The Instigator
DebateTime
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CraigBrittain
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

United States of America should join the Commonwealth of Nations?

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 3 votes the winner is...
CraigBrittain
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/19/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,614 times Debate No: 37939
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (3)

 

DebateTime

Pro

We commit ourselves to the establishment of a constitutional monarchy for the United States of America. 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.

Our mission is 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.

Legislative powers, powers of war and peace, and power of the purse"among others"would all return to the United States Congress as was set out in our Constitution.

The Royalist 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.

Like many of you that may read this, I too have become disgusted with the current state of affairs in American politics. The squabbling, backroom deals, special interest groups and the pandering thereto. It really is enough to make one's stomach turn. To think that our forefathers fought, and died to prevent this sort of corruption from occurring only to see it propagated in their name is a sad fact.

However, there is still hope for America, and her citizens. 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 honorable, 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 American patriot 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 "republic" that has failed consistently over the last 50 years. We are help to fulfill the growing need for an alternative political solution in a climate where so many individuals are turning their back on politics altogether. The supreme goal of the Royalist Party, USA is not the restoration of a medieval political theory. But a reinvention of a proven and successful form of governance. A form of government wherein the bickering, stagnation and consistent corruption inherent in democratic and republican forms of government is absent. We aim to accomplish this through:

Repeated exposure to the American public to join the Commonwealth of Nations and return to just, Royal Government, and its various forms, and benefits.
Leading by example, and refusing to participate in the American political system at present, either in part or in whole. This means we refuse to give weight to any political party, or organization other than our own, by voting or protest. To do so would be to legitimize their partisan political system.
Appealing to like minded Americans who share a deep mistrust of the government, and other forms of republican or democratic governance.
Building a grassroots community encompassing all ethnic groups, faiths, and individuals of all walks of life to help build a better alternative for tomorrow's America.

The national Facebook Page can be found here: https://www.facebook.com...
We're an American political party aligned with the following principles:
i) Toryism
ii) Traditionalism
iii) Agrarianism
iv) Distributism
v) Culturism
vi) Pan-Anglo Identity
_______________________
Do you agree as well?
CraigBrittain

Con

1. Prologue
"The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world...
(Link to Declaration of Independence: http://www.archives.gov...) " - The Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration of Independence marks the formal separation of the United States of America from the rule of tyranny and monarchy under the British Empire. It also illustrates in great detail the grievances rendered by the British Empire which directly lead to the American Revolutionary War, from which our greatest patriots arose to defend this country, including our first formal President of the United States, General George Washington. Furthermore, during that conflict the other territories which had been oppressed by the monarchy provided immeasurable aid and support to the United States, which meant that while independent, the USA was not 'acting alone' - the support of the territories of France, Netherlands, Spain and Mysore contributed not only troops and supplies, but also political and military credibility.

Essentially, British rule and occupation in the US colonies proved one thing with great certainty - that the monarchy would say one thing and in turn do another. Initially, the contract supported by the British Crown made the same or similar propositions to those that have been rendered by my debate opponent - freedom from taxation, independent
arbitration/governance, and colonial self-government.

History shows us that the British Crown had one major problem with their previous proposition - they could not enforce their sovereignty of government upon our independent nation, which lead them to quartering troops in every household in our colonies and to nullifying all of our independent laws as well as making their laws precedents which would supersede the ratification of future laws.

Now, in specific, let's talk about my point by point modern opposition to control of the US government via the Royalists.

2. Historical Refutation to Claims, Point and Counterpoint.

a. [Her Majesty, or her representative... would serve as a non-partisan and impartial arbiter of our Constitutional government.]

Between December 20th, 1686 and April 18th, 1689 the Governor appointed by the British Crown was a man named Sir Edmund Andros. During his tenure, he engaged in numerous territory disputes which limited the colonies ability to self-government via the management of their own lands and residences, operated with partisanship and favoritism towards Dutch businessmen, and was pressed by the crown to govern with partiality and without assembly. Eventually, he began to impose unwarranted Crown taxes via writs upon the US territories and was met with the Boston revolt of 1689, which marked the last day of his rule as Governor. Similarly, Francis Nicholson, the Crown supported Lieutenant Governor of New York, attempted to impose 'defense taxes', which would fund troops of the British Empire, upon the colonists, despite previous Crown statements that Crown taxes would not be imposed upon the residents of the colonies.

b. [Legislative powers, powers of war and peace, and the power of the purse, among others would all return to the United States Congress as was set out in our Constitution.]

