The Instigator
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TN05
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

The United States should have the Queen as Head of State

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 2 votes the winner is...
TN05
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 7/2/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,969 times Debate No: 58498
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (32)
Votes (2)

 

RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial

Pro

Rules:
Please be respectful and nice. Please do not be rude.
No personal attacks against other members or a member's opinions.
You must agree that this will be a fair debate, using unfair advantages is not allowed.
No use of profanities or swear words.
No use of racial, sexual or religious slurs.
No threats or implications thereof.
No cheating.

I will be making my arguments that the United States should join the Commonwealth of Nations, but as a Commonwealth realm, meaning the Queen being Head of State.

The Commonwealth offers the United States an idea that has worked.
It has figured out how to conduct relations across the cleavages of wealth, religion, and race in an era in which international politics are characterized by intensifying economic interdependence and cultural assertiveness. This has been achieved by a combination of soft power and quiet diplomacy. The Commonwealth has very few hardpower resources at its disposal; just modest sums of money and a few peacekeepers where circumstances permit. It proceeds, as the Harare Declaration expresses it, ‘through consultation and the sharing of experience.’ Members like to see themselves, in the words of the former secretary general, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, as an ‘organic community of states,’ bound by mutual understanding, if not always by mutual agreement. Indeed, one of the most common terms used by those who participate in its operations is that of a family. This makes sense because 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 programmes, 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 emphasise 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.

Now, as for becoming a Commonwealth realm:

According to http://goo.gl... "Our modern Constitutional Monarchy gives us a Queen who is: an impartial symbolic Head of State above politics, commercial and factional interests a focus for national unity, national awards and honours and national institutions a Head of State whom we share with 16 other independent countries because she is their Queen too and that links us all together amazingly and most valuably the Head of the Commonwealth because all 53 countries recognise her as this and so she is a special unifying symbol for them too the centrepiece of colourful non-political ceremonial and national celebrations separate from the Head of Government (the Prime Minister), unlike in some countries where the two are combined, often with difficulty able to give impartial non-political support to the work of a wide range of different types of organisations, faiths, charities, artists, craftsmen etc a Head of State completely under the democratic control of Parliament but not having to change every few years in divisive elections at the head of a Royal Family who can share the duties and represent the Queen a constant, lasting symbolic head of the country with links back through our whole history and assured lines of continuity into the future a worldwide well-known and respected symbol of our country carrying out State Visits and goodwill tours in other countries."

Here in the United States we could really take advantage of these benefits. It has been reported on June 30, 2014, from http://goo.gl..., that "Americans have less confidence in the Obama administration than they did for George W. Bush’s at the same point in his presidency, according to a new Gallup survey." And if you look here, http://goo.gl..., it has been reported on April 29th, 2011 that "According to a recent CBS News/ New York Times poll, Queen Elizabeth II has a 61 percent favourable rating among Americans, with a mere 7 per cent holding an unfavourable view of the British monarch (a further 25 per cent are undecided). That compares with an average job approval rating this week of 45.5 percent for the US president according to RealClear Politics, with some recent polls placing him as low as 41 percent." One can only imagine that these ratings have improved since this was reported, it's the Queen who does the job right.

It's a fact that constitutional monarchies are more democratic than republics.

Image
According to http://goo.gl..., "As constitutional monarchies make up around 15% of the countries in the world, if there is more than 1 country in the top five or even top ten, then clearly constitutional monarchies are over represented. Similarly if there are more than three in the top 20, constitutional monarchies are again over represented. And if constitutional monarchies are over represented, republics (that is politicians' republics) are therefore under represented." It's also a fact that today slightly more than a quarter of constitutional monarchies are Western European countries. According to Wikipedia. http://goo.gl...

We share so much and Canada also shares the British Monarchy, the United States would be better within the Commonwealth of Nations and looses so much being outside of it. What is the harm in joining? The Commonwealth will be strengthened by adding those in North America who want Queen Elizabeth II and her heirs as their head of state. It will provide political stability by placing the seat of power above that of political expedience. The American Revolution was an illegitimate rebellion and it is time we restored legitimate authority to this land. I would be surprised to see the U.S. ever join because most Americans just love the revolution. Mind you, really we were fighting a move made by the Parliament and not by the King but we paint a different story. We believe that the American public would be better served if these positions were separate, with the latter being held by an un-elected, non-partisan monarch. The United States is able to join the Commonwealth of Nations even if it is a republic. A republic has been allowed in the Commonwealth since the London Declaration, with the interpretation that republics who do not answer to the Monarchy of the UK are still allowed to join. The US has a long history with the UK, Canada, Australia, and other Commonwealth Countries including the "Special Relationship" between the UK and the US. Canada is the one of the US's largest trading partners and the US is Canada's largest. Both countries have the longest unmiliterised border in the world. The US and the Commonwealth would both benefit greatly from the US joining, both in defense and in economics. Britain gave birth to the US and toady the US and the UK have one of the tightest alliances in the world. We have close cooperation politically and militarily and on intelligence matters. Why not make it official? As an American, I find it strange that we are not a member. America, the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are arguably already a unit. They are militarily, financially, culturally, and security a group that dominates world politics. The Queen is as popular in the US as she is in the existing members. It would be a great way to cement the Anglo sphere into a group as other nations like China grow.

