bound by certain limits and are not likely to push these limits for short-term political gains. They rule personally for decades and then leave their kingdom to an heir. Block points out that monarchs will want to pass down a functioning enterprise rather than looting the state treasury before leaving office.


"Britain also has one of the slowest economic growth rates per economic potential. The economy is more then failing, and it might have something to do with the lavish life style of Her Old Haginess."

According to BBC, the UK economy grew by 1.9% in 2013, its strongest rate since 2007, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). http://www.bbc.com...


"And Francoist Spain, you are aware was a monarchy? Not only that, but it is one of the most corrupt nations in Europe. In addition, had some of the most severe organized rioting the world had ever seen in 2011. On the same scale as the Euro Maidan."

Span is still a Constitutional monarchy, but that's not why Spain is so corrupted. Spain is full of corrution because there's no supervisor in public sectors, and administrations are corrupted, and there is no real supervisor to complain, and nobody tries to control the corruption. Own corrupted people design the laws to take advantage of them, and even courts do not accomplished the laws. The bloody Spanish, eh? Not the British Monarchy.

"THE KING AND QUEEN OF BRITAIN AND SPAIN DONT DO A DAMN THING, BUT SIT AROUND ON THEIR DAMN ARSES."

Again with trying to provoke me? Well this time I'm not going to lose it...., you told me that you were going to be "kind and nice"?, so much for that eh? You can read what The Queen's Powers are: https://www.royalistparty.us...



"My opponent has the BOP, and currently, it has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that this is what the US needs."


Actually I already have, but let me be more clear; 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. The Royalist Tea Party advocates the establishment of a Crowned republic like Norway, Australia and the United Kingdom, rather than a full republic (which never seems to work) in the United States of America. Our primary purpose is to educate the American public about the benefits of monarchy and to effect a change in public opinion concerning constitutional monarchy by promoting it as a viable form of government for the US. Why? America today is divided. The presidents, who are both the head of #state and the head of the government, have only to appeal to certain people in order to keep power. When they gain power they can pay off their friends, give out federal appointments and pass laws in line with their party. The president is a biased individual elected because he said the right things. HM the Queen is an unbiased individual. She inherited her throne, she does not openly favour any political party. Instead she serves the people, not the Conservative Party, not the Labour Party, not the UKIP, but the people. The Queen is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. She declares the wars and when they end, but she must take advice from the government so she can't go around willy-nilly declaring war on other countries. Unlike presidents who can attack whoever they want and after 90 days they need to seek approval. She can't go around imprisoning people who oppose her. The Queen is by far neutral in most affairs. Yet also the Queen is a mother to her people, somebody everyone can connect to. There is no one in the United States that can be like that. The Queen is far more respectable than most, if not all, presidents. She was born and bred to reign over her country and the Commonwealth. She has the respect that both years of experience and the history of her heritage brings. Overall the Queen is a much better role model and person to admire then the latest TV star, musician, or movie star. Who is a better role model and inspiration to the people; Justin Bieber, Miley Cyrus, or the Queen? We would say the Queen by a long shot. She would serve as a greater benefit for the morals and integrity of our society. She would overall be a better representative of this nation's interest than any other politician and would make America appear better abroad and would be a symbol of a united people. Presidents, congressmen and women, and other politicians come and go but the Queen and her heirs would remain on the throne, a symbol of continuing. Monarchy isn't outdated. Instead it's what keeps society together. You almost never hear about overthrowing the Queen, But some people hear about overthrowing the United States government almost every day. Overall we would say having the Queen as head of state is far more stable and prosperous. Joining the Commonwealth Realms will not remove the independence of the United States, it won't cause us to forsake our heritage, instead it will allow us to connect to the past and allow us to move onto the future, with the Queen as our head of state. God Save the Queen! It's better than being $18 trillion in debt though. http://www.dpreview.com...

Hypothetically speaking, if we do ever win, these would be the changes:

01. American President (Leader of the crowned republic).
02.
House of Commons of the United States.
03. Parliament of the United States.
04. Her Majesty (Head of State).


Jifpop09

Con

No, a constitutional monarchy is the best form of government that humanity has yet tried. It has yielded rich, healthy nations whose regime transitions are almost always due to elections and whose heads of state are capable of being truly apolitical. The U.S. would do well to adopt it, as well as parliamentary democracy. 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

Alright, this rebuttal completely dodged the question. I gave my opponent a chance to defend her false claim, but she choose not to. I provided sources indicating that only 1/5th of the world's countries are constitutional monarchies, where as she said a quarter. Not to mention that most monarchs are only recognized through a line in the constitution. I ask the audience to make note of this when voting, as feeding the audience false information should not be encouraged on DDO. And, she was previously warned in our last debate.

-1 conduct



European constitutional monarchies rank very high on the CIA's measure of Purchasing Power Parity, or PPP. Liechtenstein ranked first, Luxembourg ranked third, and Norway was number sixth.

Does my opponent really understand what PPP is, as in my opinion, she would of realized this is a weak argument if she did. First of all, she did not clarify on whether she was talking about PPP per capita, or overall GDP-PPP. There is a big difference between the two.

GDP relative to PPP (Exchange Rate): The US actually ranks first in this area. The only constitutional monarchy in the top 10 is the UK, with the exception of Japan. Which proves her argument false.


https://www.cia.gov...

