The Instigator
iamnotwhoiam
Pro (for)
Winning
44 Points
The Contender
mrvenomous
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

The British monarchy should be abolished

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 8 votes the winner is...
iamnotwhoiam
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/12/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,636 times Debate No: 28142
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (8)

 

iamnotwhoiam

Pro

The resolution is that the British monarchy should be relieved of governmental responsibility and subsidy. Round 1 is for acceptance. Burden of proof is shared. No new arguments in round 5.
mrvenomous

Con

I accept :)
Debate Round No. 1
iamnotwhoiam

Pro

1. Democracy is the preferable system of government.

The trend in thought from the Reformation at least until the twentieth century has been an increasing subjectivity. Dogmatic certainties could no longer be justified. Individualism began to take over from deference to authority. The old power structures began to be replaced by more egalitarian systems.[1]

Modern democracy is an outcome of individualism. It is a deterrent to tyranny over the people. By enabling all to have a say over who is in power, power is mitigated.The government have greater difficulty in performing unfair or unjust actions, because they are accountable to the people. The principle is that individuals are allowed to flourish in a state where all have basic rights, civil liberties and redress to the law. We can no longer justify innate rights of one human to be more powerful over another; people are to be treated equally.

Democracy enables a natural sort of utilitarianism; its pressures ensure that the concept of the greatest good for the greatest number must be a factor in the decision making of any pragmatic politician.

Democratic government enables the most broad canvassing of opinion and ideas, taking advantage of this diversity to thrash out considered policies.

Democratic societies promote individual autonomy, and encourage citizens to think carefully and rationally.

Democracy also has a positive moral effect in that the conditions for political debate are realized, encouraging citizens to not only justify their stances to others but unavoidably think in terms of the interests of others.

1a. Empirically, democracies avoid some of the terrible conditions seen under other forms of government.

Due to limited space, I will develop this point in later rounds.

2. A monarchy is directly in opposition to the principles of democracy.

There is an inherent contradiction in a state where all are supposed to be born equal with equal rights but has at its head an unelected enjoyer of privilege, to whom deference is supposed to be shown. The monarch does not rule on the merits of their competency, in fact they may be utterly incompetent and the public could not rid themselves of such a fool until death.

The Queen holds weekly consultations with the Prime Minister. These meetings are private, and are exempt from Freedom of Information legislation: the public have no access to what is said.[2] The Queen is not accountable to the people. While it is not possible to prevent some private interests from having access to the Prime Minister, it is going beyond the pale to actually institutionalize the practice.

3. The sovereign has inordinate power.

The sovereign (ruling monarch) can declare war, veto bills passed in the legislative houses, dismiss and appoint a Prime Minister, dismiss and appoint other ministers, summon Parliament, command the Armed Forces, commute the sentences of prisoners, ratify treaties, and receive diplomats.[3]

An unelected person with narrow interests should not have these powers. Especially not to command the army.

4. The Privy council is undemocratic.

The Privy Council, a council that advises the ruling monarch, can be used by government to bypass due process. Legislation passed by Privy Council does not have to go through parliament (the legislative houses) at all.[4]

5. The sovereign has no mandate to rule.

The doctrine of the divine right of kings belongs to a more gullible age when the people had less opportunity for self-determination. Said doctrine is a Christian imposition, and Britain is a multi-faith state now, including a significant proportion of the non-religious. It is a doctrine that is poisonous to democracy, or any just government; The sovereign is a fallible human being, and some measure of temporal accountability is a necessary check on human ambition.

Absent the divine right to rule, the sovereign has no mandate.

Monarchy was historically justified in Britain by the notion of parental power. The ruling monarch was held to be a direct descendant of the first father, Adam.[5]

John Locke pointed out that if parental power was concerned, then the mother's line is of equal value. Thus primogeniture with its preference for male heirs is not justified. Locke also mocks the notion that the monarch's bloodline can be traced to Adam. This is an obvious fiction. Furthermore, says Locke, parental power is temporary, relinquished at adulthood, and does not apply to life or property.[6]

6. Monarchy preserves harmful class structures.

Class structures have been hugely detrimental in Britain to social mobility and a meritocratic society.