Sources:

http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
TN05

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for proposing this interesting debate. Before I begin, I want to note the burden of proof in this debate. As my opponent is offering a positive claim and affirming it, I believe burden of proof should lie solely on him or her. Additionally, I would like to provide the following definition for "head of state", for those who may be unfamiliar of the term:
*Head of state - "A person who serves as the chief public representative of a republic, monarchy, federation, commonwealth or other kind of state. The head of state is responsible for legalizing the state and exercising the political powers, functions and duties granted to him/her in the country's constitution and laws. The head of state is often designated as the official 'leader' of state."[1]

With that out of the way, I will begin my opening round. In the interest of fairness, I will not be rebutting any of my opponent's arguments in this round.

There are numerous reasons why establishing the Queen of England as the head of state of the United States is a bad idea. Among them, I will be discussing the issues with how the Queen is a useless figurehead (albeit with significant reserve powers), how the Queen pays little real attention to Commonwealth realms (the power mostly falling on the Governor-General instead), how the monarchy does little to improve the affairs of the United States, and how the monarchy would both violate the separation of church and state and result in bizarre governmental situations. Additionally, I'll examine the negative impact of the United States becoming a commonwealth realm - both on the states and other realms.

To begin, let's discuss what a monarchy actually does in a constitutional monarchy. The monarch is a mostly ceremonial position, but retains a surprisingly large number of 'reserve powers'. The only frequently used powers the Queen has are to create secondary legislation (essentially executive orders), to appoint or remove ministers, and to grant honors (such as peerages). The monarch still has the theoretical abilities to summon and prorogue Parliament, assent to laws, appoint the PM, and pardon people, as well as the ability to declare war, control passports, and requisition civilian ships for war, but these are only used one the advice of Parliament. Additionally, the monarch is immune from any criminal or civil prosecution.[2] To put it bluntly, this is a bizarre and unneeded position, a vestige of empire that resulted from the monarch gradually ceding power. If the Queen is a figurehead, why does she retain such powers? Further, the Queen doesn't even use these powers in Commonwealth realms - she instead delegates it to the Governor-General.[3] The Queen only rarely visits other countries - she's only visited Canada, the most populous Commonwealth realm, three times since 2000.[4] Thus the Queen's true focus isn't on even the larger realms, but rather her country of birth - England - and even the supposed 'ceremonial' role the Queen provides is essentially limited to infrequent visits. The United States, therefore, would gain virtually nothing from making the Queen head of state - instead, it would cede a lot of power (even theoretical power) to a foreign monarch who pays only nominal attention to the affairs outside of her home country.

Next, we need to examine the inevitable conflicts on interest that would arise from making the Queen head of state. To begin with, the Queen is the head of the Church of England - the state religion of England.[5] While it is not concerning for minor religious leaders like priests, rabbis, or clerics to run for elective office (whose constituency can then decide whether or not a significant conflict of interest exists), the Queen is an unappointed, lifetime official. Her position as the head of a church is concerning and places a clear conflict of interest with the Constitution's ban on federal establishment of religion.[6] Even if we put that aside, the Queen's simultaneous status as head of state of over 16 different countries results in diplomatic insanity. Take, for example, World War II, where King George VI, as monarch of both the United Kingdom (at war with Germany) and dominions South Africa and Ireland (at peace with Germany) was thus simultaneously at war and at peace with Germany.[7] The nominal neutrality offered by the Queen being the head of state is thus a fiction, at least in this case, as the reality of war is that the position of the Queen's home country (the United Kingdom) is the true position of the Queen - not the position of any other country.

Finally, let's look at what the US becoming a commonwealth realm would mean for other commonwealth realms. The commonwealth realms (including the UK) have a collective total of 135.27 million people.[8] In comparison, the US has a population of 318.3 million people - in comparison to the most populous realms, that is over 5 times more than the UK (62 million), 9 times as many as Canada (34 million), and nearly 14 times as many as Australia.[9] That's not even accounting the remaining commonwealth realms, of which only three (Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, and Jamaica) have over 600,000 citizens.[8] Because the US would be the most populous realm (and the most powerful country in the world), its interests would basically overwhelm the interests of the other realms, the vast majority of which are tiny countries. The voice of the states would easily outweigh the voice of all the others, even when combined. And, as I established earlier, the US simply stands to gain nothing from becoming a commonwealth realm.

