This House would abolish the British monarchy
BOP is shared, on the basis that it is generally accepted that if you started a new society from scratch it would not have a hereditary ruler. I must demonstrate that the advantages of abolishing the monarchy outweigh the disadvantages and the Opposition should seek to demonstrate that the monarchy is not worth abolishing.
The debate will run as follows:
Round One is for acceptance.
Round Two is for definitions and substantive arguments.
Round Three is for rebuttal and substantive arguments.
Round Four is for rebuttal and summing up - no more substantive arguments at this stage.
Sources do not need to be cited for this debate, however they can be cited to back yourself up if your opponent questions your reasoning. For this reason points should NOT be given for source quality.
I look forward to a respectful, lively and interesting debate.
I will argue that the British Monarchy ought not be abolished. I accept the side of the Opposition. I agree that burden of proof is shared. I await my opponents definitions and arguments.
Thank you and I look forward to a rousing debate.
God save the Queen!
I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and I echo his wishes for order. In this first speech I shall do two things: first I will define the motion, and then I will move on to substantives.
The exact title of this motion is 'This House would abolish the British monarchy'. By this, we intend to abolish the current system of one person being styled as 'King' or 'Queen' and retaining supreme power to overrule the British Parliament should she choose to do so. Following the proposals of the pressure group Republic, the monarch would be replaced by a democratically elected President. The President would principally serve as an ambassador for the country and would be entirely separate from the legislative process, and would not be allowed an official party affiliation. The President would be elected to serve up to two five-year terms. His main responsibilities would be to appoint the PM in the aftermath of a General Election (or to oversee the construction of a new government should the election not deliver a majority, as in 2010). However, unlike the monarch, the President's luxurious lifestyle would not be state-subsidised (there would be a President's House similar to 10 Downing Street and the President would have a salary but nothing close to the c£30m earned by the Queen in 2012), and they would not retain any constitutional power to refuse to sign a bill into law (a power currently held by the monarch).
Now that we have established the definition of this motion we would like to provide our first two substantive arguments in favour of this proposed abolition, which are the flaws in the present system and current factors which we believe necessitate this ditching of the royal family.
Substantive I: This System Is Silly
Let's face it: if we were shipwrecked on a desert island and had to decide a system of hierarchy, we would not simply nominate one of our number as Supreme Overlord and decree that this title shall be passed down to their children. It is utter madness and monarchies, both in the United Kingdom and in the rest of the world, exist purely by virtue of historic antiquity. With the exception of some dictatorships, in the last 400 years no developed nation has adopted a monarchy - indeed many have overthrown them, such as France and to a lesser extent in the United States. So monarchy is inherently an inconvenient system of government which we retain purely because it is the status quo, not because there is some compelling reason behind its maintenance. Now I shall talk about the long-standing issues with the British monarchy in particular, which we believe are amongst the key arguments why we should risk a few years of constitutional upheaval in order to create a better tomorrow. One key problem with the British monarchy as it stands is that the monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth II, serves as Head of the Church of England. We see this as a problem because it leads to a mixture between the Church and the State which we deem to be unhealthy for a multicultural democracy. As it stands there is a ban on the monarch marrying or becoming a Roman Catholic. This ban is not in place because the British people are fundamentally racist: it exists as a practicality because the Head of the Church of England cannot be a Catholic. We believe this is a seed of racism sown right in the heart of British society. This is wrong for two reasons. The first of these is that it establishes the Church of England as the state religion of the United Kingdom. However, as of 2009, the British Social Attitudes Survey shows that there are now more atheists in the UK than religious people, therefore it is wrong for there to be a 'state religion' of the UK. The presence of the monarch establishes this inequality. Our second reason for objecting to this is that the Queen's position as Head of the Church is no longer representative of the religious position of the British people, and as such the monarchy has become misrepresentative of the British people, especially in the increasingly multicultural society of the 21st century. The monarch creates a conflict of interest. Likewise, she is supposed to act both with a legislative function, granting Royal Assent to bills passed by Parliament, while equally leading the Church. How can the Queen be expected to perform both of these functions when she has to deal with issues such as abortion? We believe that replacing the monarch with a more neutral figure who is accountable to the electorate will eliminate these conflicts and create a more democratic and representative society.