PPP per Capita: This is a relatively unreliable system to calculate dollar values and exchange rates. The reason Lietchenstein is up there, is because it has a population of 36,000. And since its citizens have a high GDP per Capita, the rate of the dollar is higher. The only legitamate monarchy up there is Norway. And its small population is tagged closely behind populous nations like the US, and is passed up by wealthy and populated repulics like Singapore.

I am dissapointed by my opponents intent on using this as an example. Most economists consider it unreliable, and it's only sufficient in explaining the success of a country, by doing specific calculations. Which I doubt my opponent knows or has done.


http://catalog.flatworldknowledge.com...

The International Commission on Nobility and Royalty says that constitutional monarchies have less crime on average than countries with other types of governments

I took a look at "The International Commision on Nobillity and Royalty", and it seems to be a biased site that throws many loose and baseless facts around. The audience can take a look for themselves.


http://www.nobility-royalty.com...


Transparency International's 2010 Corruption Perception Index showed that the top 10 least corrupt nations on earth were mostly constitutional monarchies. TI defines corruption as "the abuse of entrusted power for private gain." The Corruption Perception Index ranks countries based on the perception of corruption in the public sector. It is specifically based on such things as the bribery of public officials, embezzlement of public funds and political kickbacks

I'm aware of what the corruptions perception index is, but that's not the problem. The problem is that you have not clarified on which nations on the list are CM's, and failed to source it. So I will. 3 of the countries on the top 10 are not constitutional monarchys, including Switerland, Singapore, and Finland. And two were also commonwealth states, where the queen has barely any power. They are also followed close behind by repulics such as the US, Iceland, and Germany. Molloy, refrain from posting anymore economic maps and indexes, without proper sourcing.


http://cpi.transparency.org...




He says that constitutional monarchies are some of the best examples of effective parliamentary democracies. Langley points to the examples of the former British territories in Africa, which, when they moved away from the constitutional monarchy, subsequently took away political freedoms.

Oh, and the ones that kept monarchies are shining examples of government. Give me a break, they are $hitholes like the rest. And here's a fun fact. The fastest growing economies in Africa are republics. Note that the countries with the fastest rates of cumulative growth are democratic republics.




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


Dr. Walter Block, professor of economics at Loyola University, argues that rulers in a monarchy have a strong incentive to take a long-term view of their kingdom and pursue policies that benefit subjects.

Ha, you did not just source a anarchist, did you? Let me give people a couple facts on Walter Block...


- He's Anti Goernment, of any sort.
- He believes in voluntary slavery

I'm not sure how much of the audience are anarchists, but not a good philosophy in my opinion.

According to BBC, the UK economy grew by 1.9% in 2013, its strongest rate since 2007, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS)

The UK did do alright lately, but 1.9% is not exactly great. China's doing 11-12%. A competitive deeloped country should be reaching 2% a year to be healthy.

Again with trying to provoke me? Well this time I'm not going to lose it...., you told me that you were going to be "kind and nice"?, so much for that eh? You can read what The Queen's Powers are:

Molloy, I'm not insulting you, but her old haginess. Do not take my beef with her personally. Anyways, private messages should be kept prvate, and the reliability of that message is questionale, as you blacked out the name (It was me).

Anyways, you are giving the monarch the status of a dictator. Just in case something happens to the link, I will copy and paste from the website.

- The Queen alone, as Head of the Armed Forces, may declare war or peace
- The Queen alone may conclude treaties
- The Queen (as commander-in-chief) may choose and appoint officers of all ranks
- The Queen may convoke, adjourn, remove, and dissolve Parliament
- The Queen may appoint a Prime Minister of her own choosing
- The Queen may dismiss the Prime Minister and his Government
- The Queen can choose and appoint all judges, councillors, officers of state, etc.
- The Queen may initiate criminal proceedings, and she alone can bestow a pardon
- The Queen may refuse the Royal Assent
- The Queen may refuse to dissolve Parliament when requested by the Prime Minister
- The Queen can choose and appoint all Archbishops, Bishops, and ecclesiastical dignitaries
- The Queen may exercise the refusal of the “Queen’s Consent” (direct Monarchical assent is required for a bill affecting the prerogative, hereditary revenues or the personal property or interests of the Crown to be heard in Parliament).
- Since the Sovereign is “first in honour, dignity and in power--and the seat and fountain of all three,' the Queen may bestow all public honours, including creating peerages or bestowing Orders of Chivalry

Are you kidding me? These powers are extremely stupid. The Queen would have more power then the president and congress combined. DECLARE WAR?!?! What is she, an expierienced and skilled general/tactician?


Dissolve Parliament? Appoint the president? This is the craziest nonsense I ever heard. I would kill the queen myself I she were ever to attain these powers. We don't need her, nor do we want her.

I would also like to bring a plagarism argument into play. It seems some lines were copied word for word from this site, without sourcing it. I can't seem to be able to find the website at the moment, but I will reinform the audience when I do. Othewise, just ignore this paragraph. I'm only putting it here so the audience and my opponent knows in advance.



Conclusion

- My opponent is very misguided on how the world works, and a 15 year old from england, should not be proposing such nonsense for our government. Giving a queen hundreds of miles away dictator status? She seems to be more captivated by the granduer and classivitity of the monarchy, rather then realism.

