The Instigator
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial
Pro (for)
Losing
27 Points
The Contender
Domr
Con (against)
Winning
29 Points

The United States should have the Queen as Head of State

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 12 votes the winner is...
Domr
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/9/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,991 times Debate No: 58765
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (148)
Votes (12)

 

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.

***First round: Acceptance.***

Allan Ramsay, 'King George III'. Via Wikimedia.
Allan Ramsay, ‘King George III’. Via http://en.wikipedia.org....

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, 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." It has also 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."

http://img.washingtonpost.com...; />


"Constitutional monarchies have an average GDP per capita of $29,106.71 and an average life expectancy of 75.6. All other countries have an average GDP per capita of $12,518.76 and an average life expectancy of 68.3. Point: constitutional monarchies. Of course, this doesn't demonstrate that having a constitutional monarchy makes countries richer, only that it's totally possible to both be a healthy, rich country and be a constitutional monarchy." - http://goo.gl...


http://img.washingtonpost.com...; />

"Only in constitutional monarchies -- where governments have much broader discretion to decide their fates than in republics —are early elections more common as a mode of discretionary cabinet termination than nonelectoral replacement," Schleiter and Morgan-Jones. In other words, only constitutional monarchies force prime ministers to consult the people before shaking up their governments." - http://goo.gl...

Sources:
According to the UN, seven of the top 10 countries in the world in terms of quality of life are constitutional monarchies. - http://goo.gl...
"Monarchy helps to sustain the democratic process by mixing a power other than democracy with democracy”. - a Quote from BBC.
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
"A constitutional monarchy is a form of government established under a constitutional system which acknowledges an hereditary or elected monarch as head of state). As in most republics, a constitutional monarchy's executive authority is vested in the head of state." - http://goo.gl...

Domr

Con

I accept this debate. I will be taking the Con side of the premise: "The United States should have the Queen as Head of State"

Per debate rules, First Round is for Acceptance.
Debate Round No. 1
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial

Pro

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

Before I begin, I would just like to note that we hope to replace the office of Head of State with our Sovereign Queen. Her Majesty, or her representative in the United States, the Governor-General, would assume the original, Constitutional powers of the President of the United States, and would serve as a non-partisan and impartial arbiter of our Constitutional government. The Royalist Tea Party would also see the United States join the Commonwealth of Nations, in the interest of forming stronger cultural, trade, and political bonds with nations who share our heritage in the English language, British liberty, and peace among nations. In simple words, here would be the changes in our government: 01. American President 02. House of Commons 03. Parliament 04. Her Majesty.

Currently the President of the United States is both Head of Government[1] and Head of State[2]. 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 American people are increasingly waking up to the fact that nothing ever seems to change in Washington D.C. no matter which political party is in power. An all-time high 53 percent of all Americans believe that neither party "represents the American people". Over the past several decades, we have sent a Bush, a Clinton, another Bush and an Obama to the White House, but the policies coming out of Washington have remained pretty much the same the entire time. The mainstream media would have us believe that the Republicans and the Democrats are constantly fighting like cats and dogs, but the truth is that the Republicans want to take us to the same place that the Democrats want to take us - just a little more slowly perhaps. And behind the scenes, Republicans and Democrats have a good time with one another and they are ultimately controlled by the same set of oligarchs. The Americans people are really starting to recognize what a sham our system has become, and the numbers show that they are quite fed up with it."[3]

According to Simon Upton, New Zealand Environment Minister, March 1994, he says: "The public are sick and tired of politics, they are sick and tired of the machinations of elected office in a media age, and I think it’s quite good having a Head of State that’s completely to one side of that."

Stability is one of the biggest advantages. In Canada, they know who the Head of State will be probably for the next 60 to 80 years. The Head of State is above politics, so does not have to cater to one side or the other to get voted in. E.g., in the USA, the Republicans pretty much range from dislike to outright hatred of Obama, no matter what he does, good, bad, or otherwise. In Canada, the Queen is not "for" nor "against" any of the parties. It is also a lot cheaper[5]. While in Canada, they elect MP's[4]. There is also a huge "coolness" factor.[6] The Queen is someone they can all look up to, and take pride in.[7]

Sources:
[1] http://goo.gl...
[2] http://goo.gl...
[3] http://goo.gl...
[4] http://goo.gl...
[5] http://goo.gl...
[6] http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl...
[7] http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl...