In a survey conducted by FM Martin, the possibility of own business amongst those who self-identified as working class was 15%. For the self-identified middle class it was significantly higher: 22% of manual workers and 30% of professionals.[7]

In a 2007 poll, 89% of Britons said they think people are judged by their class - with almost half saying that it counts for "a lot".[8]

The UK has a worse record of social mobility than other developed countries. [9]

The preservation of an aristocratic upper class, embodied by the monarchy, serves as a stark notice of the power of class and a deterrent to social mobility in Britain.

7. Abolishing the monarchy would provide an opportunity to have a written constitution.

Unlike countries which have a written constitution, much of the UK system of government has been inherited from an undemocratic past. No rights guaranteed by the constitution. Parliament may pass any legislation that it wishes. This comes from the notion that the sovereign reigns by divine fiat. By contrast, in countries with a codified constitution, the legislature is normally forbidden from passing laws that contradict that constitution. Abolishing the monarchy would be a chance to put in place a codified constitution that would protect the rights and liberties of the British people.

8. The sovereign's duties can be taken up by those with a mandate to rule.

Some of the sovereign's duties can be delegated downwards and others taken up by an elected President, accountable to the people. Any arguments for preserving the role of the monarch could apply to an elected official.

[1] Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy, Counterpoint, pp20-21.
[2] http://www.legislation.gov.uk...
[3] http://www.royal.gov.uk... (various pages)
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] Murphy, Erin (2000-01-01). Familial Forms: Politics and Genealogy in Seventeenth-Century English Literature. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 2-3.
http://books.google.co.uk...
[6] Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy, Counterpoint. pp 596-599
[7] Some Subjective Aspects of Social Stratification, FM Martin, in Social Mobility in Britain, Eds David Victor Glass, Jerzy Berent, Taylor & Francis.
http://books.google.co.uk...
[8] http://www.guardian.co.uk...
[9] http://www.guardian.co.uk...
mrvenomous

Con

Let me start off by rebuttals

"Modern democracy is an outcome of individualism. It is a deterrent to tyranny over the people. By enabling all to have a say over who is in power, power is mitigated"
-Modern democracy doesn't guarantee that power is in the hands of the people. There are lots of ways to "sneak around". A government can assume power easily by influencing the public opinion of the people, by "buying off" votes, or by other dirty methods. Also if those with power are the majority ones, what about the minority? Are they neglected?

-"Democracy enables a natural sort of utilitarianism; its pressures ensure that the concept of the greatest good for the greatest number must be a factor in the decision making of any pragmatic politician"
A politician in a democratic system doesn't always consider "the greatest good for the greatest number" in their decision making. If he did, why are so many people in many different "democratic" nations unsatisfied with their politicians and leaders?

-"Democratic government enables the most broad canvassing of opinion and ideas"
Yet the opinions of the minority are usually neglected because democracy believes in power for the majority.

-"Democratic societies promote individual autonomy, and encourage citizens to think carefully and rationally."
The ability to promote individual autonomy doesn't only belong to democratic societies, communist and non-democratic societies do too. In fact it is unsatisfactory conditions which encourage citizens to think more rationally and critically.

MY REBUTTALS ON THE "A MONARCHY IS DIRECTLY IN OPPOSITION" PART

-"There is an inherent contradiction in a state where all are supposed to be born equal with equal rights but has at its head an unelected enjoyer of privilege, to whom deference is supposed to be shown."
What kind of privilege does a POWERLESS constitutional monarch enjoy? A constitutional monarch is politically powerless, such monarch only functions as mere FIGUREHEAD, whose purpose is only to represent the nation. Yes the Queen and her family do enjoy financial privilege, but so do presidents and their families!


-"The Queen holds weekly consultations with the Prime Minister. These meetings are private, and are exempt from Freedom of Information legislation: the public have no access to what is said."
Looks like you sort of "twisted" your source for the purpose of strengthening your argument. Your source says:
'Information is exempt information if it relates to—
[F1(a)communications with the Sovereign,
(aa)communications with the heir to, or the person who is for the time being second in line of succession to, the Throne,
(ab)communications with a person who has subsequently acceded to the Throne or become heir to, or second in line to, the Throne,
(ac)communications with other members of the Royal Family (other than communications which fall within any of paragraphs (a) to (ab) because they are made or received on behalf of a person falling within any of those paragraphs), and
(ad)communications with the Royal Household (other than communications which fall within any of paragraphs (a) to (ac) because they are made or received on behalf of a person falling within any of those paragraphs), or]
(b)the conferring by the Crown of any honour or dignity.'
DOES THE SOURCE MENTION THE PRIME MINISTER?
By the way let me correct you. According to http://www.royal.gov.uk... 'The Queen gives a weekly audience to the Prime Minister at which she has a right and a duty to express her views on Government matters'. If the public have no access to what is said, as you claim, how can the website know? And how can people reading the website know? How can I know?