To do this, you would have to revoke the Treaty of Paris, 1783 (the precedent treaty), which states in its Ten Articles:

1. Acknowledging the United States (viz. the Colonies) to be free, sovereign and independent states, and that the British Crown and all heirs and successors relinquish claims to the Government, property, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof;
2. Establishing the boundaries between the United States and British North America;
3. Granting fishing rights to United States fishermen in the Grand Banks, off the coast of Newfoundland and in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence;
4. Recognizing the lawful contracted debts to be paid to creditors on either side;
5. The Congress of the Confederation will "earnestly recommend" to state legislatures to recognize the rightful owners of all confiscated lands "provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties, which have been confiscated belonging to real British subjects [Loyalists]";
6. United States will prevent future confiscations of the property of Loyalists;
7. Prisoners of war on both sides are to be released and all property left by the British army in the United States unmolested (including slaves);
8. Great Britain and the United States were each to be given perpetual access to the Mississippi River;
9. Territories captured by Americans subsequent to treaty will be returned without compensation;
10. Ratification of the treaty was to occur within six months from the signing by the contracting parties.

You would have to manage to write a contract which would be preferable one written and signed in part by David Hartley the younger (who helped to abolish slavery) and Richard Oswald (the greatest networker of the 18th century).

You would also have to overturn the Constitution of the United States of America, but compared to overturning the Treaty of Paris that would be significantly less imposing.

c. [The Royalist 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.]

Let's talk about that 'liberty, and peace among nations' part. The Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 established that the Commonwealth of Nations was a synonym for the British Empire. The treaty was aimed at establishing a peaceful resolution of the territory dispute between Ireland and Britain. The result was, as with a significant amount of British treaties - a war, the Irish Civil War, fought between June 28th, 1922, and May 24th of 1923. Ireland's culture was permanently shattered as a result, their trade balance hindered for another half-century after the war, and their political bonds with other nations in the Commonwealth suffered as well.

d. [Our forefathers fought, and died to prevent this sort of corruption from occurring, only to see it propagated in their name.]

Not exactly. Your 'forefathers' fought on behalf of the Lords of Trade, which sought to extract taxes from colonists as well as to rewrite and restructure their lands, and to forcibly regulate and control economy and trade, and particularly to leverage the balance of trade against the French, in favor of the Crown.

e. [However, there is still hope for America, and her citizens. 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 honorable, dutiful patriots who had a love for their country and a zeal for their people's prosperity.]

I'm fairly certain the American Revolutionary War was a prime example. The Union chased the monarchy and their tax collectors, governors and trade lords out of the Thirteen Colonies and established the United States of America as an independent country.

f. [This is what America needs in her darkest hour. A true American patriot 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 "republic" that has failed consistently over the last 50 years.]

Again, the British Empire would appoint another Edmund Andros or Francis Nicholson to collect taxes on behalf of the British Empire and leverage our balance of trade against their rival nations in Europe and Asia. We're not talking about 50 years anymore, we're talking about over 350 years. That's how far back a return to Crown rule would set our country.

g. [Repeated exposure to the American public to join the Commonwealth of Nations and return to just, Royal Government, and its various forms, and benefits.]

Like unwarranted taxation, land seizure, quartering, and occasional torture and execution/political imprisonment, and/or exile.

h. [Leading by example, and refusing to participate in the American political system at present, either in part or in whole. This means we refuse to give weight to any political party, or organization other than our own, by voting or protest. To do so would be to legitimize their partisan political system.]

Which is why you would seek to create a superseding partisan political system to replace it. A political system which does not give weight to any political party other than its own is not only partisan, but is authoritarian as well.

i. [Appealing to like minded Americans who share a deep mistrust of the government, and other forms of republican or democratic governance.]