So, as you can see, the answer to the resolution is simple - no, the US should not become a commonwealth realm. We stand nothing to gain from appointing a foreign monarch to represent us, and the current realms would be marginalized.

References:
1. http://definitions.uslegal.com...
2. http://royalcentral.co.uk...
3. https://en.wikipedia.org...
4. https://en.wikipedia.org...
5. http://web.archive.org...
6. The Constitution, Amendment I
7. https://en.wikipedia.org...
8. https://en.wikipedia.org...
9. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial

Pro

I would just like to thank my opponent for accepting my debate.

My opponent says "There are numerous reasons why establishing the Queen of England as the head of state of the United States is a bad idea. Among them, I will be discussing the issues with how the Queen is a useless figurehead (albeit with significant reserve powers), how the Queen pays little real attention to Commonwealth realms (the power mostly falling on the Governor-General instead), how the monarchy does little to improve the affairs of the United States, and how the monarchy would both violate the separation of church and state and result in bizarre governmental situations. Additionally, I'll examine the negative impact of the United States becoming a commonwealth realm - both on the states and other realms."

First of all, Anne was the last Queen of England which was in 1707 during the Act of Union. During the Act of Union in 1707 the title for the monarch of England(also included Wales), Scotland and Ireland merged as one title. After the Act of Union Anne's title was Queen of Great Britain and Ireland. It's now Queen of the United Kingdom, or Queen of the Commonwealth realms. I also would like to point out that the Queen is not useless and does pay attention to the Commonwealth realms, the Monarcy would importove the affairs of the United States, and the Monarchy wouldn't violate the separation of The Queen of The United Kingdom Great Britain and Northern Ireland has a similar role to the US President; She is head of the armed forces, She guides and advises the PM (Government), She has the power to close Parliament if she needs to, All laws have to go through her, She represents the nation and entertains foreign heads of state. The President is really just an overseer the same as the Queen as he"cannot directly introduce legislation", it is the government under him that has the power. The main difference is that a President gets directly chosen by the People, while the Queen has been trained her whole life for the job she now does. She is apolitical, and that's the best part. Now, as for the Queen giving "little real attention", according to http://goo.gl... is an important symbolic and unifying role. As Head, The Queen personally reinforces the links by which the Commonwealth joins people together from around the world." That's a lot right there.

Affirming our core Commonwealth principles of consensus and common action, mutual respect, inclusiveness, transparency, accountability, legitimacy, and responsiveness,

Reaffirming the core values and principles of the Commonwealth as declared by this Charter:

  • 1. Democracy
  • 2. Human rights
  • 3. International peace and security
  • 4. Tolerance, respect and understanding
  • 5. Freedom of Expression
  • 6. Separation of Powers
  • 7. Rule of Law
  • 8. Good Governance
  • 9. Sustainable Development
  • 10. Protecting the Environment
  • 11. Access to Health, Education, Food and Shelter
  • 12. Gender Equality
  • 13. Importance of Young People in the Commonwealth
  • 14. Recognition of the Needs of Small States
  • 15. Recognition of the Needs of Vulnerable States
  • 16. The Role of Civil Society
- See more at: http://thecommonwealth.org...;
Not only that, but they affirm the role of the Commonwealth as a recognised intergovernmental champion of small states, advocating for their special needs; providing policy advice on political, economic and social development issues; and delivering technical assistance, - See more at: http://goo.gl... As for improving the affairs of the United States, it would because she is apolitical and people are getting sick of having a political leader every few years who could careless about the people. Last but not least, the Queen is only Head of Church in England. http://goo.gl... and http://goo.gl... Therefore she would be Head of Church in the United States, or any other countries.


My opponent says "To begin, let's discuss what a monarchy actually does in a constitutional monarchy. The monarch is a mostly ceremonial position, but retains a surprisingly large number of 'reserve powers'. The only frequently used powers the Queen has are to create secondary legislation (essentially executive orders), to appoint or remove ministers, and to grant honors (such as peerages). The monarch still has the theoretical abilities to summon and prorogue Parliament, assent to laws, appoint the PM, and pardon people, as well as the ability to declare war, control passports, and requisition civilian ships for war, but these are only used one the advice of Parliament. Additionally, the monarch is immune from any criminal or civil prosecution.[2] To put it bluntly, this is a bizarre and unneeded position, a vestige of empire that resulted from the monarch gradually ceding power. If the Queen is a figurehead, why does she retain such powers? Further, the Queen doesn't even use these powers in Commonwealth realms - she instead delegates it to the Governor-General.[3] The Queen only rarely visits other countries - she's only visited Canada, the most populous Commonwealth realm, three times since 2000.[4] Thus the Queen's true focus isn't on even the larger realms, but rather her country of birth - England - and even the supposed 'ceremonial' role the Queen provides is essentially limited to infrequent visits. The United States, therefore, would gain virtually nothing from making the Queen head of state - instead, it would cede a lot of power (even theoretical power) to a foreign monarch who pays only nominal attention to the affairs outside of her home country."