- My opponent has once again fed false information, even after telling her four times over two debates that she was wrong. Its basic math.

- My opponent has displayed one of the worse sourcing in any debate I ever participated in. If you're going to bring an index or economic map in as a argument, you need to source it. You even quoted authors and sites without citing their writing.

- My opponent has made quite a few economic arguments, but it is clear she has little knowledge on exchange rates or PPP. It feels like she was getting her information off of wikipedia.

- My opponent has still made no arguments befitting the resolution. Maybe if she argued we should be a constitutional republic, like India and Singapore, she might have a case.


I have nothing wrong with CM's, but it is not a good fit for the US. Not without Civil War or unrest. What right does this foreigner have to impose her queen on our liberties? I would honestly want to forget about the English monarchy. Their imperialism pretty much screwed up half of the world, and set back countries through colonialism and resource stealing. It's disrespectful and barbaric to maintain a modern monarch. We have much more important things to worry about. In conclusion, my opponent has not yet filled the BOP, and has only made one topic regarding the resolution. You can be in the commonwealth without accepting Queen Elizabeth, as thats what India has done. As the song says, we should be grateful and proud of our freedom, and it goes against every founding principal since our creation.







Debate Round No. 3
RoyalistTeaParty

Pro

Earlier my opponent said: "And Francoist Spain, you are aware was a monarchy? Not only that, but it is one of the most corrupt nations in Europe. In addition, had some of the most severe organized rioting the world had ever seen in 2011. On the same scale as the Euro Maidan."

What I said: "Span is still a Constitutional monarchy, but that's not why Spain is so corrupted. Spain is full of corrution because there's no supervisor in public sectors, and administrations are corrupted, and there is no real supervisor to complain, and nobody tries to control the corruption. Own corrupted people design the laws to take advantage of them, and even courts do not accomplished the laws. The bloody Spanish, eh? Not the British Monarchy."

Correction: Francoist Spain, also historically known as Nationalist Spain during the Spanish Civil War, refers to the period of Spanish history between 1936 and 1975 when the authoritarian dictatorship of Francisco Franco took control of Spain from the government of the Second Spanish Republic in the Spanish Civil War. Not a Monarchy.
Apologies for that. Airmax (one of the admins on debate.org) said I won't be judged on this "mistake" because I corrected it right away via comments and now here via this debate.

Spanish dictator Francisco Franco chose to restore the monarchy upon his death He set it up that way and made it part of his Will.

King Juan Carlos took over 2 days after Franco died (1975) and then reinstated democracy.

Interesting blog to read: http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com...

"The top 10 is the UK, with the exception of Japan. Which proves her argument false. I gave my opponent a chance to defend her false claim, but she choose not to. I provided sources indicating that only 1/5th of the world's countries are constitutional monarchies, where as she said a quarter."

I already provided the links, but let's personally go over it.


01. Andorra is a costitutional monarchy. 02. Anguilla is a costitutional monarchy. 03. Antigua and Barbuda is a Federal monarchy. 04. Aruba is a costitutional monarchy. 05. Australia is a costitutional monarchy. 06. Bahamas is a costitutional monarchy. 07. Bahrain is a costitutional monarchy. 08. Barbados is a costitutional monarchy. 09. Belgium is a costitutional monarchy. 10. Belize is a
costitutional monarchy. 11. Bermuda is a costitutional monarchy. 12. Bhutan is a costitutional monarchy. 13. British Virgin Islands is a costitutional monarchy. 14. Brunei is a costitutional monarchy. 15. Cambodia is a costitutional monarchy. 16. Canada is a costitutional monarchy. 17. Cayman Islands is a costitutional monarchy. 18. Christmas Island is a Federal monarchy. 19. Cocos (Keeling) Islands is a costitutional monarchy. 20. Cook Islands is a costitutional monarchy. 21. Curacao is a costitutional monarchy. 22. Denmark is a costitutional monarchy. 23. Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) is a costitutional monarchy. 24. Faroe Islands is a costitutional monarchy. 25. Gibraltar is a costitutional monarchy. 26. Greenland is a costitutional monarchy. 27. Grenada is a costitutional monarchy. Guernsey is a Monarchy. 28. Holy See (Vatican City) Monarchy. 29. Isle of Man is a costitutional monarchy. 30. Jamaica is a costitutional monarchy. Japan is a costitutional monarchy. 31. Jersey is a Constitutional monarchy. 33. Jordan is a constitutional monarchy. 34. Kuwait is a Constitutional monarchy. 35. Lesotho is a Constitutional monarchy. 36. Liechtenstein is a Constitutional monarchy. 37. Luxembourg is a Constitutional monarchy. 38. Malaysia is a Constitutional monarchy. 39. Monaco is a Constitutional monarchy. 40. Montserrat is a Constitutional monarchy. 41. Morocco is a Constitutional monarchy. 42. Netherlands is a Constitutional monarchy. 43. New Zealand is a Constitutional monarchy. 44. Niue is a Constitutional monarchy. 45. Norway is a Constitutional monarchy. 46. Oman is a monarchy. 47. Papua New Guinea is a constitutional monarchy. 48. Pitcairn Islands is a constitutional monarchy. 49. Qatar is a monarchy. 50. Saint Kitts and Nevis is a Constitutional monarchy. 51. Saint Lucia is a constitutional monarchy. 52. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is a constitutional monarchy. 53. Saudi Arabia is a monarchy (and I get a lot of Americans saying they have no freedom, but it's Saudi Arabia. 54. Sint Maarten is a Constitutional monarchy. 55. Solomon Islands is a monarchy. 56. Spain is a Constitutional monarchy. 57. Swaziland is a Monarchy and a constitutional monarchy.
http://www.slate.com...

http://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Australia had a government shutdown once. In the end, the queen fired everyone in Parliament.