Substantive II: Why Now?
In five days' time it will be Elizabeth II's 87th birthday: it is unlikely that she will live to see her 70th anniversary on the throne (although we are not wishing her dead, we are sure she is probably a lovely lady). When she dies, we believe that will be the right time to evaluate the monarchy. The next in line to the British throne is Prince Charles, and the public's affection for Charles and Camilla is nowhere near their affection for the Queen and Prince Phillip. The monarchy is meant to remain neutral, not speak out too much, and go around the world looking pretty and selling the UK brand - Prince William and Princess Catherine being a case in point. Prince Charles, however, has become a hugely controversial figure for attempting to use his royal influence to impact on other bodies. Leading architects have complained of his 'private comments and behind-the-scenes lobbying', due to his fanatical obsession with Georgian architecture. He has also made comments about the importance of organic food (he set up his own food company, Duchy Originals, which would have been relatively uncontroversial had it not been for the fact that he set up a competitive profit enterprise under the brand of the Duchy of Cornwall) and - more controversially - alternative medicine. The fact is that the man who is supposed to be the next King of Great Britain and other Commonwealth nations is fundamentally unsuited to the role. He is not as neutral as someone occupying his position should be. The monarch already has an unconstitutional level of power - being able to shoot down a single bill by refusing to sign it into law - but the next monarch is a man who will use his own personal influence to try and extend the already ridiculous powers of the monarchy even further. The question British people are asking themselves is "do we really want HIM running the country?". This is why we believe that when the Queen dies there should be a graceful transition into a republic. THIS, ladies and gentlemen, is why now - the perfect opportunity is soon to present itself and we should legislate for that time now.
In summary of our opening case, we have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that monarchy is not inherently the most desirable system of government to live in. We have shown why the monarchy of Britain creates paradoxes and conflicts of interest, and we have demonstrated why - and apologies for the cliché - the time for action is now.
I now welcome the Opposition: open your case!
For the second round, I will first begin by analyzing my opponent's analysis of the topic, then I will refute the two contentions given, and then I will provide arguments of my own.
Analysis of my opponent's plan:
I am interpreting my opponent's plan as such: My opponent would abolish the title of the monarch in favor of a president who is separate from legislation and will be the face of the United Kingdom and overseer of elections.
I offer the following counter plan:
I will first make the following observations:
Here is my counter plan: The Queen of England will be allowed to keep her title, and her legislative power ought to be significantly reduced. The Queen would still live at one of the Royal Places and would still do diplomatic trips and work closely with the government in an attempt to prevent stagnation of the political system.
I'd like to thank my opponent for that speech. It was, however, mostly innacurate nitpicking, so he has left me an awful lot of rebuttal to get through, after which I shall contribute another substantive.
Firstly, my opponent made the bizarre statement "The UK is not a democracy." I don't know where my opponent lives, but as a resident of the UK I find this statement both odd and unfounded. The UK is a parliamentary democracy in a constitutional monarchy. Perhaps my opponent would trust the CIA's view of events . My opponent then called me out for my use of the word 'racist'. I would like to ask my opponent to refrain from nitpicking unless he can do it accurately, as religious racism is a subsector of racism. If it will make my opponent feel happier, I shall replace my use of the word 'racist' with 'discriminatory'. The Opposition then said that the Queen does not exist to represent the people, however we feel that this contradicts their case. If the Queen doesn't exist to represent her people and be a figurehead then the question the Opposition asks is: "what DOES she exist for?". On the point of the separation of the church and state my opponent has made the assumption that the monarch acts in these circles separately. She doesn't. Every year she gives a Christmas Message in her capacity as HEAD OF STATE which also gives a Christian message coming from her capacity as HEAD OF THE CHURCH. The two couldn't be any more fused than they already are. 
Moving onto the Opposition's second stream of rebuttal, we never said that the Queen was too old to rule. We said she would die soon and that time would be ideal for abolishing the monarchy. The point about Charles's age is irrelevant as, under our proposals, he would never become King. And Prince Charles has broken with just about every royal convention in the book with regards to his involvement outside of his royal life, for example his lobbying activities. And we on side Proposition think it perfectly appropriate to make judgements about what Charles will be like as King - it's what people do with democratic elections all the time. People have to make a judgement about what they THINK will happen, and the notion that we shouldn't do this for Charles is frankly absurd.