The Queen has more powers actually, you can read them on my website at: http://goo.gl... These powers are good to prevent modern day government abuse, which is understandable. As for the Royals visiting other Commonwealth realms, they do every few years. And the last visit in Canada was in 2010. http://goo.gl... The Queen does do a lot, and does pay attention to affairs outside of her home country. In fact, you can read what the Queen does. http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl..., you can even read what the Queen still does for Canada: http://goo.gl... So here's the thing, you can't say the United States wouldn't gain anything from this, because it our could gain a lot from having an apolitical head of state who really cares, for years and years and years and more years to come.


My opponent says "Next, we need to examine the inevitable conflicts on interest that would arise from making the Queen head of state. To begin with, the Queen is the head of the Church of England - the state religion of England.[5] While it is not concerning for minor religious leaders like priests, rabbis, or clerics to run for elective office (whose constituency can then decide whether or not a significant conflict of interest exists), the Queen is an unappointed, lifetime official. Her position as the head of a church is concerning and places a clear conflict of interest with the Constitution's ban on federal establishment of religion.[6] Even if we put that aside, the Queen's simultaneous status as head of state of over 16 different countries results in diplomatic insanity. Take, for example, World War II, where King George VI, as monarch of both the United Kingdom (at war with Germany) and dominions South Africa and Ireland (at peace with Germany) was thus simultaneously at war and at peace with Germany.[7] The nominal neutrality offered by the Queen being the head of state is thus a fiction, at least in this case, as the reality of war is that the position of the Queen's home country (the United Kingdom) is the true position of the Queen - not the position of any other country."

The words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution, the argument runs, the document provides for merger of the two." You are free to read more about this. http://goo.gl... Now, according to Wikipedia, "The monarch is nominally the supreme governor of each of the Commonwealth realms, charged with issuing executive orders, commanding the military forces, and creating and administering laws. However, each country now operates under the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy and the concept of responsible government, meaning that the monarch only exercises her powers on the advice of her Crown ministers, who are usually drawn from, and thus responsible to, the elected chamber of the relevant parliament. In some realms, such as Papua New Guinea, these conventions are codified in constitutional law." http://goo.gl...

My opponent says "Finally, let's look at what the US becoming a commonwealth realm would mean for other commonwealth realms. The commonwealth realms (including the UK) have a collective total of 135.27 million people.[8] In comparison, the US has a population of 318.3 million people - in comparison to the most populous realms, that is over 5 times more than the UK (62 million), 9 times as many as Canada (34 million), and nearly 14 times as many as Australia.[9] That's not even accounting the remaining commonwealth realms, of which only three (Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, and Jamaica) have over 600,000 citizens.[8] Because the US would be the most populous realm (and the most powerful country in the world), its interests would basically overwhelm the interests of the other realms, the vast majority of which are tiny countries. The voice of the states would easily outweigh the voice of all the others, even when combined."

Population is just a number, Reason, encouragement, and mutual help, being part of a shared family, and like siblings looking out for each others interests are what makes the Commonwealth work. It's true that the USA may have to understand that in the Commonwealth economic strength and population size and military capacity are all part of the picture, but in the end everything would work out as the United States would continue to learn and understand.
TN05

Con

Before I begin, I want to note that much of my opponent's arguments are directly lifted from other sources. Although much of this comes from my opponent's organization[1] or personal facebook page,[2] for example, the argument about embassies is lifted, without credit, from the website "Commonwealth USA'.[3] While the the first two are completely fine (as they presumably come from my opponent's own words)", I believe the last is a violation of the 'no cheating' rule my opponent established in the opening round.

Now, my opponent's arguments are divided into three sections: "The Commonwealth... worked", "becoming a... realm", and "constitutional monarchies are more democratic than republics". Right off the bat I want to note her first argument has basically nothing to do with this resolution. This is a debate on if the US should become a commonwealth realm, not whether the US should join the Commonwealth of Nations. What's the difference, you might ask? Well, for one the Commonwealth of Nations isn't actually a monarchist organziation under the crown, but rather a free association of states. The Commonwealth doesn't establish laws, but is simply a group of states that have a close historical connection to the UK, and who want to co-operate with each other, and meet every four years for the Commonwealth Games (think the Olympics, but with only former British colonies).[4] While the head of the Commonwealth is the Queen, the 32 of the 53 member states are republics (no monarchy), and another 5 are monarchies, but under a different monarch than the Queen.[4] Only 16 Commonwealth nations - the Commonwealth realms - are under the British monarchy. The US could join the Commonwealth, get all the benefits of membership, and (like the vast majority of commonwealth nations) not have to adopt the British monarchy, so clearly this point doesn't actually help my opponent's case here.