A deep mistrust of the government here at home (causation) does not imply that Americans would be more likely to trust a foreign government (correlation).

j. [Building a grassroots community encompassing all ethnic groups, faiths, and individuals of all walks of life to help build a better alternative for tomorrow's America.]

As long as they pay their taxes, don't speak out against the Crown, practice a religion other than ours, economically support/endorse our rivals, and/or attempt to overthrow us.

Keep the USA as an Independent and Sovereign territory, it's what OUR Founding Fathers wanted.
Debate Round No. 1
DebateTime

Pro

Let the record show that CraigBrittain is clearly ignorant as he must be thinking that I'm asking if America should terminate their independence. Also let the record show that we are in only favour of restoring the House of WIndsor which is a Constitutional Monarchy and not a full Monarchy, this is because America has gotten out of control. Also let the record show that joining the Commonwealth of Nations would be good for America. People no longer hold themselves to a higher level of morality or comportment. The democratic experiment has brought us all down to the lowest level of civility and commonality. The Country hasn't failed, the people have failed the Country. And so with that we need to look to other alternatives. The restoration of a constitutional Monarchy can provide the answers. The foundation of the United States was a noble venture. We embodied the best ideas of the Age of Enlightenment and together with the high ideals of the Freemasons created a remarkable country. While the concept remains strong, the times have changed. The more I researched American & UK History and Politics and my own family history the more I started to realize how wrong the rebels were back on 4 July 1776 and in the years that followed. I am now a quite crass and unapologetic Loyalist. I ask for CraigBrittain to be open-minded here.
CraigBrittain

Con

Rebuttal, Part 2.

1. [... he must be thinking that I'm asking if America should terminate their independence.]

History shows that rejoining the Royalist monarchy would do exactly that, whether or not it happens before or after the induction to the Commonwealth is semantic and of no relevance.

2. [... we are in only favour of restoring the House of Windsor which is a Constitutional Monarchy and not a full Monarchy, this is because America has gotten out of control.]

Let the record ACTUALLY show that provinces governed by the House of Windsor have an overall higher rate of crime, a lower quality of life as well as lower income.

Violent crime: http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Quality of Life: http://www.economist.com...

GDP Per Capita: http://data.worldbank.org...

Why would the USA choose to enter into a system less functional than the system it currently has? The USA should be pushing for more freedom, like Switzerland or Sweden, and away from the monarchies and failings of the past.

3. [The democratic experiment has brought us all down to the lowest level of civility and commonality.]

Apparently, not as much as the monarchy has, according to the statistics.

4. [The Country hasn't failed, the people have failed the Country.]

This is circular. People and Country are synonymous.

5. [...how wrong the rebels were back on 4 July 1776...]

This implies that the revolution started on the 4th of July, when in reality we had been fighting against the appointed Crown Governors for well over a century by that point. They had plenty of time to 'improve' our country and instead chose to raise unwanted taxes and seize control of lands and assets which did not belong to them.

Laissez-faire Capitalism works in lowering crime, improving Quality of Life and economic status. It is working in Switzerland, Monaco, Sweden, and it works in America. The time is now for a Laissez-faire society with less government involvement. The monarchy is a huge step in the wrong direction.
Debate Round No. 2
DebateTime

Pro

Let the record show that my opponent is stuck in the past and it looks like he's even poorly educated. If the U.S. fires missiles, that'll add an additional $30 million per week for as long as the Navy's Nimitz and Truman are engaged in combat. Not only is America good for stupidity and ignorance, but its also becoming a threat to the world, America is even pissing Russia off again, but due forgive me for making such offensive statements, but honestly, it's true though. The Human Race isn't ready to die just yet. America has refused to show us that the Syrian Government authorized the gas attack to its own people - which they didn't, it was the rebels trying to make the leader look bad... That's why we (the United Kingdom) declined to help America attack Syria as it would be pointless, as well with Russia, etc. But as I said, United States of America should join the Commonwealth of Nations, it would be good for America and it may just help America get back in control and financial control as well. America NEEDS to stop policing the world and focus on its own problems for once; this will help America be great once again and forever-if willing to work there way to get to the word 'great.' But not only is the issue with Syria right now, there's more and will always be more if America continues on its same harmful and old ways... This is why they need to be stopped for once and for all! "We The People" have failed, so now it's time for "We The Actual People" to get things back and going now!
But anyway, The Queen can be said to have three main roles: Constitutional, Ceremonial and Ambassadorial. Constitutionally the Queen is suppose to be kept informed, advise and warn the government of the day. Her actual Constitutional Powers (reserve powers) are:

-Call and dismiss parliament/elections
-Appoint the Prime Minister
-Sack the Government
-Refuse Royal Assent to Acts of Parliament so they can not become law and Orders-in-Council and Royal Proclamations which are drawn up by the government of the day so they can exercise the Royal Prerogatives which covers:

In domestic matters,

* the issuing and withdrawal of passports
* the appointment and dismissal of ministers
* the appointment of Queen's Counsel
* the granting of honours
* the appointment and regulation of the civil service
* the commissioning of officers in the armed forces

In foreign affairs, it covers

* the declaration of war
* the making of treaties
* the recognition of foreign states
* the accreditation of diplomats

"Prerogative powers were formerly exercised by the monarch acting alone. Since the 19th century, the advice of the prime minister or the cabinet"who are then accountable to Parliament for the decision"has been required in order for the prerogative to be exercised. The monarch is constitutionally empowered to exercise the Royal Prerogative against the advice of the prime minister or the cabinet, but does so only in emergencies or where existing precedent does not adequately apply to the circumstances in question." The Queen also fulfils ceremonial duties and ambassadorial ones as Head of State.

The rest of the Royal family fill in for the Queen when she can not be in two places at once. This can be useful especially when you have 16 realms you reign over. This allows for the other Royals to start to learn hw to perform many of the Queen's duties for if/when they inherit the throne.
Commonwealth countries work together to improve the quality of life of their citizens and to build a better world. Members help each other to make their economies stronger, to operate accountable and democratic systems of government and to improve the skills of their people. They agree among themselves on issues of wider international concern "�" be they on fair trade, debt relief or combating terrorism "�" and seek recognition for their concerns to be taken into account in global and other discussions.

The Commonwealth runs a whole range of programmes of direct benefit to its members. These programmes include assistance with election monitoring, and the training of judges and public servants; help with education, whether through scholarships, distance learning schemes or teacher training; assistance in alleviating environmental degradation and in implementing environmentally sustainable solutions; and help in combating disease and in training medical personnel.

Commonwealth Heads of Government meet to discuss how best to work together and meetings at ministerial and official level are also held regularly. Every country, large or small, rich or poor, has an equal voice and decisions are taken by consensus: that is, with the agreement of all.

The moral authority of the Commonwealth is strong and its members work together to encourage the maintenance of common standards. The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) was established in 1995 to deal with serious or persistent violations of the Harare Declaration which sets out the Commonwealth's fundamental political values. Composed of the Foreign Ministers of eight Commonwealth member countries, plus one or two additional ministerial representatives from the region concerned, CMAG assesses the nature of an infringement and recommends measures for collective Commonwealth action aimed at the speedy restoration of democracy and constitutional rule. This is just one of the ways in which the Commonwealth works to uphold democracy and human rights.

The Joint Office for Commonwealth Permanent Missions to the UN, based in New York, is another excellent example of Commonwealth cooperation. The office, funded by a number of Commonwealth members, exists to enable small state members to maintain a permanent presence at the UN. It acts as a base for envoys of eleven Commonwealth countries to operate in representing their respective states. The eleven small states that currently have Permanent Representatives working from the New York Office are Dominica, The Gambia, Grenada, Maldives, Nauru, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, the Seychelles, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. And this is why I know for a fact that this will help America become great again-if they even try though.
Sources: http://www.thercs.org...
Thank you!
CraigBrittain

Con

Part 3.