My opponent's first contention is nonsense - we are in no way suggesting that those holding office should not be allowed to hold office. That really WOULD be absurd, racist and highly discriminatory. Our argument is that the fusion of power caused by the Head of State automatically being Head of the Church is wrong because of the conflicts of interest which lie therein. We do not intend to marginalise anyone, as we believe the present system marginalises those who do not belong to the "state religion". We believe the foundation of a liberalist society is the abolition of state religion, as it removes marginalisation and makes the country more open to different faiths. Moreover, the state religion has caused major problems for the UK in the past, notably the rift between Catholics and Anglicans around the time of Queen Mary I and Queen Elizabeth I. This is arguably one of the root causes of the Irish troubles and we believe it is a logical extension to abolish the state religion.
And on the Opposition's final contention, we've already stated our intention to replace the Queen with a new figurehead, the President. So there will still be a figurehead for the UK. If the Commonwealth still wants to retain its link with the UK, perhaps the President could retain the title of HONORARY President of these other nations, but only if they should so wish (recent trends in countries such as Australia suggest that these nations would like to remove the Queen as their Head of State).
With all of that rebuttal out of the way we hope to have demonstrated that the Opposition has no real case. With that we move onto our third substantive.
Substantive III: We have much better things to spend £30million on
If the Queen were to drop dead tomorrow (although we accept she may not), we would still be in a global economic crisis. In 2013, the UK Government paid the monarchy a salary of £30million for staffing expenses and their own personal expenses. However, this £30million figure does not even include all the assets which are owned by the Government but which are reserved for the sole use of the Queen. Not only is the Government forced to hold onto assets such as Buckingham Palace and St James' Palace, along with many other royal residences outside of London such as Balmoral and Windsor Castle, but the Government must pay for their upkeep. When Windsor Castle was mostly destroyed by fire in the year 1994, it was John Major's Government which had to foot the bill for refurbishing. So this £30million figure is a simple drop in the ocean of how much we spend on someone who is nothing but a hereditary figurehead, who does not hold the job on merit, who serves no real purpose yet constitutionally wields unprecedented power which cannot be blocked. The choice is simple. If we establish a republic, we could sell off all but perhaps two of these residences. This alone would generate more than enough income to pay for the transitionary cost - there is a MASSIVE shortage of property in West London. We won't be paying this extortionate sum for someone who has essentially become an invalid historical anomaly, we'll have millions of pounds extra per year to spend on things which are actually effective, and we'll have a President who won't be overpaid and will be able to empathise with the people's problems because he has not been simply born into unimaginable luxury. In a country where politicians are seen as out of touch, this will do wonders for restoring faith in politics.
Summarising this speech and our case so far, we've already demonstrated why a Republic of Great Britain is better than the status quo, we've made the case for why the time for action is now, and we have now demonstrated that the Opposition have no real arguments to back up their case and we have now shown the major economic benefits of this proposal.
I now invite Opposition to give their final substantives.
In this round, I will just follow my opponents flow, and then further my own, and present one last contention.
His Rebuttal to Me
My opponent combats me saying the UK is not a democracy. He gives you a source even; however, he lies. If you actually go to the website my opponent presented, the CIA lists the UK as a "constitutional monarchy and Commonwealth realm". Furthermore, even if you don't buy my argument there, you must accept that we are debating the monarchy, which is not a democracy.
My opponent says I am nitpicking about his use of racism. According to Merriam-Webster, racism is : "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" . I am sorry that my opponent is trying to pull at the voters heartstrings, and I hope you, the voter, sees that.
The Queen does not exist to represent the people. She exists to rule and to represent the government. My opponent says the Queen gives a Christmas message, and therefore the two offices are fused. This is not true. Every leader has religion. The White House hosts an Easter Egg Hunt every year, but that does not mean the office of president is fused to religion. My opponent also perpetually sees the Queen as the Queen, which is his downfall. When the Queen is doing things for the Anglican Church, she is not acting as the Queen, she is acting as the head of the church. My opponent fails to see this dualism of her power.