Second, and more relevant to the topic, is becoming a realm. In particular, my opponent asserts a monarch is an impartial head of state that provides a clear national leader rather than a polarizing one. I've already established the issues with sharing a monarch with 16 other countries in my opening round (namely, monarchs having to endorse policies in one country that another opposes), but the reality is a monarch is not universally popular, nor does it unify the people. Rather, it divides them in a new way - namely, a division between monarchists and republicans. To give an example, in 1999 Australia held a referendum on becoming a republic. Although it failed, the republicans still garnered 45% of the vote and a majority in the Australia capital, Canberra.[5] This deep divide is inevitable in any monarchy, and transcends the typical solution of replacing the head of state by vote, as the monarch is in power for life unless voted out for good. Consider that although the monarchy is very popular in Britain, 46% would prefer that William, not Charles, be the heir to the throne.[6] The people have no say in the matter, unfortunately.

Finally, my opponent makes a very brief argument that constitutional monarchies rank higher than republics. Unfortunately, this falls into two logical flaws: for one, correlation does not equal causation. For another, it fails to show how a "broad trend" would improve a specific case. In her conclusion, my opponent basically undermines her own case by noting the US can join the Commonwealth without adopting the Queen as head of state. I think that basically proves my point here: as the resolution has not been upheld, I urge a Pro vote.

References:
1. http://royalistpartyusa.tk...
2. https://m.facebook.com...
3. http://commonwealthusa.weebly.com...
4. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
5. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
6. http://www.bbcamerica.com...
Debate Round No. 2
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial

Pro

I would just like to fix two spelling issues, my keyboard has messed me up. "Monarcy would importove the affairs of the United States, and the Monarchy wouldn't violate the separation", what I meant what "Monarcy would importove the affairs of the United States, and the Monarchy wouldn't violate the separation of state and church. Even though I have proved that the words "susurration of state and church" does not appear in the Constitution. I also said "Therefore she would be Head of Church in the United States, or any other countries." What I meant was "Therefore she would not be Head of Church in the United States, or any other countries." Please forgive me on that.

"Before I begin, I want to note that much of my opponent's arguments are directly lifted from other sources. Although much of this comes from my opponent's organization[1] or personal facebook page,[2] for example, the argument about embassies is lifted, without credit, from the website "Commonwealth USA'.[3] While the the first two are completely fine (as they presumably come from my opponent's own words)", I believe the last is a violation of the 'no cheating' rule my opponent established in the opening round."

Before I begin, I would just like to note that this isn't true. "Commonwealth USA" belongs to me, and as for my personal Facebook page or my organization's page, that's irrelevant.

"Now, my opponent's arguments are divided into three sections: "The Commonwealth... worked", "becoming a... realm", and "constitutional monarchies are more democratic than republics". Right off the bat I want to note her first argument has basically nothing to do with this resolution. This is a debate on if the US should become a commonwealth realm, not whether the US should join the Commonwealth of Nations. What's the difference, you might ask? Well, for one the Commonwealth of Nations isn't actually a monarchist organziation under the crown, but rather a free association of states. The Commonwealth doesn't establish laws, but is simply a group of states that have a close historical connection to the UK, and who want to co-operate with each other, and meet every four years for the Commonwealth Games (think the Olympics, but with only former British colonies).[4] While the head of the Commonwealth is the Queen, the 32 of the 53 member states are republics (no monarchy), and another 5 are monarchies, but under a different monarch than the Queen.[4] Only 16 Commonwealth nations - the Commonwealth realms - are under the British monarchy. The US could join the Commonwealth, get all the benefits of membership, and (like the vast majority of commonwealth nations) not have to adopt the British monarchy, so clearly this point doesn't actually help my opponent's case here."

This is everything to do with the resloution, as I have stated in the beginning "I will be making my arguments that the United States should join the Commonwealth of Nations, but as a Commonwealth realm, meaning the Queen being Head of State."

"Second, and more relevant to the topic, is becoming a realm. In particular, my opponent asserts a monarch is an impartial head of state that provides a clear national leader rather than a polarizing one. I've already established the issues with sharing a monarch with 16 other countries in my opening round (namely, monarchs having to endorse policies in one country that another opposes), but the reality is a monarch is not universally popular, nor does it unify the people. Rather, it divides them in a new way - namely, a division between monarchists and republicans. To give an example, in 1999 Australia held a referendum on becoming a republic. Although it failed, the republicans still garnered 45% of the vote and a majority in the Australia capital, Canberra.[5] This deep divide is inevitable in any monarchy, and transcends the typical solution of replacing the head of state by vote, as the monarch is in power for life unless voted out for good. Consider that although the monarchy is very popular in Britain, 46% would prefer that William, not Charles, be the heir to the throne.[6] The people have no say in the matter, unfortunately."