58. Sweden is a Constitutional monarchy.
59.Thailand is a Constitutional monarchy.
60. Tokelau is a Constitutional monarchy.
61. Tonga is a Constitutional monarchy.
62. Turks and Caicos Islands is a Monarchy.
63. Tuvalu is a Cnstitutional monarchy/
64.
United Arab Emirates is a monarchy.
65. United Kingdom is a Constitutional monarchy.

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

Monarchy is one of the cheapest types of Head of State. Below is a table comparing the British Monarchy with two other Heads of State who are not hereditary Monarchs.
  • British Monarchy–$59.54 US million
  • French Presidency$253.93 million (just for President’s income alone) per year
  • American Presidency$1,512.99 million.
http://www.royalcentral.co.uk...

"Oh, and the ones that kept monarchies are shining examples of government. Give me a break, they are $hitholes like the rest. And here's a fun fact. The fastest growing economies in Africa are republics. Note that the countries with the fastest rates of cumulative growth are democratic republics."

Anyone who know's what they are talking about would agree with me, it's the repubics who are not the good ones. I've already explained why, but to make myself a little bit more clear, 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.

"Anyways, you are giving the monarch the status of a dictator. Just in case something happens to the link, I will copy and paste from the website"


I'll stop you there, you should understand the differences.
http://www.ehow.com...

Can the Queen retake her absolute powers? Yes, but only In an emergency, she does have extra powers - it's called the Queen in Council (Governor in Council in Canada). It's only temporary, she can act without all of Parliament being in session - but, only when it's absolutely needed. However, she cannot just seize power. That would require a bill to go through both houses of Parliament (God forbid such an emergency).

"The Queen would have more power then the president and congress combined."
http://answers.yahoo.com...
No, check this link out and read for yourself.

"I would kill the queen myself."
Death threats are not allowed, you should really watch what you say! Especially
when it comes to a government official.

"I would also like to bring a plagarism argument into play."
That seems like a despreate move now that all of a sudden you are trying to call me out for plagarism, I don't recall plagiarizing anything, but if I did, I'm sorry, wasn't my intention.

I'm actually 16, but yes, I'm from England, now an American citizen by my mother's side, quit trying to slander me, we all have the right to free speech. You have also accused me of "feeding false information", but you can't tell me that I'm wrong, it could be you that is wrong. You have disrespectfully stated that I have displayed one of the worse sourcing in any debate that you have ever participated in, but the truth is it's you who has once again refused to debate this with me, you have not once stated why the United States wouldn't benefit for having the Queen, I have already showed how it would it would benefit the United States and the other nations. You can only bring up the past, when I'm trying to bring up the future.

"My opponent has still made no arguments befitting the resolution. Maybe if she argued we should be a constitutional republic, like India and Singapore, she might have a case."

You see, the problem is, the United States is a constitutional republic like India and Singapore. The sad part is, I'm English and it seems I know more about this country than you. 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.
Jifpop09

Con

I already provided the links, but let's personally go over it.

01. Andorra is a costitutional monarchy. 02. Anguilla is a costitutional monarchy. 03. Antigua and Barbuda is a Federal monarchy. 04. Aruba is acostitutional monarfeafewfchy. 05. Australia is a costitutional monarchy. 06. Bahamas is a costitutional monarchy. 07. Bahrain is a costitutional mon archy. 08. Barbados is a costitutional monarchy. 09. Belgium is a costitutional monarchy. 10. Belize is a costitutional monarchy. 11. Bermuda is a costitutional monarchy. 12. Bhutan is a costitutional monarchy. 13. British Virgdsfdsin Islands is a costitutional monarchy. 14. Brunei is a costitutional monarchy. 15. Cambodia is a costitutional monarchy. 16. Canada is a costitutional monarchy. 17. Cayman Islands is a costitutional monarchy. 18. Christmas Island is a Federal monarchy. 19. Cocos (Keeling) Islands is
a costitutional monarchy. 20. Cook Islands is a costitutional monarchy. 21. Curacao is a costitutional monarchy. 22. Denmark is a costitutional monarchy. 23. Falkland Isflands (Islas Malvidfnas) is a costitutional monarchy. 24. Faroe Islands is a costitutional monarchy. 25. Gibraltar is a costitutional monarchy. 26. Greesfcfdnland is a costitutional monarchy. 27. Grenada is a costitutional monarchy. Guernsey is a Monarchy. 28. Holy See (Vaticand City) Monarchy. 29. Isle of Man is a costitutional monarchy. 30. Jamaica is a costitutional monarchy. Japan is a costitutional monarchy. 31. Jersey is a Constitutional monarchy. 33. Jordan is a constitutional monarchy. 34. Kuwait is a Constitutional monarchy. 35. Lesotho is a Constitutional monarchy. 36. Liechtenstein is a Constitutional monarchy. 37. Luxembourg is a Constitutional monarchy. 38. Malaysia is a Constitutional monarchy. 39. Monaco is a Constitutional monarchy. 40. Montserrat is a Constitutional monarchy. 41. Morocco is a Constitutional monarchy. 42. Netherlands is a Constitutional monarchy. 43. New Zealand is a Constitutional monarchy. 44. Niue is a Constitutional monarchy. 45. Norway is a Constitutional monarchy. 46. Oman is a monarchy. 47. Papua New Guinea is a constitutional monarchy. 48. Pitcairn Islands is a constitutional monarchy. 49. Qatar is a monarchy. 50. Saint Kitts and Nevis is a Constitutional monarchy. 51. Saint Lucia is a constitutional monarchy. 52. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is a constitutional monarchy. 53. Saudi Arabia is a monarchy (and I get a lot of Americans saying they have no freedom, but it's Saudi Arabia. 54. Sint Maarten is a Constitutional monarchy. 55. Solomon Islands is a monarchy. 56. Spain is a Constitutional monarchy. 57. Swaziland is a Monarchy and a constitutional monarchy