Domr

Con

Pro gave numerous statistics in the opening round he labeled for Acceptance. This goes against his own rules.

Pro is arguing we should put his current leader into another countries government system.

His argument consists of three major points:
The American people are upset. This would be common among a Depression. This does not call for bringing in another country to help solve the problem. This would deface the American government and change the entire parameters of our Democratic Republic.

Political Parties are split. This is simply an observation of America. We are primarily made up of two large political parties. Republicans and Democrats. This is not an argument, just a statement of fact.

Having a Queen is "cool".
"There is also a huge "coolness" factor.[6] The Queen is someone they can all look up to, and take pride in.[7]"

How is a President any different? He is a government figure the citizens of the US look up to.

Pro has not offered any solutions to American problems. He has simply stated, adding a foreign ruler to US government will magically solve problems.

It may certainly be easier if we were to separate the Head of Government and Head of State. However, The President is required to be a US born citizen to take office. Why would we cut the President's job in half, and then go against the rules of Presidency and its duties and put an foreigner into government?
Debate Round No. 2
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial

Pro

"Pro gave numerous statistics in the opening round he labeled for Acceptance. This goes against his own rules."

Round 1 was your acceptance round, you accepted and then I provided my arguments. As for the numerous statisitcs, that was my opening to this subject.

"His argument consists of three major points: The American people are upset. This would be common among a Depression. This does not call for bringing in another country to help solve the problem. This would deface the American government and change the entire parameters of our Democratic Republic. Political Parties are split. This is simply an observation of America. We are primarily made up of two large political parties. Republicans and Democrats. This is not an argument, just a statement of fact."

I'm a girl, for the record. The American people are upset.................. Yes this would deface our current government and would change the entire parameter of our constitutional republic. But time and time again, men and women have rallied around banners, causes and individuals and united to save something, or accomplish something so great that they are recorded down in history. The Battle of Thermopylae. Battle of Gravelines. The Battle of Moscow in 1812. We are continually reminded that history is fraught with examples of extraordinary monarchs and autocrats that were not besieged by special interests groups, political parties or other distracting bodies and organizations. They were honourable, dutiful patriots who had a love for their country and a zeal for their people’s prosperity. This is what America needs in her darkest hour. A true person with the courage, morals and ethics to do not what is politic, or popular. We need a leader that will do what is right. One who is not afraid to do what must be done for the sake of the nation, and to rid the country of it's corrupt two party[2] "republic" that has failed consistently over the last 50 years[1].

"How is a President any different? He is a government figure the citizens of the US look up to."

This was reported on Wednesday, July 2, 2014, and it states: "Poll after poll has charted President Obama's dipping approval rating in recent months, but Wednesday brought perhaps the cruelest cut to date: A new Quinnipiac University survey found that voters rate Mr. Obama as the country’s worst president since World War II." [3] And this is what happens when you are both Head of Government and Head of State.

"Pro has not offered any solutions to American problems. He has simply stated, adding a foreign ruler to US government will magically solve problems. It may certainly be easier if we were to separate the Head of Government and Head of State. However, The President is required to be a US born citizen to take office. Why would we cut the President's job in half, and then go against the rules of Presidency and its duties and put an foreigner into government?"

Yes, I did offer a simple solution to the American problems: "Currently the President of the United States is both Head of Government and Head of State. 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." And I also provided why having a constitutional monarchy has a lot of benefits, in my opening to this subject, which you are free to dispute if you wish
, but those are just simple facts. I am not talking about making the Queen as President, I'm talking about having the Queen as Head of State, and having the President as Head of Government. 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. [4]

Additionally: The Queen is far more popular in America than President Obama[5], Queen Elizabeth II Address to Congress apolitically[6], and
"The day after 9/11. Stranded Americans congregate outside Buckingham Palace in London, England. They couldn't go home because a no-fly order was in operation. The Queen ordered the Guards to play the Star Spangled Banner. Even Prince Andrew could be seen stood to attention. An astonishing departure from tradition, the British people were also moved to tears when this clip was televised."[7] I would just like to say, regardless if 9/11 was an inside job or not[8], the Queen did this by choice for the remembrance of all the innocent lives lost in New York, United States.