The Queen is apolitical, she does not have to endorse policies of any countries[1], the Monarch is universally popular [2], and it does unify the people[3]. It's the republic that devides the people, while the Monarch unites the people.[4] The Republicans are irrelevant, they are free to move to the any country that is a republic and they will see for themselves that republics are not good. It's bad enough that the Head of Government here in the United States is doing whatever he wants[5], at least with the Queen being Head of State we would not be worried as stability would be high for the Head of State. [1] http://goo.gl... [2] http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl... to name a few. [3] http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl..., to name a few. [4] http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl..., to name a few. [5] http://www.weeklystandard.com..., http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Speaking of Obama, in parliamentary systems around the globe, the head of state is separate from the head of government. In some countries, like Russia and France, the president (as head of state) is more powerful than the prime minister (who is head of government). In others, like Israel, the president serves simply as a symbol of the nation, while the prime minister runs the country. Europe’s constitutional monarchies limit their heads of royal houses to symbolic functions, while reserving that role to one family. Having a national, unifying position ostensibly standing outside the daily muck of politics provides a rallying point for all citizens and a safety valve to redirecting national passions in a non-partisan way. Such symbols, whether in a democracy, monarchy, or authoritarian state, must serve a purpose above politics, both at home and abroad. Yet that is impossible for a U.S. president who is head of his own government, putative head of his political party and invariably a competitive, partisan politician… We have no such safety valve in the United States. Our experiment in self-government has progressed to the point where the differences in our increasingly complex country are now the salient feature of public life. They are certainly not as fundamental as the questions of slavery or civil rights, but they are deep and growing deeper nonetheless. The role and size of government, individual rights to privacy, immigration, the definition of marriage and the like are all driving polarisation, not just in Washington, but in Peoria and Albuquerque and Manchester. The result is a country that is becoming shriller, more willing to demonise opponents and less united. This deep corrosion of political life is directly responsible for Americans’ growing sense of alienation… Politicians are despised as a class, with congressional approval at an astonishingly low 6 percent, according to a year-end Economist/YouGov poll. Not the courts: The Supreme Court is now viewed unfavourably by nearly half the country, being seen as increasingly partisan after its controversial 2000 election ruling and 2012 Obamacare decision. Not religion: It’s increasingly a private affair, and has become a source of growing contention between believers and often-secular elites. Only American popular culture substitutes for a sense of community, with sports and film stars looked up to as exemplars despite their often lurid and sensational antics and unreachable wealth. 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.


"Finally, my opponent makes a very brief argument that constitutional monarchies rank higher than republics. Unfortunately, this falls into two logical flaws: for one, correlation does not equal causation. For another, it fails to show how a "broad trend" would improve a specific case. In her conclusion, my opponent basically undermines her own case by noting the US can join the Commonwealth without adopting the Queen as head of state. I think that basically proves my point here: as the resolution has not been upheld, I urge a Pro vote."

First of all, I made arguments, I wouldn't call them them brief. And as for your two logical flaws, it does not matter as I have proved that constitutional monarchies rank higher than republics, and that's a fact. You are free to dispute my argument of showing how constitutional monarchies rank higher than republics, if you wish. And it does show how a "broad trend" would improve a specific case.... I have not undermined my own case, I showed how joining the Commonwealth of Nations as a republic would work, yet proved that becoming a Commonwealth realm is much better. As for your last statement, I agree with you: The resolution has been successfully stated and planned, Con has not disputed most of my arguments so as Con agrees, I urge a Pro vote as well.
http://goo.gl...
TN05

Con

To begin her second rebuttal, my opponent states that the Queen isn't a figurehead and does pay attention to other realms. However, she doesn't explain why or even present sources to contradict my own. Unfortunately, this is the case with almost all of my opponent's rebuttals. She repeats my list of powers the queen technically has, but doesn't disprove that she can't use them. Further, she claims the Queen would be Head of Church in the US, failing to prove how this doesn't violate the Constitution.

Next, she claims the Queen's powers keep things in check, but fails to explain how they do so if she can't use them. She notes the Queen does occasionally visit Commonwealth realms, but doesn't disprove she only rarely does so. Basically she's failed to prove her case. Her argument on religion is a red herring - she asserts separation of church and state isn't codified in the Constitution, ignoring my real argument about the ban on religious establishment by the federal government. Similarly, she claims the US wouldn't overwhelm the commonwealth but ignores my actual arguments.