Audience, I will remind you she just contradicted her original statement. She said 1/4th of the countries on earth are constitutional monarchies. Then, when I reinstated she's false, she makes a list including absolute monarchies, and places that are not even countries. She included places like Gibraltar, Greenland,Christmas Island, and the Falkland Islands in a obvious attempt to falsely expand
her contradictory list. Audience, please take this obvious ploy into consideration. She knows that these places are not countries, and this trickery is nothing new from her.

http://www.royal.gov.uk...

http://www.greenland.com...

http://www.regional.gov.au...

Australia had a government shutdown once. In the end, the queen fired everyone in Parliament.

And do we want to give someone this power? The power to fire months of elected officials. No, its blasphemy, insanity, and whomever wishes this is delusional. This only goes to prove that the Queen is not afraid to use the tyrant powers, that your group wishes to give her.

Have we really not advanced to the point where we can't see the harm in such dictorial control? I also want to comment that she used a extremely biased source.
Monarchy is one of the cheapest types of Head of State. Below is a table comparing the British Monarchy with two other Heads of State who are not hereditary Monarchs.








        • British Monarchy–$59.54 US million















        • French Presidency– $253.93 million (just for President’s income alone) per year















        • American Presidency – $1,512.99 million.









That's because your prime minister is the actual head of state. Factor in his costs, and it will be much higher. And, thats just a perk for all parliaments. Now I would like to point out to the audience, that my opponent has stated a complete 100% lie. The French persident does not make 253.93 million for his salary. Where my opponent got such an outrageous statistic is beyond me, and if he would be so kind as to source it.

Anyone who know's what they are talking about would agree with me, it's the repubics who are not the good ones. I've already explained why, but to make myself a little bit more clear, 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.

And I explained to you that you have the BOP. In holding the BOP, you have to prove that the success of the nation is attributed to the monarch, and not socialism, capitalism, double jeapordy, ect. There are to many things to consider, and right now, I'm just not convinced a nation will be net better just by having a monarch.

"The Queen would have more power then the president and congress combined."
http://answers.yahoo.com...;

No, check this link out and read for yourself.

I looked at the link, and it was Yahoo Answers. Not only that, but it was talking about prime ministers. I was talking about the source from your website anyways. Try again please.

That seems like a despreate move now that all of a sudden you are trying to call me out for plagarism, I don't recall plagiarizing anything, but if I did, I'm sorry, wasn't my intention.

The reason it took me so long to post this argument was because I was searching for it. It does not seem to be there anymore, or at least where I remember it, so this can be ignored.

I'm actually 16, but yes, I'm from England, now an American citizen by my mother's side, quit trying to slander me, we all have the right to free speech. You have also accused me of "feeding false information", but you can't tell me that I'm wrong, it could be you that is wrong. You have disrespectfully stated that I have displayed one of the worse sourcing in any debate that you have ever participated in, but the truth is it's you who has once again refused to debate this with me, you have not once stated why the United States wouldn't benefit for having the Queen, I have already showed how it would it would benefit the United States and the other nations. You can only bring up the past, when I'm trying to bring up the future.

Molloy, I think that all this monarchy buissness is just a british bias to make us more like your country. Were not though, and we never will be. All I've concluded from your arguments is that you love your queen, and want to force us to love her as well. And from what I recall, America's doing just fine without her. I will not trade my country and liberty for her old hagginess. Never in my life would I consider it.

Anyways, you bring up serious concerns about my conduct, but I only speak from what I witnessed. And I witnessed terrible biased sources, fallacy errors, and MANY fact breaks and contradictions. You argued from passion when you should of been pressuring an undeniable proof on the audience.

And how can you possibly say I don't wish to debate this with you. I agreed to debate you another 5 rounds, only due to the fact I felt I should give you another shot. Please don't patronize me. The last debate was stressful enough.

Conclusion

- My opponent has not properly filled the BOP, and I doubt the audience is convinced this wont end in the deaths of thousands of americans.