My opponent says the Queen's age doesn't matter, he is the one that keeps bringing it up. My opponent also does not show any evidence to show that Charles' viewpoints are unwanted by most citizens of the UK. He simply states, well I do not like Charles, ergo, Charles cannot be king because I want a democracy. 1. As I have shown, the monarchy is not a democracy. 2. My opponent is setting up a monarchy. If we continue to accept my opponent's plans, then he becomes the monarch, except with my opponent as monarch, he as no restrictions on power like the Queen, effectively making him a dictator since he obviously does not account for the values and beliefs of his fellow citizens. Look at his first contention, it is completely based on his own opinion. He thinks the system is silly, yet he marginalizes his fellow man, by subverting their opinions. However, he still claims he wants democracy.
My opponent states that he is not being discriminatory towards other religions, but he is. He is saying the majority should rule. Even if you don't believe that, he is still advocating that people who do follow the state religion are bad. He cites the conflict between Catholics and Anglicans, but this is really irrelevant. 1. this conflict was because those monarchs had personal beliefs, it had less to do with the state, and 2. this was at the beginning of the Anglican church, so they were still deciding how catholic they wanted to be.
My opponent says that his president can be the new figurehead for the commonwealth, but with a president that changes every 5/10 years, people do not get to know him very well, and he is not as relatable to the people.
Contention III: My opponent's plan leaves us with a class of leaderless nobles
My opponent claims that the UK would have a leader under his plan, but he is marginalizing the nobility. People often forget that Dukes, Lords, Viscounts, and Barons still exist. My opponents plan leaves them feeling discriminated towards, and also leaves them without a leader. My opponent is also destroying the moral principles of chivalry because noble orders, like the Order of the Garter would become the Order of the Farter- in other words, completely worthless, since under my opponent's plan, the Queen loses all authority. However, under my plan, the Queen retains her noble powers and is still the figurehead.
Ammendment to Plan Text.
I would also like to amend my plan text. My opponent is correct, in the absence of the Queen's full powers, we would need an actual leader. Therefore, I revise my plan to include a presidential election like my opponent, with all the same rules of the president mentioned in my opponent's plan. However, I keep my plan text the same. The UK will have a noble leader, the Queen, and an elected leader, the President. This ammendment is necessary in order to fully represent the needs and wants of the citizens of the United Kingdom.
The Queen will still serve as the Head of State and the Head of the Church of England, yet since she has not actual power, there will be separation of church and state. She will be a constant figure of England, which will keep the people happier. Her expenses would go down because of her decreased political capacity. The amount the UK would pay her would be considered a dividend on the investment her royal house has made towards the UK.
The President would assume all the powers my opponent presented, and would represent the people more democratically.
My plan trumps that of my opponent for the following reasons:
His first contention is flawed because it is merely an opinion, which is certainly not democratic.
His second contention is solved by my plan because I take away the political powers of the monarch and all future monarchs. Furthermore, I claim that the monarch is entitled to their title due to the investments their family made into the UK.
His third contention is also solved by my plan because I decrease operating costs of the monarch, and I justify the smaller salary. Moreover, the use of palaces would be a part of the queen's figurehead position. How can you really look like a Queen if you live in a hovel?
My first contention still stands because my opponent is once again making himself the monarch, and provides no substance to the democracy he advocates. He is perpetuating cultural destruction and imperialism by trying to destroy the monarchy.
My second contention still stands because I have shown that the president would not be a good figure head due to his short term limits. I also allow for both the President and Queen to act as diplomats for the state.
My third contention prevents the marginalization of groups of people.
In all, my opponent's plan is not as good as mine. I allow democracy for the people and I do not destroy their culture. I allow freedom from the oppression of the Queen without destroying a well loved figure.
My opponent only cares about his opinion being enacted, but I care about the people of the UK. In fact, A poll from this year found that 69% of those polled thought the UK would be worse off without the monarchy . My opponent's plan fails in comparison to mine, and for that reason you should vote for me.
