The Instigator
d6410
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
TN05
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

The Royal Family is Useless

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
TN05
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/23/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,356 times Debate No: 35904
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

d6410

Pro

The royal family is absolutely useless. In 2012 33.3 Euros went to the royal family when they do nothing but sit around and look pretty.
TN05

Con

The royal family is not useless. Although the royal family does indeed get paid 40 million pounds a year, they earn 200 million pounds annually for the UK government. In other words, them 'sitting around and doing nothing' earns the UK a net profit of 160 million pounds annually.[1]

References:
1. http://www.cgpgrey.com...
Debate Round No. 1
d6410

Pro

Actually the entire royal family spends about an estimated "202 million a year, enough to pay for thousands of teachers, nurses or police officers at a time of sweeping public spending cuts. There is no reason to believe that if Britain abandoned the monarchy tourism would suffer -- that's something even the head of official tourism agency VisitBritain has acknowledged. Britain's history is certainly an attraction -- and the great thing about their history is that it will always be there regardless of what we do in the future. Selling hotel rooms and "I Love London" T-shirts is, anyway, no reason to abandon a proud ambition for democratic reform. Also people don't come to see the family, they come to see the palace. As a national figurehead and leading public figure the queen has utterly failed to do anything of note or worth. After 60 years who can quote a famous speech or point to a moment of crisis or celebration when the queen offered leadership and inspiration?

http://www.cnn.com...
TN05

Con

In addition to the 160 million pounds the royal family earns for the UK government annually,[1] they generate up to 500 million pounds for the UK government in tourist revenue.[2]

References:
1. http://www.cgpgrey.com...
2. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
d6410

Pro

Like I said, people come to see the sights and the palace. Not the people themselves.
TN05

Con

The royals own the palaces. In return for a salary, they let Parliament take the money they would have earned on the property.[1] If the royals are deposed and lose their salary, they have no obligation to pay Parliament money on the lands. If you taking those properties away from the royals without paying for them (which would cost a crap ton of money for UK taxpayers), that would be wrong because they have no right to do so and stealing stuff is immoral.

As I have proven the royals are not useless, the debate resolution is utterly refuted. Vote Con!

References:
1. http://www.cgpgrey.com...
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
d6410TN05Tied
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 blew Pro out of the water. Only thing he didn't do better was spelling.
Vote Placed by orangemayhem 3 years ago
orangemayhem
d6410TN05Tied
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 and S/G were pretty much even with nothing of note to penalise on either side. Arguments to Con for several reasons. Whilst Pro hinted at the democratic issues with the continuation of the monarchy he did not make it a key part of his argument, instead staking his case upon the money spent by the monarchy (AND FOR THE RECORD WE BRITS USE POUNDS NOT EUROS). Con, however, successfully refuted on the amount of money spent by the royal family and the fact that their continued ownership of many of Britain's sites are important for Britain's tourist economy. Sources to Pro for using more, better sources, and deploying them more effectively, and actually citing them in the argument.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
d6410TN05Tied
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: Countering MisterDeku votebomb
Vote Placed by MisterDeku 3 years ago
MisterDeku
d6410TN05Tied
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: I buy Con's argument that the royal family isn't useless since it provide England with a means to get money.