- She proposes giving the monarch the power to abolish office, appoint officials, assent on laws, and declare war. Is this hag nothing more then a tyrant?

- She has only brought ONE argument up on the commonwealth Which is the resolution. We should not be arguing over whether America should become a constitutional monarchy.


Debate Round No. 4
RoyalistTeaParty

Pro

"Audience, I will remind you she just contradicted her original statement. She said 1/4th of the countries on earth are constitutional monarchies. Then, when I reinstated she's false, she makes a list including absolute monarchies, and places that are not even countries. She included places like Gibraltar, Greenland,Christmas Island, and the Falkland Islands in a obvious attempt to falsely expand her contradictory list. Audience, please take this obvious ploy into consideration. She knows that these places are not countries, and this trickery is nothing new from her."

Gibraltar is a British overseas territory. The British Nationality Act 1981 granted Gibraltarians full British citizenship. Under its current Constitution, Gibraltar has almost complete internal democratic self-government through an elected parliament. The head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, who is represented by the Governor of Gibraltar. The sovereignty of Gibraltar is a major point of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations as Spain asserts a claim to the territory and seeks its return. Gibraltarians resoundingly rejected proposals for Spanish sovereignty in referendums held in 1967 and 2002. Basically territories and Islands are considered its own country.

"And do we want to give someone this power? The power to fire months of elected officials. No, its blasphemy, insanity, and whomever wishes this is delusional. This only goes to prove that the Queen is not afraid to use the tyrant powers, that your group wishes to give her. Have we really not advanced to the point where we can't see the harm in such dictorial control? I also want to comment that she used a extremely biased source."

Tyrant powers? No, it's called preventing morden government abuse. It's 2014.

"That's because your prime minister is the actual head of state. Factor in his costs, and it will be much higher. And, thats just a perk for all parliaments. Now I would like to point out to the audience, that my opponent has stated a complete 100% lie. The French persident does not make 253.93 million for his salary. Where my opponent got such an outrageous statistic is beyond me, and if he would be so kind as to source it."

First of all, I'm a 'she', not a 'he'. As for the source, I do apologise if I got the math wrong, but I'm pretty sure I got it right. http://en.wikipedia.org...


"And I explained to you that you have the BOP. In holding the BOP, you have to prove that the success of the nation is attributed to the monarch, and not socialism, capitalism, double jeapordy, ect. There are to many things to consider, and right now, I'm just not convinced a nation will be net better just by having a monarch."

Really? I already did prove it. You can insult me all you want, you can insult me being transsexual, you can even insult the Queen, but what you can't insult is the fact you are making yourself look bad, and that's just a plain fact.

"I looked at the link, and it was Yahoo Answers. Not only that, but it was talking about prime ministers. I was talking about the source from your website anyways. Try again please."

You obviously missed the point then. Everything is about equal. She cannot do whatever she wants, she is just a safeguard to democracy and the people.

"Molloy, I think that all this monarchy buissness is just a british bias to make us more like your country. Were not though, and we never will be. All I've concluded from your arguments is that you love your queen, and want to force us to love her as well. And from what I recall, America's doing just fine without her. I will not trade my country and liberty for her old hagginess. Never in my life would I consider it."

First of all, this is not biased at all: We, the membership of the Royalist Tea Party, commit ourselves to the establishment of a constitutional monarchy for the United States of America. It is our belief that to create a true sense of trust between the governed and the government, our nation's leader must be above the politics of the day, beholden to no special interest group, and free to do what must be done for the good of all Americans, not just the party he or she leads. If anything, I'm here to save this country. Second of all, if you really do think America is doing just fine, I suggest for you and the readers to read these two links: https://www.royalistparty.us... and http://topinfopost.com...;

"Anyways, you bring up serious concerns about my conduct, but I only speak from what I witnessed. And I witnessed terrible biased sources, fallacy errors, and MANY fact breaks and contradictions. You argued from passion when you should of been pressuring an undeniable proof on the audience."

First of all, you speak out of false witness. Second of all, I have not used "terrible biased sources, fallacy errors, and MANY fact breaks and contradictions". Although I do question that statement for yourself. PS: 'Anyways' is not a word, it's 'anyway'. But I rest my case on this statement itself, I may have argued from passion, but I have been telling the truth, with proof. But if you disagree, or dislike what you hear, you should do what you Americans are best at; and that's covering up the truth and not dealing with it.


"And how can you possibly say I don't wish to debate this with you. I agreed to debate you another 5 rounds, only due to the fact I felt I should give you another shot. Please don't patronize me. The last debate was stressful enough."

You have not once defended your statement on why republics are better, you have not once argued why the United States wouldn't be good under the crown. I'm not patronizing you, I've just been asking for you to defend your end, but it's a bit too late now clearly.

Again, republics are less democratic: New Zealand is politically stable and has an exemplary democratic record. They have high levels of wealth, education and literacy. Corruption is low; the rule of law is respected. Fairness and good governance are expected at all times.


http://graphics.eiu.com...

"The case for constitutional monarchy is not sentimental... It rests upon a solid constitutional base which provides a head of state who is politically neutral" -- Former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer.


"Hereditary monarchy offers numerous advantages for America. It is the only form of government able to unify a heterogeneous people. Thanks to centuries of dynastic marriage, the family tree of every royal house is an ethnic grab bag with something for everybody. We need this badly; America is the only country in the world where you can suffer culture shock without leaving home." - Florence King.