1. [Let the record show that my opponent is stuck in the past and it looks like he's even poorly educated. If the U.S. fires missiles, that'll add an additional $30 million per week for as long as the Navy's Nimitz and Truman are engaged in combat. Not only is America good for stupidity and ignorance, but its also becoming a threat to the world, America is even pissing Russia off again, but due forgive me for making such offensive statements, but honestly, it's true though. The Human Race isn't ready to die just yet. America has refused to show us that the Syrian Government authorized the gas attack to its own people - which they didn't, it was the rebels trying to make the leader look bad... That's why we (the United Kingdom) declined to help America attack Syria as it would be pointless, as well with Russia, etc.]

How is any of this relevant or related to the discussion at hand, which is the economic and social climate of the USA and not our military decisions? If you believe that the Commonwealth will improve the US economy or reduce crime, please back it up with statistics and not tangents or diatribes.

You haven't posted a single piece of non-empirical, non-circumstantial, direct, related, credible and cited evidence for your third round.

In fact, you just cut and pasted an advertisement that you wrote months ago.

I don't even really have to do anything in this round, I can just point to my first two rounds which were beyond decisive.
Debate Round No. 3
DebateTime

Pro

Let the record show that he has ran out of stuff to say so he haves to insult me and claiming that I'm not posting circumstantial, direct, related, credible and cited evidence for my third round, etc... He has asked me "How is any of this relevant or related to the discussion at hand, which is the economic and social climate of the USA and not our military decisions? If you believe that the Commonwealth will improve the US economy or reduce crime, please back it up with statistics and not tangents or diatribes." I was simply explaining how America will someday run out of money and how its government is failing as we speak. He tells me "In fact, you just cut and pasted an advertisement that you wrote months ago. I don't even really have to do anything in this round, I can just point to my first two rounds which were beyond decisive." Which is slander...

IT IS TIME FOR THE UNITED STATES to join the Commonwealth. Membership in the Commonwealth would facilitate the kind of globalization that is in the American national interest, and it would serve as a hedge against the emergence of a less benign international order based on civilizational power politics. In return, United States membership would offer the Commonwealth a much-needed shot in the arm in terms of resources and ideas that could transform it from a persistent underachiever into a leading model of transcivilizational co-operation. THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: This is the one and only alternative to the creation of the North American Union, or at the very least, it would serve as a backup method of globalization using natural organic bonds once the Masonic trading blocks of the NAU and EU fail. They will most certainly fail you see, in the most violent ways, once Islam is firmly rooted in Europe and American nationalism becomes mainstream. To learn more about the English Commonwealth: http://en.wikipedia.org...

ELIGIBILITY

The Commonwealth is an important world organisation. It covers peoples of every religion, every colour, many languages, and every level of wealth. The common link is that all but one of these countries were at some point part of the British Empire. The United States of America therefore qualifies for membership.

COMMONWEALTH POSITIVES

Within the family of nations that is the Commonwealth are Republics such as India and the Republic of South Africa, Monarchies like Fiji, Dominions like Canada and Australia, and emerging third world powers like Nigeria, and commercial centres like Singapore. Her Majesty is not Head of State of all of these countries, but she is Head of the Commonwealth.

Mozambique is part of the Commonwealth, even though the British flag never flew there. It came in as a side deal when South Africa rejoined the Commonwealth after South Africa became a full democracy.

ADVANTAGES OF THE COMMONWEALTH

If a Commonwealth country has an issue on another continent, there are friends on that continent to whom it can turn for friendly advice and sometimes discreet friendly lobbying.

As Zimbabwe is finding, and Pakistan and Nigeria before that, the united Commonwealth is a formidable bloc to encourage or discourage certain developments. When a country is criticised by a predominantly non-white Commonwealth it is hard to claim racism or colonialism convincingly.

WHY SHOULD THE USA JOIN?

The USA has slowly realised that it cannot act alone as a world power. Even world powers need friends.And frankly sometimes it has to be your best friend who tells you home truths in a private setting. What goes on on the fringes of Commonwealth meetings is hugely significant. Side deals to open markets, grant scholarships, and organise placements and training in advanced countries outside any normal rules all help.

ARE THERE DIFFICULTIES?