Sources:
[1] http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl...
[2] http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl...
[3] http://goo.gl...
[4] http://goo.gl...
[5] http://goo.gl...
[6] http://goo.gl...
[7] http://goo.gl...
[8] http://goo.gl...
Domr

Con

Rounds should have equal merit to both parties. Any facts used to back up your argument should be made in arguing rounds. If your format is for Pro to begin a basis for an argument in Round 1, and Con has to only accept Round 1, this immediately is unfair. But That first round does not help your argument at all.

Pro has no answered any of me questions or responded correctly to any counter points I had made.

Pro has listed three different battles of war for her example to change the current US government. I would presume that to put the Queen into power, per her examples, would be a war, or even just a battle between the US and England. Allies.

How else would the Queen be given this power?

Pro stated the Queen has a "cool factor" and she gives the people someone to look up to. I did not use Obama as a reference. I used the President. The President is the political figure, and leader, that we as Americans look up to. Regardless of Obama's approval ratings, the President is a prestigious position in America and among world leaders.

As I have mentioned in my Round 2 rebuttal, separating the powers of the President could very well have the benefits to the American people. Your stats are dry powerful.

But, Pro did NOT make any arguments about why the Queen should stand that post. If the President's position were to be separated, there is no reason for a foreigner to come into the US and being to have power in the government. The only way this has ever happened is war.

The Queen's popularity makes no difference on her coming to America to have a part in government.

What the Queen did on 9/11 was magical and inspiring. This moment in no way qualifies her to be a part of American government.

Also, if the Queen were to become the Head of State, would The US President then become of the Head of Government in England as well? Or would the Queen be the one to have these Head of State powers in two separate countries while the President's power remains solely in the US?

What you are talking about is infiltrating the US government with the Queen. This would be an act of war that would most likely end poorly for the British.
Debate Round No. 3
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial

Pro

"Rounds should have equal merit to both parties. Any facts used to back up your argument should be made in arguing rounds. If your format is for Pro to begin a basis for an argument in Round 1, and Con has to only accept Round 1, this immediately is unfair. But That first round does not help your argument at all."


It's not unfair as this is my debate, but I'm not asking for you to argue round 1, that was just my opening to this subject.

"Pro has no answered any of me questions or responded correctly to any counter points I had made."

Yes, I have been answering all your questions correctly. Please read carefully.

"Pro has listed three different battles of war for her example to change the current US government. I would presume that to put the Queen into power, per her examples, would be a war, or even just a battle between the US and England. Allies."

First of all, I was talking about we are continually reminded that history is fraught with examples of extraordinary monarchs and autocrats that were not besieged by special interests groups, political parties or other distracting bodies and organizations. They were honourable, dutiful patriots who had a love for their country and a zeal for their people’s prosperity. Second of all, having the Queen as Head of State wouldn't be war, nor a battle, as we are the Royalist Tea Party; a legally registered non-profit U.S. political party which aims to lawfully amend the Constitution to appoint the British constitutional monarchy to the United States of America. We have a lawful plan to realise the monarchy, and one that is not predicated on winning over a sleeping majority. The Royalist Tea Party has no problem facing the fact that America is a republic and, like it or not, will most likely stay that way. We can though exercise our right to promote our point of view.

"Pro stated the Queen has a "cool factor" and she gives the people someone to look up to. I did not use Obama as a reference. I used the President. The President is the political figure, and leader, that we as Americans look up to. Regardless of Obama's approval ratings, the President is a prestigious position in America and among world leaders."

You said it yourself, The President is a politcal figure, and a "leader", that most Americans do not look up to as I have already proved with Obama. The Queen? Is apolitical and is highly liked in the United States of America.

"As I have mentioned in my Round 2 rebuttal, separating the powers of the President could very well have the benefits to the American people. Your stats are dry powerful."

You have not mentioned anything about separating the powers of the President, nor would it make a difference if he/she is political and is both Head of State and Hate of Government, like with Obama, Bush, etc. Times have changed and people are getting sick of politics ruining this country.

"But, Pro did NOT make any arguments about why the Queen should stand that post. If the President's position were to be separated, there is no reason for a foreigner to come into the US and being to have power in the government. The only way this has ever happened is war."