-"The sovereign (ruling monarch) can declare war, veto bills passed in the legislative houses, dismiss and appoint a Prime Minister, dismiss and appoint other ministers, summon Parliament, command the Armed Forces, commute the sentences of prisoners, ratify treaties, and receive diplomats."
HAHA It looks like you are referring to the King of Saudi Arabia, who holds unlimited power. The Queen, as I told you before, is a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCH, therefore she has none of the powers you mentioned, apart from the ability to declare war, which presidents also have. Therefore this argument of yours is invalid.



-"The Privy council is undemocratic"
A council advising a national leader doesn't have to be elected. Is the US cabinet elected by the people? Oh yeah the President chooses its members.


-"The doctrine of the divine right of kings belongs to a more gullible age when the people had less opportunity for self-determination. Said doctrine is a Christian imposition, and Britain is a multi-faith state now, including a significant proportion of the non-religious. It is a doctrine that is poisonous to democracy, or any just government; The sovereign is a fallible human being, and some measure of temporal accountability is a necessary check on human ambition."
Absolute monarchs rule according to the divine rights of kings, Queen Elizabeth doesn't because she is a constitutional monarch. She has very little power compared to the Parliament and the Prime Minister.


-"Monarchy was historically justified in Britain by the notion of parental power. The ruling monarch was held to be a direct descendant of the first father, Adam."
Monarchy is accepted in Britain, till now, because it's part of its culture.










Debate Round No. 2
iamnotwhoiam

Pro

1. Democracy is the preferable system of government

Democracy doesn't guarantee power is in the hands of people, but it is the only form of government apart from true communism that places hands in the power of the people at all. If my opponent is going to argue that communism or anarchism are better systems, then he concedes the debate, since they require the abolition of the monarchy.

Minority interests tend to be considered in a modern democracy for two reasons. One is that is that healthy debate, and the fact everyone has a vote, lend themselves to the consideration of many interests. The other, which is associated, is that minorities, and those who wish to see a fair society, come together and lobby the politicians.

That people are unsatisfied with politicians does not mean that politicians do not consider the needs of the people. If people become very unsatisfied with politicians, those politicians lose their seats in Parliament.

A monarchy does not promote individual autonomy as a democracy does. In a democracy, the individual has a voice. Under a monarchy, an individual is a subject. Democracy encourages the individual to think carefully and rationally about politics, because they can influence it. Under a monarchy, government is at the whim of the sovereign. The individual who thinks carefully and rationally about a government policy under a monarch is idly speculating.

If my opponent is to argue against democracy, he has to do more than point out that democracy is imperfect. He needs to show why a monarchy is preferable.

1a. Empirically, democracies avoid some of the terrible conditions seen under other forms of government.

In 1958 in China, Mao Zedong's Communist Government began the Great Leap Forward campaign, which led to a disastrous famine killing between 18 and 45 million people.[1][2]

Holomodor, a man-made famine in Ukraine under Soviet Communist rule, killed at least 4 million.[3][4]

The North Korean famine of the late 90s killed up to 3.5 million people.[5]

The famine in Ethiopia in 1973 under the emperor Haile Selassie killed up to 80,000 people.[6]

The 1983"85 famine in Ethiopia under Communist rule was responsible for 400,000 deaths.[7]

There are other examples.

Economist Amartya Sen notes that

"no substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent country with a democratic form of government and a relatively free press."[8]

2. A monarchy is directly in opposition to the principles of democracy.

A powerless monarch would still receive the unmerited privileges of their position, such as financial privilege and exemption from the law.[9]

However, the sovereign is certainly not powerless.

My opponent asks if the Freedom of Information Act mentions the Prime Minister. This is irrelevant. The Queen's weekly meetings are exempt from Freedom of Information as they are "communications with the Sovereign". I haven't twisted the source at all, and I expect my opponent to show good conduct and withdraw that remark.