This is the final round, so all rebuttal and summing up. Speaking of rebuttal, my opponent's half-baked arguments and inaccurate nitpicking (again) have left me with a lot of it.
Rebuttal I: "My opponent combats me saying the UK is not a democracy. He gives you a source even; however, he lies. If you actually go to the website my opponent presented, the CIA lists the UK as a "constitutional monarchy and Commonwealth realm""
"... which also played a key role in developing parliamentary DEMOCRACY." Don't accuse me of lying when you haven't read the whole source, as you are the one who will look foolish. 
Rebuttal II: "My opponent says the Queen's age doesn't matter, but he is the one that keeps bringing it up."
We brought it up in the context of "when she dies (soon) that's the ideal time to abolish the monarchy". The frankly ageist assumption that Charles might be too old to rule was all you.
Rebuttal III: "According to Merriam-Webster, racism is..."
For heaven's sake, are we really making this debate about the definition of racism? I could pull out another dictionary giving a contrasting definition. I subsitute "racist" for "discriminatory against religious people". Happy now?
Rebuttal IV: "My opponent also does not show any evidence to show that Charles' viewpoints are unwanted by most citizens of the UK."
If you don't trust my word as a Briton, here are three leading daily national newspapers - the three most influential, representing different sides of the political spectrum. All are dubious at best about him.   
Rebuttal V: "My opponent is setting up a monarchy."
No I'm not. Are you paying attention?
Rebuttal VI: "If we continue to accept my opponent's plans then he becomes the monarch."
1. I'm not a member of the royal family.
2. My plans abolish the position of the monarch, so I wouldn't become the monarch.
3. Are you trolling this debate? I say this because the paragraph from which this is taken made no sense whatsoever.
Rebuttal VII: "He marginalises his fellow man by subverting their opinions."
I now think you may be trolling. Should this be confirmed, I expect seven points from the voters.
This whole debate is about opinion. My opinion is that there needs to be a national debate in Britain on this issue and in my opinion that should result in abolition. Don't accuse me of being dictatorial.
Rebuttal VIII: "He says the majority should rule... he is still advocating that people who do not follow the state religion are bad."
If my opponent would like to reread my last speech I said that abolition of the monarchy would equally lead to abolition of the state religion. It is the presence of the state religion which is marginalising those who do not follow it, as they have to watch all major state events being done in a Christian way. I'm not imposing a religion ban, I'm stating that religion should be kept separate from power - otherwise you get the Taleban and Sharia Law.
Rebuttal IX: "But with a president that changes every 5/10 years, people do not get to know him very well, and he is not as relatable to the people."
Margaret Thatcher only served for eleven years and many people adored her. Likewise with Tony Blair (ten years). And we have already detailed how a more down-to-earth Head of State who has not always lived in luxury is more relatable to the people, as it's someone more like them.
Rebuttal X: "My opponent's plan leaves us with a class of leaderless nobles."
Since 2005, only 92 of these people retain any power (via hereditary seats in the House of Lords), so they remain only as historical antiquities. Lords sit in the House of Lords, which is a part of the government, ergo they are led by the PM. Barons/Baronesses likewise. The major group campaigning for Britain to become a republic, Republic, suggests the abolition or reconsecration of these groups, with which we would agree. The Opposition has merely said "what about them?" as opposed to actually telling us why they deserve to stay. (We would also introduce an elected House of Lords).
Rebuttal XI: "Amendment to Plan Text."
Three leaders? That just takes us from the sublime to the ridiculous. No civilised society has this system the Opposition proposes. It would not work, as there would be too much friction between the President, who has inherited the powers, and the monarch who is trying to forge a new role for themself. Anyway, my opponent's role was to defend the status quo. He has now accepted there are problems with the status quo and his policy is now to change the status quo. He has therefore changed sides and forfeited this debate. Just in case the Opposition doesn't believe me I'll continue my rebuttal anyway.
Rebuttal XII: The rest of the Opposition's plan.
It won't work because:
1. You have a Queen. She'll still be seen as Head of State. She'll still be Head of the Church, so you haven't separated these two branches.
2. Her expenses wouldn't go down, it mostly comes from her living expenses and upkeep of her property. My opponent has not suggested we make the Queen eat cat food, or that we sell off her house and make her live in Manchester, so this is unwarranted.