Yes, I did make arguments on why the Queen should be Head of State. If the President's position were to be separated, who would fill in the other position? A prime minister? Like with Russia? That hasn't really worked out well now has it? There is every reason why the Queen should be Head of State in the United States. She would have the same powers as she would with Canada, and they have been doing just fine since the the British North America Act, 1867[1]. Have they had a government shutdown yet?[2], no they have not, unlike the United States. The funny thing about this is that Australia had a government shutdown once. In the end, the Queen fired everyone in Parliament.[3]

The following is a partial list of Queen Elizabeth’s Royal Prerogative Powers in Canada:[4]
- 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

The Queen’s non-political (ceremonial) roles include the following:
- Perform the ceremonial and official duties of Head of State
- Represent Canada to the rest of the world
- Provide a focus for national identity and unity
- Provide stability and continuity in times of change
- Recognise achievement and excellence (by means of awards, medals or orders)
- Encourage public and voluntary service
- Support charities and foundations and highlight their causes

"The Queen's popularity makes no difference on her coming to America to have a part in government."

So you don't consider having an apolitical Head of State making a difference? You are talking about a person who served in WW2. [5] Can you name any politician who is better than the Queen?

"What the Queen did on 9/11 was magical and inspiring. This moment in no way qualifies her to be a part of American government."

Yes, you are right on that, but it goes to show what an amazing Head of State she really is. Can you compare this to any politician? She would not be the "American government". You are free to read what the Commonwealth realms are, if you don't already know?[7]

"Also, if the Queen were to become the Head of State, would The US President then become of the Head of Government in England as well? Or would the Queen be the one to have these Head of State powers in two separate countries while the President's power remains solely in the US?"

No, the President would only be Head of Government in the United States, he/she would still be President, but would be equivalent to a Prime Minister[6]. 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.

"What you are talking about is infiltrating the US government with the Queen. This would be an act of war that would most likely end poorly for the British."

There would be no war, as I have stated. If anything, the US government would be more like Canada, (thank God).

Sources:
[1] http://goo.gl...
[2] http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl...
[3] http://goo.gl...
[4] http://goo.gl...
[5] http://goo.gl...
[6] http://goo.gl...
[7] http://goo.gl...

I urge a Pro vote, Con has failed to debate most of my arguments.






Domr

Con

I shall reiterate one final time. You set guidelines for the debate. You then stated First Round: Acceptance. Then you rattled off stats. This goes against your ruling for Round 1. You did not say Round 1: Statistics and Acceptance. Nor did you make any claim in round 1. You simply copied and pasted articles and pictures. Which makes little-to-no sense.

Your guidelines stats "Please be respectful and nice. Please do not be rude." You finished your points by stating:
"There would be no war, as I have stated. If anything, the US government would be more like Canada, (thank God)."

You have insulted the US government. This was completely unprovoked and is quite the emotional bias for your nation, and against the US. There has been no call to action for what the Queen would be able to do to solve the US problems.

Pro has failed to answer the question why the US would allow the Queen any part of its government. You have ignored every question in which I asked why would the US allow a FOREIGNER to be in its government.

There has never been any time in history where another country's leader was welcomed into someone else' government so simply.

Why does the QUEEN have to fill this role. Why can't another American be Head of State while the President remains Head of Government? This is the most important question of them all. If you're main purpose for all of this is to separate the presidential duties, WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE QUEEN.

This has been, and still is my unanswered question.

All you have stated is how the Queen is doing a good job, and Americans are unhappy. You have failed to link the two.

I don't need any sources because I am not making any arguments. I am simply asking questions about yours. You have failed to describe how the Queen would resolve any of the problems the US is currently having. You have failed to answer the questions about why an American cannot do the same job.

You have shown an extremely biased point of view towards the Queen and have failed to give any merit to the issues that are currently facing the US. You clearly love your country, and I admire that. But, this does not mean that everyone has to follow your government.

Pro has failed to answer my question of why Americans should let the Queen take a high title in their own government. If we were to separate the presidential duties, an American would almost surely take this position, not a foreigner.

Pro has not fulfilled BoP of why the Queen should take place in the American government. 'Because it worked for Canada' is not a sufficient argument. The Us faces many issues that can be destructive to our nation as a whole. You have not addressed anything specifically nor have you given any information to how the Queen would be able to handle these situations.

Clear Vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 4
148 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial 2 years ago
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial
"Pro's arguments were absurd, there is a degree of troll to the approach taken, "cool" isn't a valid argument, none of her arguments made sense. Con made an effort to provide real arguments, acted respectable even though Pro appears to be just exacerbating and poking with a stick in her approach, clearly providing stronger logic, better conduct, and was much more convincing."