In her final arguments, my opponent makes a few corrections before responding to my plagiarism accusations by claiming she owns 'Commonwealth USA'. I'd like to see proof of that claim. She also argues that her arguments about the US joining the Commonwealth are related, but the resolution says otherwise - this is a debate about the Queen becoming head of state, not joining the Commonwealth. She ignores my arguments about the monarchy not being universally popular and instead basically repeats herself. She just rambles on about how great monarchs are without rebutting my points. And in the conclusion, she doesn't actually rebut any of my arguments.

As you can no doubt see, my opponent simply hasn't upheld her case. With the sole BoP she not only fails to establish a compelling opening, but also fails in rebuttals. Additionally, she has plagiarized and attempted to argue in the comments. In contrast, I have utterly refuted my opponent and explained why the resolution is a bad idea. Accordingly, I urge a vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 3
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial 3 years ago
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial
I have talked to Playallin, she has adviced me to leave but I have decided to not leave. At the moment she says she will not continue with debate.org, but I on the other hand will. I have not plagiarized, I have not votebombed, I have not created any fake accounts. This account right here is the only account I signed up for, any other accounts are not from me. I will give this site a last chance and try to reach out to Airmax once again. I dismiss the recent slander that was aimed at me as false. Please disregard the previous link.
Posted by RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial 3 years ago
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial
I accept defeat on this debate, I will be redoing this debate and ask TN05 to stay out of this debate as he has already debated me on this.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
Oh, and I just noticed that the last RFD was truncated. It was supposed to say "As always, happy to clarify this RFD".
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 1/12:

I was asked to vote, via a mass PM with many other users, on this debate by Pro.

I was also asked, as part of that request, to carefully read the comments as well.

I have read the comments, and I will open with an observation:

Pro, I will be charitable and assume that you do not understand the notion of continuing a debate in the comments. When you make a point, and want judges to factor that point into their scoring of your debate, *in the comments*, you are *very clearly* extending the debate into the comments section. The debate is the debate, and the comments are not the debate.

The comments section cannot help your arguments. In general, it's completely irrelevant to the scoring of the debate, with few exceptions--for example, Con asked you to prove that the website you quoted was, in fact, yours, and not plagiarized by you. The comments would have been an appropriate place to note that. New information important to the debate itself (such as plagiarism allegations, if plagiarism is discovered) are likewise appropriate to put in the comments. And sometimes, people DO continue the discussion in the comments, but that does not affect *the debate*, which stands as it is.

Were this not a W/L debate I would have awarded Con conduct for your behavior. You put new arguments in and called for voters to insert them into their reckoning. This goes directly against "using unfair advantages is not allowed." and "No cheating".

You called for voters to score including the points you raised in the comments. This was *wholly* inappropriate of you.

I will not do so, and you start this debate at a disadvantage due to your conduct.

In R1, Pro gave the full resolution. Pro argued that the idea of the Commonwealth has worked, because of "soft power and quiet diplomacy".
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 2/12:

Pro draws comparisons with embassies, and says "embassies focus on "foreign" relations, and High Commissions emphasise 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."

Pro claims it's "well worth it", but gives no reason for us to "bond" with these other commonwealth countries beyond that there is a historical link. This first argument is quite long, but rather fails for lack of warrant. Pro does a good job of showing that the Commonwealth nations share interests, but gives no reason why the US *should* share interests with them.

Pro argues that having the Quee as Head of State has benefits that other Commonwealth countries have, and shows that there is a lack of confidence in current government. Pro shows that the queen has a 61 percent favorable rating from americans, and compares that witha 45.5 percent for presidents. Pro fails to show that 1, this favorable view would hold if the Queen was Head of State, and 2, that the 15.5 percent difference is significant enough to justify a switch that even Pro agrees is "an uphill climb".
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 3/12:

Pro invites us to "imagine that these ratings have improved since this was reported", but gives us no grounds whatsoever to do so.

Pro moves on to a chart. She claims that "As constitutional monarchies make up around 15% of the countries in the world, if there is more than 1 country in the top five or even top ten, then clearly constitutional monarchies are over represented. Similarly if there are more than three in the top 20, constitutional monarchies are again over represented. And if constitutional monarchies are over represented, republics (that is politicians' republics) are therefore under represented." It's also a fact that today slightly more than a quarter of constitutional monarchies are Western European countries.", most of which is quoted from her source. The problem with this is that it clearly shows a false dichotomy. There are more than 2 forms of government, so the claims for underrepresentation for republics is unsupported. It may be true, but Pro has to SHOW us that, and give us the numbers. The chart doesn't even show us which of the listed countries are representative democracies, and which are constitutional monarchies! The judges are not here to do math for Pro, or to do our own research. It's up to Pro to present her case.

