This House would abolish the British monarchy

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. [1]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. [2] [3] [4]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 up1. 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 monarchyThe 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 changeWe'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.To summarise: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...[1] http://1.usa.gov...[2] http://ind.pn...[3] http://bit.ly...[4] http://bit.ly...