Reported.
Posted by RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial 2 years ago
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial
Now that I got time, I must point out something:

"I found cons argument unconvincing." That's not much of a RFD and ask for you to redo it.

"There is no such thing as an unbiased nonpolitical leader, no matter what anyone says and we already have a Queen, her name is Michelle." This is misleading, will you please show me that there is no such thing as "an unbiased nonpolitical leader" and how Michelle Obama is Queen? And that's not much of a RFD and ask for you to redo it.

"Pro didn't fulfill the BOP thus his arguments don't stand, Pro also ignored Con's Inquiries. Pro voted with an alt account, and broke rules." This is misleading, my arguments were strong and I did not ignore Con's Inquiries, I did not have any alt accounts, nor did I break any rules. Will you please explain a little more why you gave all 7 points to Con?

"Pro violated rules. Didn't meet bop, but did have sources."

Will you please explain your RFD for giving most of poitns to Con?

"Pro has not fulfilled BoP of why the Queen should take place in the American government. She hasn't illustrated why the Queen would be better and violated her own rules in insulting the American government." Will you please explain your RFD? I have stated how the Queen can take place in the American government and explained how she is better.
Posted by RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial 2 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 2 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 Domr 2 years ago
Domr
Also why would Playallin, make 3 debates all supporting America, then be changed in her vote to agree with you before the debate?

This is clearly a fake account. This debate is nonsense, and has been reported
Posted by rings48 2 years ago
rings48
Does Goodbye mean she isn't coming back to this website? I was hoping to read all her debates thoroughly and voted on them.
Posted by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
Her RFD gives no explanation for conduct in the debate, nor does it state any reason for spelling and grammar.

As she is your friend, yes it is your duty to make sure this debate is as fair as possible.
Posted by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
Correction:
No misconduct took place INSIDE the debate
Posted by RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial 2 years ago
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial
She has already voted on this debate and explained why. I do not control my friends. Goodbye.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficialDomrTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: even if we take what all Domr to be true, pro is the only one who utilized sources
Vote Placed by Sidewalker 2 years ago
Sidewalker
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficialDomrTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were absurd, there is a degree of troll to the approach taken, "cool" isn't a valid argument, none of her arguments made sense. Con made an effort to provide real arguments, acted respectable even though Pro appears to be just exacerbating and poking with a stick in her approach, clearly providing stronger logic, better conduct, and was much more convincing.
Vote Placed by rings48 2 years ago
rings48
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficialDomrTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not fill BOP. Con questioned what benefits does having the queen provide and the Pro failed to have any convincing responses. I will admit she had plenty of "points". RoyalistTeaParty failed to any true benefits of having a monarchy or how separating the head of state made any difference. Pro's sources are often from opinionated articles, not facts. I highly dislike this because it means they didn't read their own sources or they were try to just win the argument with sources that are not accurate. Con did a horrible job debating but Pro failed BoP and has a illogical argument.
Vote Placed by Preston 2 years ago
Preston
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficialDomrTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Pro didn't fulfill the BOP thus his arguments don't stand, Pro also ignored Con's Inquiries. Pro voted with an alt account, and broke rules.
Vote Placed by Astal3 2 years ago
Astal3
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficialDomrTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Though I vehemetly oppose this motion for the sake of fairness pro was the only one with an argument not just based on emotionally charged statements.
Vote Placed by Saska 2 years ago
Saska
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficialDomrTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con really didn't argue the topic, he just kept saying that Pro wasn't making an argument. I think Pro did a good job of providing reasons and sources to back those up. While I don't know if I fully agree with Pro's conclusion, I think Pro did a MUCH better job of making arguments.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficialDomrTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro violated rules. Didn't meet bop, but did have sources.
Vote Placed by telisw37 2 years ago
telisw37
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficialDomrTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I found cons argument unconvincing.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficialDomrTied
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:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's first round was not limited to acceptance, which is unfair to Con, whose round was. I am, however, not ignoring it. Pro has proven, with statistics and sources, that Constitutional Monarchies correlate with longer lifespans, more per-capita GDP. The whole "coolness/honor/etc." argument is sily for both sides. Anyone can be any of these, regardless of royal birth. If you wish me to clarify, please message me rather than reporting my vote.
Vote Placed by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficialDomrTied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: There is no such thing as an unbiased nonpolitical leader, no matter what anyone says and we already have a Queen, her name is Michelle.