This House would abolish the British monarchy

For the second round, I will first begin by analyzing my opponent's analysis of the topic, then I will refute the two contentions given, and then I will provide arguments of my own. Analysis of my opponent's plan:I am interpreting my opponent's plan as such: My opponent would abolish the title of the monarch in favor of a president who is separate from legislation and will be the face of the United Kingdom and overseer of elections. I offer the following counter plan: I will first make the following observations: Legislative power is carried out by the Queen with extreme counseling from the Parliament. Moreover, it is usually a proxy that exercises this power of the Queen. Executive power is carried out by the Her Majesty's Government, which is the Queen and the Privy Council. She is also in charge of the Armed Forces of the Crown and other Crown Servants (diplomats and secret service). The Queen has no judicial powers The Queen is the Head of the Church of England. The Queen can choose a PM, but this is only because of unwritten traditional code. The Queen can dissolve parliament by dismissing the PM; however, the last PM to be dismissed was Lord Melbourne in 1834 by King William IV. Now there are limits to this power of the Queen. Here is my counter plan: The Queen of England will be allowed to keep her title, and her legislative power ought to be significantly reduced. The Queen would still live at one of the Royal Places and would still do diplomatic trips and work closely with the government in an attempt to prevent stagnation of the political system. My Response to my opponents contentions:Response to "Substantive I: This System Is Silly"You begin by making subjective arguments. Silly is subjective, so I cannot argue that you do not think it is silly. I agree that you think it is silly. Your first real argument is that the Queen is the Head of the Church of England and that this is bad because it destroys multicultural democracies. My response is the United Kingdom is not a democracy, so her being the leader of the Church of England has no bearing on democracy in a place where democracy does not exist. You also have a bad definition of racism. Catholics are not a race of people. You are making an appeal to emotion by using charged words. You also say that she is not representative of the people of England. Once again, this does not matter because the Queen does not exist to be representative of the people. You are stuck in an American-Democracy-centric mindset. Moreover, the Queen is the Head of the Church AND the Monarch of England. These two titles could be given to anyone theoretically. The Queen can act as the Queen in some circles and she can also act as the leader of the Church of England in other circles. We aren't trying to force the UK into an American Democracy. I will talk about this in my contentions. Response to "Substantive II: Why Now?"You first say that the Queen is about to die. Point taken. You then say that Prince Charles is too controversial. If you are going to say the Queen is too old, then why do you not argue that Prince Charles is getting up there? He is currently 64 and the Queen is 86. Moreover, she is exceptionally long lived for a British Monarch. Since the monarchy is hereditary, and longevity is directly related to genetics, we can look at past monarchs. If Charles were to be King today, he would automatically become the 12th Oldest Monarch. Even accounting for increases in medical technology, the likelihood of Charles living very long after coronation is slim. The monarchy would then fall to Prince William. Prince Charles has never shown any interest in abusing the title of King. You give some of his odder fancies, but a man is a man. If he likes certain things, then he likes certain things, like Georgia Architecture. I am not going to judge his rule before I see him actually rule. I agree that legislating a decline of the monarchs power would be best done after the death of Elizabeth II, but I do not agree with the dissolution of the monarchy.Contentions of the Opposition:Contention I: Imperialism is wrong. The UK is not a bad place to live. Indeed, it has many benefits and appears to run very well. They have done with a monarch for thousands of years. Therefore, why should we force an American system onto a system that works. My opponent provides many loopholes that the Queen could have. I say that under my plan, we should close those loopholes, but other than those loopholes, he provides not reason for changing their government besides the Church of England. I am not here to argue religion. To make a parallel, the majority of Americans( 76%) identify as Christians. Therefore, under my opponent's logic, a Muslim, Hindi, members of the Bahá'í faith and other religions ought not to serve political office. This is absurd. My opponent is marginalizing people in an effort to appeal to the masses. My opponents plan only wishes to appeal to the majority and to force the American system on the UK. Contention II: The monarch is important to politics even if he/she has not actual powers.Look at the Pope. He is the leader of a church and officially a country (if you consider the Vatican City a nation). The Pope serves over 1 billion people who are not citizens of the Vatican. He is their leader solely because they are Catholic. The Queen serves 27 million Anglicans, but that is only from a religious view. She is the leader of 63.1 million people, and those are only those within the UK. The Queen is also the head of state of the Commonwealth Realm, which means that she is the ruler of 72,114,680 people other than those within the borders of the UK. This is 135.2 million people. These are only the people that are legally controlled by her. It does not include emigrants who live in other nations, or people who have close family ties to the UK and the Commonwealth Realm. Her life and opinion would hold great influence even if she cannot actually do anything but speak. Even if the Queen is only figure head, her opinion would matter and make a difference to a large number of people. I have shown you that complete dissolution of the monarchy is wrong from a practical and moral standpoint. Furthermore, I have shown the flaws in my opponents arguments. I await my opponents rebuttal and response to my critique of his arguments.