This House would abolish the British monarchy

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"[1]. 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" [2]. 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 noblesMy 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.Summation: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 [3]. My opponent's plan fails in comparison to mine, and for that reason you should vote for me. 1.https://www.cia.gov...2.http://www.merriam-webster.com...3.http://www.guardian.co.uk...