Is their a point in having monarchs? absolute loser vs total war king

[Von Kickyourass]

Topic- is their a point in having a monarch
details- By monarch i mean the modern day monarchs such as queen elizabeth 2 etc.

Position- I am against monarchs. My opponent will be trying to debate why their is a benefit in having a monarch rather then a president/prime minister etc

My oppenent will be making the opening post if he wishes,otherwise i will make the opening statement if it is not posted in the next 1-2 days.

[Von Kickyourass]

I will be opening tomorrow if my opponent does not!

[Von Kickyourass]

My opponent has clarified in a pm that he wants me to start.
This is my first time in a debate so hopefully i will not suck too much.

My argument will feature 2-4 points depending on what i can think of.

Firstly i have discovered through research(mainly wikipedia) that a monarch does not do all that much in comparison to other national leaders. The only thing of any significance is their ability to award titles to people such as knighting people who have contributed in their area of expertise etc. I do not see any benefit over other national leader such as presidents/ prime ministers etc

Cost is another factor in a monarchy, if you believe my above statement then it should be clear that we are paying the royals to pretty much just be a national icon (although they are not always the best role models). The taxpayer is also paying for the upkeep of palaces (i am using Queen Elizabeth 2 as an example).

Although they are portrayed as role models they are not always setting a good example. Prince Charles son of Elizabeth 2 got a divorce from his wife Camilla Parker Bowles which is not setting a very good example for married couples. It seems the only thing they are good for is being in widely publicized scandals and surviving assasination attemps.

That is all for now,
Absolute loser

[Edward lV]

Firstly i have discovered through research(mainly wikipedia) that a monarch does not do all that much in comparison to other national leaders. The only thing of any significance is their ability to award titles to people such as knighting people who have contributed in their area of expertise etc. I do not see any benefit over other national leader such as presidents/ prime ministers etc

I think the fact that the monarch has no real power anymore is an argument for the monarchy rather that against. By reducing the monarchs power and giving it to the people, surely you leave the good bits about a monarchy (ie. Knighthoods, tradition.) And take away the bad points (absolute power, control.) It is clear that a monarchy and a prime minister work well together just by looking at the U.K. The Queen makes no real difference to the running of the country but still carries out ceremonies and all the traditional roles of the Monarch.

Cost is another factor in a monarchy, if you believe my above statement then it should be clear that we are paying the royals to pretty much just be a national icon (although they are not always the best role models). The taxpayer is also paying for the upkeep of palaces (i am using Queen Elizabeth 2 as an example)

I read somewere that for every pound the Queen gets, she puts £3.00 back into the econamy, through tourism and other means, however I will have to get a link for that later.

Although they are portrayed as role models they are not always setting a good example. Prince Charles son of Elizabeth 2 got a divorce from his wife Camilla Parker Bowles which is not setting a very good example for married couples. It seems the only thing they are good for is being in widely publicized scandals and surviving assasination attemps.

So your saying that because price Charles got a divorce this means he is a bad role model? My grandma and grandad are devorced, does this mean I shouldnt have looked up to him when I was younger? Divorce is not necesseraly a bad thing . Also when did it become the Prince of Wales' job to be a role model? In any case the scandels argument also means we should abolish fame, politicians and adult life. Being famous naturaly brings alot of attention to your private life.

I want to point one thing out before I stop. The royal family (in Britain) fund many schemes such as the Duke of Edinbourgh award, which I went on and helped me to develop confidence and make a few realy close friends, for people who couldnt mabye afford to do these kind of things otherwise.

[Von Kickyourass]

So your saying that because price Charles got a divorce this means he is a bad role model? My grandma and grandad are devorced, does this mean I shouldnt have looked up to him when I was younger? Divorce is not necesseraly a bad thing . Also when did it become the Prince of Wales' job to be a role model?
I want to point one thing out before I stop. The royal family (in Britain) fund many schemes such as the Duke of Edinbourgh award, which I went on and helped me to develop confidence and make a few realy close friends, for people who couldnt mabye afford to do these kind of things otherwise.

Actually many people do look up to bad roll models such as musicians that might take drugs or do other things wrong, just because people look up to them does not mean that they are not bad roll models.

In any case the scandels argument also means we should abolish fame, politicians and adult life. Being famous naturaly brings alot of attention to your private life.

But famous people are usually famous for doing something like acting in a movie or things like that, they have earnt their fame by actually doing stuff. Also you said that its a bad thing for a monarchy to have absolute power but their were many absolute monarchies doing very well throughout history and you have not proven that it is a bad thing so you cannot really use it against me in this debate.

Also when did it become the Prince of Wales' job to be a role model?

The royals are supposed to have higher standards then average people, you would not see the queen drag racing down the street in a ferrari.

anyway thats all i can think of at the moment.