Canada should move to abolish the monarchy

Thank you, Con. And I truly hope both the voters and Con are enjoying this debate as much as I am. Con provides us with an interesting argument that is, that Monarchies 'tend to be the wealthiest, prosperous and most egalitarians nations on the Earth'. I would like to remind both Con and the voters that : Correlation does not equate causation.Meaning that, simply because, countries, that just happen to be monarchies, top the list of highest GDP per capita, that monarchy automatically leads to wealth. Nothing proves that monarchy causes wealth. Moreover, following Con's logic, Republics are still superior : In the 'Most liveable cities in the World' 7 out of the 10 cities are Republics [1], in the Global Innovation Index, Index that calculates innovation and patent output, 8 out of the 10 countries are still Republics [2] also, all the countries in the Top 20 highest literacy rate, are Republics. [3] Furthermore, 10 out of the 10 countries with the lowest suicide rate in the World are Republics. [4] There are alot more lists that are topped by Republics, thus I believe to have made my point clear.Concerning Con's argument that Monarchy provides some sort of 'Political stability', this is arguable. How does the British Royal Family provide political stability to the Canadian people? And is it worth $50 million per year? Con argues that one of democracy's main flaw is the fact that democracy 'relies on intelligent voters, who can discern fact from fiction' he then continues by saying 'when these voters are bombarded with countless unverifiable facts' I would like to remind Con that the United Kingdom is a Constitutional monarchy, meaning that the Head of is elected by the people through election campaigns, similar to Presidents in a Republic. So one could argue that the British people are 'bombarded with countless unverifiable facts' as well. Con also tries to discredit democracy by naming bad leaders such as Qaddafi, Idi Amin and Saddam Hussein. Even though they came to power via Coup d'Etat's, which is a suspension of democratic rights, by force, I could very well do the same with monarchies and name Saudi Arabia , Brunei and Qatar as examples of terribles forms of oppresive monarchies. 'The cost of the security of the President frequently reaches over $150 million per annum'' Before addressing this remark I'd like to see a credible source to support it. But even if that was true, added the security detail, and the frequent visits, the real cost of the british monarchy rises to an incredible $307 million per year [5] Lastly, it goes without saying that some presidencies cost a staggering amount. But the same also applies to monarchies. As I have demonstrated before, the british monarchy, for instance, has a cost of 307 million per annum. I could also give more examples like the House of Saud, who believe the entire ressources of Saudi Arabia as their property and thus frequently give themselves cash handouts. Currently the entire royal family is estimated at an astonishing $1.4 trillion [6]. I will now conclude my round as I believe to have covered all arguments that Con has put forward. Canadians must reserve the rights and duties of head of state to a canadian citizen with no allegiance to a foreign power. Con has tried to dissuade us by showing that Queen Elizabeth II offers "political stability" to canadians. This is erroneous and unfounded. Canada simply does not need a foreign royal family to assure political stability for its citizens.My sources : [1] http://www.citymayors.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] & [4] https://independentaustralia.net...;[5] http://www.theatlantic.com...[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...