"I hate rebels, I hate traitors, I hate tyranny come from where it will. I have seen much of the world, and I have learnt from experience to hate and detest republics. There is nothing but tyranny & oppression, I have never known a good act done by a Republican, it is contrary to his character under the mask of Liberty. He is a tyrant, a many headed monster that devours your happiness and property. Nothing is free from this monster's grasp. A republic has no affection for its subjects. A King may be ill advised and act wrong, a Republic never acts right, for a knot of villains support each other, and together they do what no single person dare attempt." - Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson.

This goes to show that my opponent's credibility has now been lost as he lied hard, my opponent has not only refused to debate this with me, but also cannot be trusted for commiting perjury and disrespecting the Queen under the oath he took. It seems our opponent is as well 16, not 18, so now our Party will be investating for commiting perjury and treason. Legal action as been brought up and the pending action will be determined by our team within a week.


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.

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. And that's why we ask for you to vote for us.

Conclusion:
- My opponent has done nothing but insult me, offend me, use of death threats, and was nothing but disrespectful to me.
- I have showed that the United States would do good under the crown.
- I have showed that republics don't work, and never will.
- My opponent could only bring the past when I was trying to bring up the future. He has only spoke out of fear and ignorance.
- Our opponent did not even bother to question why the United States would benefit being the crown, he wanted to just disrespect the Queen.

****We thank our
opponent for at least trying, even though it may seem like he hasn't tried at all. God Save the Queen!****


Jifpop09

Con

Tyrant powers? No, it's called preventing morden government abuse. It's 2014.

What an extremely inept philosophy. You wish to give someone unlimited power and control................. so they can prevent government abuse? Explain to me how that works again. Somehow we can prevent the government from becoming to powerful by installing someone with absolute power? Not only is her agument extremely fallacious, but its contradictory as well.

First of all, I'm a 'she', not a 'he'. As for the source, I do apologise if I got the math wrong, but I'm pretty sure I got it right.

I'm sorry I messed up your gender "Molloy". Now, as for your math, I'm pretty sure you got it wrong by about 230 million, lol. The presidential wage in france changes constantly, but he makes a bit over 130,000$ a year. Where as the US presidential budget was only 200,000$ a year for the longest time. That's the problem with using wikipedia as a source, and doing the math yourself.

http://content.time.com...

Really? I already did prove it. You can insult me all you want, you can insult me being transsexual, you can even insult the Queen, but what you can't insult is the fact you are making yourself look bad, and that's just a plain fact.

Molloy, you seem to be under the illusion that I am trying to insult you. Its a debate, so my goal is to disprove you. If that comes out as an insult, then I am sorry, but that is how debate works. Now, I was aware of your transgender status, but I had not shared this information with anyone, besides one minor goof I had above. I hold no prejudice for people of any sexuality, and its a low blow to attack me as a bigot. People on this site know I'm above such menial hate.

First of all, this is not biased at all: We, the membership of the Royalist Tea Party, commit ourselves to the establishment of a constitutional monarchy for the United States of America. It is our belief that to create a true sense of trust between the governed and the government, our nation's leader must be above the politics of the day, beholden to no special interest group, and free to do what must be done for the good of all Americans, not just the party he or she leads. If anything, I'm here to save this country. Second of all, if you really do think America is doing just fine, I suggest for you and the readers to readthesetwolinks: https://www.royalistparty.us...;

Molloy, this is why you didn't win your othe debates. Your main focus is on propaganda, and not actual debate. I bet theres been at least 10 plug in's so far

This goes to show that my opponent's credibility has now been lost as he lied hard, my opponent has not only refused to debate this with me, but also cannot be trusted for commiting perjury and disrespecting the Queen under the oath he took. It seems our opponent is as well 16, not 18, so now our Party will be investating for commiting perjury and treason. Legal action as been brought up and the pending action will be determined by our team within a week.

My opponent brings up conduct several times, and then says she's going to press charges in the comments. She has lost all respect from me. I never gie my real details. I joined, gave molloy some tips on how to get started, and asked for another debate. If she thinks any judge would accept this case, then she is a buffoon. So apparently I'm not at risk of treason, and capital punishment, so my last wishes..... smoke her out of this debate.

- My opponent has done nothing but insult me, offend me, use of death threats, and was nothing but disrespectful to me.

As the audience probably now realizes, I have done none of these things. I have been respectful the whole time, until she said she would press charges for treason and perjury. Then I was just in calling her a buffoon.

- I have showed that the United States would do good under the crown.

Your goal was to show we should join the commonwealth. You only raved about the queen from my understanding.

- I have showed that republics don't work, and never will.

And I look back and see no such thing. All I see are slants directed towards me and arguments that the crown is better, lol. Are your really saying republics like Bosnia, Switzerland, and the Netherlands are failures?


A vote for con is a vote for america!!!!!