My opponent bizarrely asks how we can know that the Queen holds weekly meetings with the Prime Minister if they are private. This is a non-sequitor.

3. The Sovereign has inordinate power.

My opponent contends that the Sovereign is powerless. I will quote from the sources directly:

"The Queen's duties include opening each new session of Parliament, dissolving Parliament before a general election, and approving Orders and Proclamations through the Privy Council."[10]

"As a constitutional monarch, the Sovereign is required to assent to all Bills passed by Parliament"[11]

"The Queen as Sovereign is Head of the Armed Forces."[12]

"The daily example that You set, mirrored by our courageous armed forces of which You are Commander-in-Chief, is extraordinary."[13]

" "The armed forces are loyal, and we live in a democracy, but actually their ultimate authority is the Queen."

The prime minister can sack the chief of the defence staff. But only the Queen can approve the appointment of a new one."[14]

"The Queen appoints senior judges."

"The Queen also exercises the prerogative of mercy, by which the Sovereign may, for example, grant free or conditional pardons or remit penalties."[15]

"The Queen alone appoints the Prime Minister, and all other ministers are appointed by her on the Prime Minister's recommendation."[16]

Here is a British newspaper article detailing the Queen's ratification of a treaty in 2008:
http://www.thesun.co.uk...

Let my opponent doubt the UK Sovereign's powers no more.

4. The Privy Council is undemocratic.

My opponent missed the part that the Privy Council can pass legislation, bypassing the process of going through the two legislative houses.

The Privy Council has been used before to pass controversial legislation.

In the 1960s, the Privy Council made an order to evict the 2,000 inhabitants of the 65-island Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean, in preparation for the establishment of joint United States-United Kingdom military base on the largest outlying island Diego Garcia. In 2006 the High Court of Justice found the Privy Council's decision to be unlawful. Sir Sydney Kentridge, QC described the treatment of the Chagossians as "outrageous, unlawful and a breach of accepted moral standards." [17]

In 1984, Margaret Thatcher used the Royal Prerogative to ban members of GCHQ, a British intelligence unit, from membership of a union, without consultation.[18]
Trade unions pronounced this move as an assault on civil liberties, and there were mass protests. The UN's labour agency criticized a later Conservative government for failing to overturn this legislation.[19] Workers sacked for refusing to give up their union membership were eventually awarded compensation in 2000.[20]

5. The Sovereign has no mandate to rule.

"Absolute monarchs rule according to the divine rights of kings, Queen Elizabeth doesn't because she is a constitutional monarch."

I ask my opponent, by what mandate does she rule at all?

My opponent says that
"Monarchy is accepted in Britain, till now, because it's part of its culture."

Is that the best defence of monarchy that my opponent can offer? That it is a tradition? Slavery, the oppression of women, and the persecution of homosexuals were also traditions. Importantly, tradition does not constitute a mandate.

6-8

My opponent accidentally submitted their argument before they had finished. I await their further rebuttals in the next round.

[1] Grada, Cormac O (2011). Great Leap into Famine. UCD Centre For Economic Research Working Paper Series. p. 9.
[2] Dikotter, Frank. Mao's Great Famine: The History of China's Most Devastating Catastrophe, 1958-62. Walker & Company, 2010. p. xii
[3] RJ & K Steinberg, The Nature of Hate, Cambridge University Press. pp 67
http://moourl.com...
[4] http://moourl.com...
[5] Hagard, Stephan and Noland, Marcus (2007). Famine in North Korea: markets, aid and reform. Columbia University Press:New York
[6] De Waal, Alexander. Evil Days: Thirty Years of War and Famine in Ethiopia. 1991, p.58
[7] Ibid, p.5
[8] Sen, A., 1999, Development as Freedom, New York: Knopf. pp152
[9] http://moourl.com...
[10] http://moourl.com...
[11] http://moourl.com...
[12] http://moourl.com...
[13] http://moourl.com...
[14] http://moourl.com...
[15] http://www.royal.gov.uk...
[16] http://www.findlaw.co.uk...
[17] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
[18] http://www.bailii.org...
[19] http://www.independent.co.uk...
[20] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
mrvenomous

Con

mrvenomous forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
iamnotwhoiam

Pro

Unfortunately my opponent has bowed out. I'll find someone to debate this properly eventually. For now, the monarchy shall be abolished. Vote Pro.
mrvenomous

Con

mrvenomous forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
iamnotwhoiam

Pro

Thanks for reading.
mrvenomous

Con

mrvenomous forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by iamnotwhoiam 3 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
YYW, Russell's summary isn't wrong, which is why I used it. Locke did say all those things and believed the monarchy was illegitimate. Your criticism is made up and you can't back it up.