The USA may have to understand that in the Commonwealth economic strength and population size and military capacity are all part of the picture. In every family every sibling gets a look in, and the bigger siblings cannot just push everyone around. Britain and India and Nigeria and South Africa earn respect not only for what they contribute but also for how they behave.

Americans will be able to learn these new forms of diplomacy. Threatening, destabilising, and encouraging military coups are not the way the Commonwealth does things. 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.

The Americans can learn to behave this way, and might even learn to transfer these techniques and approaches to their diplomacy generally.

Are the Americans big enough to join a community of adults? Yes, if they want to.

Also America wouldn't win if the Commonwealth decided to attack America: the.Commonwealth would eventuly win, excluding nucluer war were no one wins. For many reasons.

1) The size of the commonwealth, it would be imposible of the US to controll all of the territories and all of the people, the US simply would not have enought man power. But the commonwealth will not have such man power shortages and the size of the US is manageble.

2) Economic will make the Commonwealth once againt have more endurance in the long run then the US. The US is indeed a big trading partner but in total it does not rival the size of the Commonwealth nor the revenue it can generate. So should trading embargos be placed it's the US that will most likely be cut off and not the Wealth. A trade embargo on the US would mean lost of problems for the US such as lack of basic needs witch coud lead the contries to civil war as the citizens will start fighting for food and what not.

3) On a diplomatic stand point Wealth contries tend to be alot more liked and appreciated on the world stage then the US is. This will make diplomatic relation with others easier for the Wealth and harder for the US since the US mostly has the best relationships with Wealth contries more often then other countries.

4) Ban wagon jumping. US is one of the most hated contries in the world because of their actions they undertake around the world. So other nations likely will get involved in the fighting and likely to side with the Wealth againts the US.

The US would initialy have the upper hand in that they have large forces all about the world. But individualy these forces are vulnerable and they would fall ratehr quickly individualy. This would knock out the US prime advanatge in the war. In other words the US is stretched out to thin and US generals themselves have already openly stated this out.

Thank you! Please vote for pro! Credits go to me, EadTaes and Charles James.
CraigBrittain

Con

1. "Let the record show" that despite being called ignorant, uneducated and misinformed, I've provided a wealth of information from unbiased third party sources to evidence my claims. I have not insulted my opponent at any time during this debate.

2. The USA is not running out of money. There is 2.914 trillion in the Federal Reserve and over 12 trillion in unclaimed assets. When the USA ends the Federal Reserve, those assets will lead to a surplus within 10 fiscal years.

3. The USA would lose more than it would gain by joining the Commonwealth. The USA has the world's largest GDP and globalized tax policies would mean that less domestic money would be spent on domestic causes and instead it would be off-shored and outsourced via tax regulations. Outsourcing jobs is bad enough, outsourcing taxpayer dollars is even worse.

4. My opponent did not bother to check his latest argument (if indeed it is his and it isn't plagiarized from another source) for spelling, grammar and punctuation. The writing style differs vastly from his own which suggests that he, again, cut-and-pasted an existing argument without even bothering to write a new fourth round of his own, which is a rules violation.

5. Embargoes against the US are highly unlikely because of the existing trade agreements that the US has with the majority of the world. NAFTA links North America, the WTO manages the majority of international trade in the US - you would have to overturn the World Trade Organization's role in the management of international trade, which is something that the Commonwealth cannot do.

6. The USA does not act alone, as it were, the US is a standing partner of NATO, the UN, the WTO, G-8 and over 100 other organizations committed to the protection of international trade and proper economic decisions based on trade.

7. The majority of countries in the world hold a neutral stance and in the event of war, just as they have done for centuries, would avoid participation on either side unless they were directly attacked (See: Poland/Russia when attacked by Germany, USA after Pearl Harbor).

8. Any attempts to initiate a war against the US would be met with UN sanctions, disapproval by the EU and NATO and subsequently the only way to initiate a war against the US would be to 'act alone' in the same manner that you have suggested that the US 'acts alone', despite evidence of the contrary via support from Canada, Australia, Mexico, Israel, the UK , NATO, and the UN.