Debate Round No. 5
70 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyalistTeaParty 2 years ago
RoyalistTeaParty
Oh PS: When you use such sites as this, I guess you should expect people to vote bias and all that, that and voting by ignorance. Oh well, bye everyone.
Posted by RoyalistTeaParty 2 years ago
RoyalistTeaParty
by*
Posted by RoyalistTeaParty 2 years ago
RoyalistTeaParty
Sigh... a great site destroyed be idiots. Such a pity. I will never use this site again, I give this site so many chances... :/ bye.
Posted by RoyalistTeaParty 2 years ago
RoyalistTeaParty
IIt appears our opponent has been banned from debate.org for obvious reasons. We thank the administrators for this and wish they would do this for all idiots. We ask everyone to reconsider their vote on this debate and vote unbiased this time. Thank you!
Posted by Jifpop09 2 years ago
Jifpop09
She banned my IP from accessing her site. I knew she was pro-dictator. Anyways, I have four computers so I'm not effected.
Posted by Jifpop09 2 years ago
Jifpop09
"The "Brits" lost the revolutionary war, because (A: They could not be bothered fighting it. There were much bigger conflicts going on within Europe at the time, and the British Government sent very few troops to the colonies. (B: If the French had not interfered, you would have remained a British colony for a much longer time. Perhaps even being absorbed into Greater Canada. You won the war because at the time you were pretty much irrelevant."

This statement made me laugh. Could not be bothered fighting,lol. Right in this statement she shows are relative worth, and only goes to prove that the Brits have no entitlement over America. Why should we give all we earned to the crown, when she just admitted we had no worth to them?
Posted by Jifpop09 2 years ago
Jifpop09
Her website completely crashed. I feel bad for her.
Posted by wrichcirw 2 years ago
wrichcirw
tl;dr, sorry. Was turned off by the introduction.
Posted by Jifpop09 2 years ago
Jifpop09
It seems her website crashed -_-
Posted by Jifpop09 2 years ago
Jifpop09
*wish
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
Actionsspeak
RoyalistTeaPartyJifpop09Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro makes subjective argument's with no factual basis.
Vote Placed by Juan_Pablo 2 years ago
Juan_Pablo
RoyalistTeaPartyJifpop09Tied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: LOL. Very interesting debate. Pro gets "conduct" because Con was blatantly derogatory at times. However, I vehemently disagree with Pro's views on monarchies. Today's royal families are nowhere near as powerful as they use to be and are really just national and cultural figureheads, which can be useful . . . but no longer ESSENTIAL parts of government. With all due respect to the current royal families now in power (many of which I admire), they are not families I would consider essential for running a country; I admire them as people and for their cultural and historical significance in the world. But that's about it. Except for the derogatory statements against certain royal families out there (for which I did dock points away from Con), I had to give the debate victory to Con.
Vote Placed by Kc1999 2 years ago
Kc1999
RoyalistTeaPartyJifpop09Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro makes many assumptions. Too many. Con has a more effective argument.
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
RoyalistTeaPartyJifpop09Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con has more reliable sources and made better rebuttals.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
RoyalistTeaPartyJifpop09Tied
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: Con had outright better sources and more of them so he gets the point there. Conduct to Con due to Pro's harrassments and Arguements go to Con aswell.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
RoyalistTeaPartyJifpop09Tied
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: Conduct - Tie, both made personal attacks and for that I won't reward any points. S & G - No real difference between the two. At-least not enough to make me award points to one over the other. Argument - Con. He successfully argued the importance of the fact that only a minority of U.S. States were originally under the control of the Monarch. He also successfully showed that many U.S. citizens would be against such ruling when our very ideology stands against a Monarch ruler. Con was also well-versed in his refutations whereas Pro dropped the ball several times without providing nearly as well-formed rebuttals. (Will extend if necessary). Sources- Con. Many pointed this out already, but Pro based many of the arguments on weak sources, whereas Con was able to provide verifiable statistics from more respectable sources.
Vote Placed by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
RoyalistTeaPartyJifpop09Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Before I start on arguments , I will start with sources. I normally never award sources in a debate unless its very telling and in this debate it was. Half of pros sources were cited from wiki, and cons were more statistical focused and had more accuracy. Both were relativity rude to each other. I would have automatically awarded conduct to pro for con making remarks against the queen and saying stuff like go back to England. Even in poor wording it kind of had a hint of poor taste, but pro lashed out against voters. He goofed up his only point. One of cons strongest point was on dictatorship. I failed to see how pro adequately responded to this, along with the fact con was able to refute most of his arguments via stats and studies. S&G were equal as well
Vote Placed by bubbatheclown 2 years ago
bubbatheclown
RoyalistTeaPartyJifpop09Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Indeed, there are some advantages to a Monarchy. But here's what Pro neglected to mention: that a bad monarch can be REALLY bad for a country. And the people also lack freedom. Therefore, Con gets arguments. Con also gets sources, for obvious reasons.
Vote Placed by SPENCERJOYAGE14 2 years ago
SPENCERJOYAGE14
RoyalistTeaPartyJifpop09Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct tied. Con used more reliable sources than Pro. The most appealing argument was when Con proved the queen is a dictatorship, because we do not want that for American people. This was a very interesting debate.
Vote Placed by YYW 2 years ago
YYW
RoyalistTeaPartyJifpop09Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO proposed a solution to a series of problems that were never really grounded as problems, but, even if they were problems, CON demonstrated that the measure PRO proposes is insufficient to achieve the ends PRO seeks. CON furthermore articulated, overwhelmingly, the plethora of complications associated with PRO's solution.