If you would like to debate this subject, I would be happy to give you the opportunity to demonstrate how wrong I am. Happy holidays.
Posted by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
Thanks for the holiday wishes, Heineken. I had a wonderful christmas and hope you did as well. I won't wish that you receive a passive aggressive metaphor though. I just hope you enjoy your time with your family.
Posted by Heineken 3 years ago
Heineken
YYW, I hope you have a merry Christmas. Maybe your parents got you a big box of common sense.
Posted by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
Heineken, what I think of you is as irrelevant about what you think of how I'm behaving. The original vote had nothing to do with you. But I'm sure you think you're quite clever for being able to make a connection between what you think are two related events that share a common theme. As usual, you read into the debate what you want out of it and jump to conclusions that are beyond what can be drawn. But that's not abnormal. It's human nature. It is what it is.

And Iamnothwoiam, if you want to use Locke, use Locke. Not Russell's version of Locke. Russell made some magnificent contributions in symbolic logic. Not so in political philosophy. But even if you are going to use Russell's version of Locke, don't assume he was right or expect me to as a judge accept that he is, because he is Bertrand Russell. Ground the arguments, don't just incorporate conclusions.
Posted by Heineken 3 years ago
Heineken
YYW is terribly biased and he's behaving like a real a**hole. His vote is vicarious because he failed to secure a victory in this debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by iamnotwhoiam 3 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
Would love to know how Russell misapplied the views of Locke here, YYW:

John Locke pointed out that if parental power was concerned, then the mother's line is of equal value. Thus primogeniture with its preference for male heirs is not justified. Locke also mocks the notion that the monarch's bloodline can be traced to Adam. This is an obvious fiction. Furthermore, says Locke, parental power is temporary, relinquished at adulthood, and does not apply to life or property.
Posted by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
I originally gave you one (because he forfeited) and him three. Then Heineken countered me, so I leveled the scores. You deserved the conduct point, but not the win.
Posted by iamnotwhoiam 3 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
Uh. My opponent forfeited. And you give him seven points. Sad.
Posted by iamnotwhoiam 3 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
Uh. My opponent forfeited. And you give him seven points. Sad.
Posted by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
Heineken you are such an idiot. Pro had the claim to be proven, which he failed to do. Did Con forfeit? Yes. Does that help Pro prove his claim? Not a chance. But this isn't the first bad decision you have rendered, so I'm not really surprised.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by drafterman 3 years ago
drafterman
iamnotwhoiammrvenomousTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 3 years ago
DoctorDeku
iamnotwhoiammrvenomousTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 3 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
iamnotwhoiammrvenomousTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Looks like this is a good place to leave a votebomb.
Vote Placed by RationalMadman 3 years ago
RationalMadman
iamnotwhoiammrvenomousTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: You can't abolish it. Whatever...
Vote Placed by brian_eggleston 3 years ago
brian_eggleston
iamnotwhoiammrvenomousTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: All points to Pro and +1 for this debate.
Vote Placed by Heineken 3 years ago
Heineken
iamnotwhoiammrvenomousTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture. Also counter YYW because he's being a d*ck.
Vote Placed by Clash 3 years ago
Clash
iamnotwhoiammrvenomousTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
iamnotwhoiammrvenomousTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to PRO because CON forfeited, but arguments to CON because PRO categorically failed to meet his BOP. There is no need to reward sloppy logic and bad argumentation for the laziness of another. Sources are a wash because PRO misapplied almost all of the philosophical references he incorporated. More detailed analysis in comments. Also, both PRO and CON are admonished to take a course in political philosophy before debating this subject again. There's a brilliant one taught by a fellow at Yale available online, if any are interested. And I'm re-working my points until Heineken un-counters me. Granted, I don't think he understood why I cast my original points (1-3) the way I did, but that is no reason for him to counter without cause.