Pro claims "We share so much and Canada also shares the British Monarchy, the United States would be better within the Commonwealth of Nations and looses so much being outside of it."

Thus far, Pro has failed to show any justification for how the US would be "better", and has shown nothing that has been lost. Her case suffers from a lack of warrant.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 4/12:

Pro asks "What is the harm in joining?" despite having already acknowledged that her change to the status quo would be an "uphill climb".

Pro notes the Commonwealth would be strengthened, without giving warrant why that's good for the US. Pro claims that by removing the head of state from democratic processes, that political stability will be provided. That's just an assertion, at this point. Pro has failed to show that this would actually BE politically stable with the US, having shown a degree of stability with other Commonwealth nations but not having shown an equivalency.

Pro asserts without justification that the American Revolution was an "illegitimate rebellion" (without telling us what she means by that), and claims we need to restore "legitimate authority to this land". Again, this is a warrantless assertion, and Pro concedes that "most Americans just love the revolution". Pro asserts that the public would be better seved if "these positions" (presumably legislative and "head of state", which Pro hasn't really shown how it would relate in regards to our current executive branch) "were separate, with the latter being held by an un-elected, non-partisan monarch". Pro has not shown how the American public would be better served by this. Pro shows that we already have special relationships with Canada and the UK, btu doesn't explain: 1, why we should care about the other Commonwealth countries, and 2, in what ways that relationship would be sufficiently improved by becoming part of the Commonwealth.

Pro makes the curious statement here in R1 that

"The United States is able to join the Commonwealth of Nations even if it is a republic. A republic has been allowed in the Commonwealth since the London Declaration, with the interpretation that republics who do not answer to the Monarchy of the UK are still allowed to join."
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 5/12:

The resolution specifies that the Queen would be the Head of State. For Pro to note that the US could join even without making the Queen Head of State seems to invalidate her own points, and confuses me in that it's harmful to Pro's case.

Pro claims that "the US and the Commonwealth would both benefit greatly from the US joining, both in defense and in economics" but hasn't shown how. She claims that "Britain gave birth to the US and toady the US and the UK have one of the tightest alliances in the world. We have close cooperation politically and militarily and on intelligence matters." She asks "Why not make it official?" Yet, she has already conceded that it's an "uphill climb". So she has already given a reason why not to make it official, even before Con has presented any case at all.

She notes that she finds it strange we're not a member, which is an appeal to her own personal incredulity, and not supporting of her case. She also admits that "America, the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are arguably already a unit. They are militarily, financially, culturally, and security a group that dominates world politics" which raises the question why, if we're already a group, a change in the US's government is necessary.

Pro's final comment appears to be a racial one, saying "It would be a great way to cement the Anglo sphere into a group" Why should the "Anglo sphere" be cemented?

Thus far, while Pro has presented an extensive case, it seems rather to lack warrant, but it is still the first round of the debate, and there are two more.

Con opens his round, noting that the BoP lies with Pro, which seems perfectly appropriate. He also defines Head of State. Con notes that he will not be rebutting in R1 in the interests of fairness.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 6/12:

Instead, Con makes his constructive. To be honest, given that Pro has the full BoP and Con has no obligation to MAKE a constructive, I disagree that Con needed to refrain from rebuttal. But I applaud his desire to keep things fair, even if I disagree that this was necessary to do so.

Con argues that "the Queen is a useless figurehead (with significant reserve powers)", who pays "pays little real attention to Commonwealth realms", that having the Queen as head of state would do "little to improve the affairs of the United States" and that the monarchy " would both violate the separation of church and state and result in bizarre governmental situations" Con also argues that there would be negative impacts of the US joining the Commonwealth, both for the US and for the realms.

Con argues that the monarch is a mostly ceremonial position, with reserve powers. Con notes that the only ones used regularly are "secondary legislation", minister appointments, and the granting of honors. These are assertions, but I presume Pro agrees that these things happen, so it's up to Pro to prove the monarch does more. Con notes that there are other powers, but those are done on the advice of Parliament. Con notes that the monarch is immune from any prosecution--a prima facie problem.

Con claims that it's a bizarre and unneeded position, a vestige of empire. Con notes that the Queen doesn't use these powers in Commonwealth realms, delegating it to the Inspector-General.

Con notes that the Queen has shown little interest in the Commonwealths, visiting only Canada in the last decade and a half, and doing that only 3 times. Con argues this shows the Queen's "true focus" is on England. Con says that the US " would gain virtually nothing from making the Queen head of state - instead, it would cede a lot of power (even theoretical power) to a foreign monarch who pays only nominal attention to the affairs outside of her home country." This seems a compelling point.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by WheezySquash8 3 years ago
WheezySquash8
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficialTN05
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Better points plus doing simple tasks such as also citing points in the argument. Good job on both sides though.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficialTN05
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.