Rebuttal XIII: My opponent's summing up
1. Democracy is all about opinions. I'm presenting how I would vote, you're presenting how you would.
2. If the Monarch has no power then what mandate does she have to represent the people or even exist at all? Your plan doesn't work.
3. You haven't explained how you'll decrease the monarch's spending.
4. The President would be a better figure than a King or Queen who only served ten years, and we have given examples of PMs who have become much-loved in 10 years.
5. This poll was taken riding on the back of a royal wedding, a royal pregnancy and the diamond jubilee. My sources suggest people will NOT be this happy under Charles.
Normally my summing up would take around 4000 characters but my opponent left me so much rubbish to wade through that only 2000 remain. We, however, believe that the sheer amount of meaningless rebuttal we were left to wade through is a demonstration of the fact that the Opposition have no case and we have assassinated all of their arguments. Opposition crumbles and the debate falls to our side. There are two Points of Clash (PoC).
PoC I: The flaws in the monarchy
The contrast between our two sides is startling yet equally very simple. We both accepted at the start of this debate that monarchy was not the ideal system of government, yet the Proposition have actually stuck to this meticulously. We have pointed out that the Queen has unchecked constitutional power, lives a life of luxury at the burden of the taxpayer, fuses the Church and the State via her dual roles, is not democratic or representative of the people and the fact that her only mandate is the fact that she was born. The Opposition just gave us ad hominem. So we win the point, as there is no argument.
PoC2: The case for change
We've made this case compellingly. We have detailed how our new President of Great Britain will be more in touch with the people, by virtue of not having lived in a palace cut off from the rest of society. We've detailed the huge economic benefits of our proposal, with less money being spent on the Head of State and the facility to sell off large amounts of prime real estate in West London and beyond. We've made an impregnable case for the President's role being better, as well as that for the Queen being abolished, so much so that the Opposition have now changed their plan to involve the introduction of our new President. So we win again.
We have made such a convincing case that even the Opposition have joined our side. As I said earlier, however, the Opposition has not fulfilled their burden of proof, or defended the status quo as they were directed to in the rules of this debate, and as such we consider them to have forfeited. Vote Pro!
Back to Con for summing up...
Knockout of Rebuttal 1:On the CIA's description: my opponent is taking "which also played a key role in developing parliamentary DEMOCRACY." out of context. It is talking about British imperialism and the various battles and revolutions associated with such.
Knockout of Rebuttal 2:My opponent says that I am the one that said Charles was too old. I never said that. I said that since my opponent is so worried about Charles, I would just cross apply his logic. Charles is old, so he will die shortly after becoming king. Therefore, any concerns my opponent has are resolved.
Knockout of Rebuttal 3:On racism: I hope this isn't a voter, but I just thought that for future reference, everyone should know what racism actually is, instead of using it as a hot-word.
Knockout of Rebuttal 4: On Prince Charles: 44% of British people want Charles to be King, 38% want William to be the king(skipping Charles). http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Knockout of Rebuttal 5-8: My opponent misunderstands me when I say he is becoming a monarch. Lets look at the two plans. My opponents plan is being enacted by himself. He provides no legal basis. Therefore, if you vote for him, then his plan text is being enacted through him alone. Is this not a true monarchy? If you vote for my opponent, you are allowing him to rule over all of his fellow citizens.
Knockout of Rebuttal 9: My opponent actually advocates my plan here. I am offer a 5/10 year president and the Queen. The two examples he gives (Thatcher and Blair) show evidence that my president and Queen combination works.
Knockout of Rebuttal 10: My opponent only recognizes nobility through their political power in the house of lords. He fails to see that the nobles are intrinsically tied to their title and the land that goes with it. They nobles, even in the modern era, are primary supporters of the towns surrounding their estate. So while they do not have as much political power, they still have a lot of social and economic power throughout Britain. You must also see that other countries in Europe still have a powerful noble class, like Sweden or Norway. This isolates them from their peers, which isolates them from the larger European noble political circle. That is why they deserve to stay, political, economic, and social reasons.