9. Furthermore, the US has not 'acted alone' in the past century. Not during a single military conflict. We have been assisted by at least five other countries in every military conflict in US history.

10. Your argument begins with a statement that "threatening, destabilising (sp) and encouraging military coups are not the way the Commonwealth does things" and ends by detailing how to wage war against the United States of America. How did you get from a peaceful resolution into a declaration of war against the USA? Notice - this is how the Commonwealth works - a Trojan Horse - with the US playing the role of Troy and the Commonwealth emulating Greece. Troy was subsequently destroyed because of their decision to let their guard down.

11. Don't let the Commonwealth invade, plunder, quarter troops in, manipulate and/or exploit the United States or its people. Once was enough.

Thank you, and vote CON.
Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RPOFA 2 years ago
RPOFA
http://www.debate.org... Please vote. We are losing by 11 Points. Comment: "Pro has the burden of proof wich means Con has the responsibility of at least making the total weight of the arguments even (a tie). Con had dropped several Pro arguments and not analyzed them fully. I think the Pro wins in terms of weight."
Posted by HenryGBR 3 years ago
HenryGBR
Do neither debaters realise that the Commonwealth of Nations is entirely different to the Commonwealth Realms. The Commonwealth of Nations have most of the former countries of the British Empire meeting together in a friendly manner and improving their diplomatic relations with one another. The Commonwealth Realms are rarer and THAT is when Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second is Head of State. Both con and pro have mixed them up which is quite embarrassing.
Posted by aiah17 3 years ago
aiah17
Ummm... Call me Captain Obvious,but wasn't the whole original point of America to NOT be ruled by a crown? The Tea Party would be upset if the read this debate.
Posted by DebateTime 3 years ago
DebateTime
Also enough about how I didn't even correct my spelling as I did, it's just my phone messing me up
Posted by DebateTime 3 years ago
DebateTime
PS: Yes, I did use other information not written by me but I have permission.
Posted by DebateTime 3 years ago
DebateTime
-TN05 no, I don't plagarize.... Please stop slandering me.
Posted by TN05 3 years ago
TN05
Pro directly plagarized from sources in this debate - I strongly urge a vote for CON.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by HenryGBR 3 years ago
HenryGBR
DebateTimeCraigBrittainTied
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:02 
Reasons for voting decision: This whole debate is ridiculous. Both sides have mistaken the Commonwealth of Nations with Commonwealth Realms and they are two ENTIRELY different things. The latter being where the Queen is the head of state of a country that isn't the United Kingdom. Neither side really won here, the most reliable sources, however, were used by Con. On a side note: I (am British) don't want America as a Commonwealth Realm, it would simply dent the image of the Crown as a democratic, fair leader as pro proposes the Crown would ACTUALLY have power in the United States, whereas Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has no power in ANY Commonwealth Realm or even the United Kingdom. Traditionally, the Crown would be able to repeal or veto laws, however The Queen's secretaries simply rubber stamp legislation sent for Royal Assent from CR and UK. Pro would propose that the British Monarchy have power to veto a law in the US which is unfair, undemocratic and not good for anyone.
Vote Placed by TN05 3 years ago
TN05
DebateTimeCraigBrittainTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow, where to even begin on this. In theory, this could be an interesting debate topic but Pro was more interested in plugging his organization and making pointless arguments than anything. I have given all of my votes to Con because Pro directly plagiarized material from a variety of different sources. For example, everything but the first paragraph of his final statement was directly plagarized from these sources: *http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2009/10/stop-north-american-union-rejoin.html *http://charlesjames.hubpages.com/hub/SHOULD-THE-USA-JOIN-THE-COMMONWEALTH, *http://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/371151 Pro didn't even put an effort to fix the spelling errors from the stuff he stole. Shameful conduct and debate from Pro.
Vote Placed by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
DebateTimeCraigBrittainTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Personally, I would love to see the US go to a constitutional monarchy. Pro writes what would be a somewhat compelling political advertisement and carries this through the debate, but she lacks empirical evidence. Con shows me that states governed by the House of Windsor have worse outcomes, which overturns Pros vague impacts. There just isnt enough pro impact to change the status quo in such a compelling way.