The United States should have the Queen as Head of State

Before I begin, I want to note that much of my opponent's arguments are directly lifted from other sources. Although much of this comes from my opponent's organization[1] or personal facebook page,[2] for example, the argument about embassies is lifted, without credit, from the website "Commonwealth USA'.[3] While the the first two are completely fine (as they presumably come from my opponent's own words)", I believe the last is a violation of the 'no cheating' rule my opponent established in the opening round. Now, my opponent's arguments are divided into three sections: "The Commonwealth... worked", "becoming a... realm", and "constitutional monarchies are more democratic than republics". Right off the bat I want to note her first argument has basically nothing to do with this resolution. This is a debate on if the US should become a commonwealth realm, not whether the US should join the Commonwealth of Nations. What's the difference, you might ask? Well, for one the Commonwealth of Nations isn't actually a monarchist organziation under the crown, but rather a free association of states. The Commonwealth doesn't establish laws, but is simply a group of states that have a close historical connection to the UK, and who want to co-operate with each other, and meet every four years for the Commonwealth Games (think the Olympics, but with only former British colonies).[4] While the head of the Commonwealth is the Queen, the 32 of the 53 member states are republics (no monarchy), and another 5 are monarchies, but under a different monarch than the Queen.[4] Only 16 Commonwealth nations - the Commonwealth realms - are under the British monarchy. The US could join the Commonwealth, get all the benefits of membership, and (like the vast majority of commonwealth nations) not have to adopt the British monarchy, so clearly this point doesn't actually help my opponent's case here. Second, and more relevant to the topic, is becoming a realm. In particular, my opponent asserts a monarch is an impartial head of state that provides a clear national leader rather than a polarizing one. I've already established the issues with sharing a monarch with 16 other countries in my opening round (namely, monarchs having to endorse policies in one country that another opposes), but the reality is a monarch is not universally popular, nor does it unify the people. Rather, it divides them in a new way - namely, a division between monarchists and republicans. To give an example, in 1999 Australia held a referendum on becoming a republic. Although it failed, the republicans still garnered 45% of the vote and a majority in the Australia capital, Canberra.[5] This deep divide is inevitable in any monarchy, and transcends the typical solution of replacing the head of state by vote, as the monarch is in power for life unless voted out for good. Consider that although the monarchy is very popular in Britain, 46% would prefer that William, not Charles, be the heir to the throne.[6] The people have no say in the matter, unfortunately. Finally, my opponent makes a very brief argument that constitutional monarchies rank higher than republics. Unfortunately, this falls into two logical flaws: for one, correlation does not equal causation. For another, it fails to show how a "broad trend" would improve a specific case. In her conclusion, my opponent basically undermines her own case by noting the US can join the Commonwealth without adopting the Queen as head of state. I think that basically proves my point here: as the resolution has not been upheld, I urge a Pro vote. References: 1. http://royalistpartyusa.tk... 2. https://m.facebook.com... 3. http://commonwealthusa.weebly.com... 4. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... 5. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... 6. http://www.bbcamerica.com...