Knockout of Rebuttal 11: My opponent says I have the duty to defend the status quo. This isn't true. I offered a counter plan in round 2. My opponent never contested my ability to have a counter plan until he saw that my plan is better. My opponent never stated that I had to defend the status quo. My only burden is to defend the position that the title of Queen or King ought not be abolished. My plan works in this sense. Moreover, the only rebuttal my opponent has to my revised plan is that no other government has done it that way. Lets look to America, shall we? The American democracy was a completely new system of government. Just because something hasn't been done before doesn't mean that it is wrong. Under my opponents logic, we should just stick to the status quo all the time, because change is fundamentally wrong according to him. This is an argumentum ad ignorantiam, just because something has yet to be tested does not mean it is either true or false.
Knockout of Rebuttal 12: My plan does separate the two branches because it removes all political power from the Queen. The title of Queen would merely be honorary and hold no power in political realms. I don't really care about the Queen's religion, that is up to her.
I have shown that the queen will have fewer capacities and thus less spending. However, even if you don't buy that, the Queen is paid out of a endowment that was set up during the Glorious Revolution. Even if you removed the title of Queen from the government, the royal family still has claims to this money.
Knockout of Rebuttal 13: My opponent has not shown the view of most Britons , I have.
I take away power from the monarch, but she still has the Anglican Church, and she still has a traditional role.
I just explained why the monarchs spending is decreased, and the government can't touch that money anyway, so it doesn't save you money.
I turned my opponents point. He gave me the evidence about Blair and Thatcher.
He claims my poll is not good; however, a time of celebration and a time when the future of the royal family is in question forces people to think about who they want to be their king. The news covered the royals more, and people probably researched on their own. My poll is probably a more accurate polling solely because of its timing.
Why Opp wins PoC I:
My plan solves for the monarchy. I have shown how the government cannot touch the funds anyway, so it is pointless to attack the queen from an economic point. My plan also takes away the bad parts of the monarchy. I take away the fusion of church and state. I represent the people through the president.
*** On a side note, my opponent obviously does not know what ad hominem means in argumentation. I never attacked the Queens character or his on this subject. He tries to use "fancy" Latin to increase the validity of his argument.
PoC II: My opponent words this clash like my plan does not advocate for change, yet it does. My plan even before my amendment had a change in the status quo. This is a stupid point of clash.
PoC III: Plan text analysis.
My Opponents plan: Throw out the Queen, elect a president.
My Plan: Take away all political powers of the Queen, allow her to remain a figurehead, elect a president.
Look at these two plans, and look at the evidence above. My plan is obviously best for the UK. The only reason I amended to include the president is so that my opponent would stop complaining about fair representation. I am allowed to amend because 1. I never had the obligation to defend the status quo, my only obligation was to keep the title of Queen, and 2. I gave adequate time for response to my new plan.
Lets go through the contentions of this round:
My opponents substantive I falls because I have shown that it is merely an opinion, and it is not the opinion of the British people.
Substantive II falls because my opponents plan and my plan happen at the same time, so timing doe not really matter.
Opposition Contention I: My opponent never actually addressed Imperialism, he just claims I am calling him racist and dismisses the point. He completely drops this argument.
Opp Contention II: He never has a good counter to this, He actually gives evidence for my side when he says that people liked have the monarch with PM( Thatcher and Blair).
Substantive III: I have shown that he UK cannot touch this money anyway because it is essentially a trust fund set up 250 years ago. My opponents point is irrelevant to this debate. I have shown that.
Contention III: My opponent never addresses this fully. He only says the lords have minute powers, yet he never combats my point on the destruction of chivalry or the destruction of world politics in the circles of nobility.
He says I have to uphold the status quo, but he never says that until it is handy for his argument to do so. My plan and amendment are completely valid. On the PoC I, my plan solves this problem better than his. I have shown that the PoC II is silly because we have the same time frame, and we both have change.
My opponent's plan falls to mine. I solve for all of his problems and prevent the harms I have listed.
For all of these reasons, please vote Opposition. Look back at my opponents original statement on my burden: "the Opposition should seek to demonstrate that the monarchy is not worth abolishing." I have done this.
I urge a vote for the Opposition.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||2|