This House would abolish the British monarchy

Knockout of Rebuttal 1:On the CIA's description: my opponent is taking "which also played a key role in developing parliamentary DEMOCRACY." out of context. It is talking about British imperialism and the various battles and revolutions associated with such. Knockout of Rebuttal 2:My opponent says that I am the one that said Charles was too old. I never said that. I said that since my opponent is so worried about Charles, I would just cross apply his logic. Charles is old, so he will die shortly after becoming king. Therefore, any concerns my opponent has are resolved. Knockout of Rebuttal 3:On racism: I hope this isn't a voter, but I just thought that for future reference, everyone should know what racism actually is, instead of using it as a hot-word.Knockout of Rebuttal 4: On Prince Charles: 44% of British people want Charles to be King, 38% want William to be the king(skipping Charles). http://www.dailymail.co.uk...Knockout of Rebuttal 5-8: My opponent misunderstands me when I say he is becoming a monarch. Lets look at the two plans. My opponents plan is being enacted by himself. He provides no legal basis. Therefore, if you vote for him, then his plan text is being enacted through him alone. Is this not a true monarchy? If you vote for my opponent, you are allowing him to rule over all of his fellow citizens.Knockout of Rebuttal 9: My opponent actually advocates my plan here. I am offer a 5/10 year president and the Queen. The two examples he gives (Thatcher and Blair) show evidence that my president and Queen combination works. Knockout of Rebuttal 10: My opponent only recognizes nobility through their political power in the house of lords. He fails to see that the nobles are intrinsically tied to their title and the land that goes with it. They nobles, even in the modern era, are primary supporters of the towns surrounding their estate. So while they do not have as much political power, they still have a lot of social and economic power throughout Britain. You must also see that other countries in Europe still have a powerful noble class, like Sweden or Norway. This isolates them from their peers, which isolates them from the larger European noble political circle. That is why they deserve to stay, political, economic, and social reasons. Knockout of Rebuttal 11: My opponent says I have the duty to defend the status quo. This isn't true. I offered a counter plan in round 2. My opponent never contested my ability to have a counter plan until he saw that my plan is better. My opponent never stated that I had to defend the status quo. My only burden is to defend the position that the title of Queen or King ought not be abolished. My plan works in this sense. Moreover, the only rebuttal my opponent has to my revised plan is that no other government has done it that way. Lets look to America, shall we? The American democracy was a completely new system of government. Just because something hasn't been done before doesn't mean that it is wrong. Under my opponents logic, we should just stick to the status quo all the time, because change is fundamentally wrong according to him. This is an argumentum ad ignorantiam, just because something has yet to be tested does not mean it is either true or false. Knockout of Rebuttal 12: My plan does separate the two branches because it removes all political power from the Queen. The title of Queen would merely be honorary and hold no power in political realms. I don't really care about the Queen's religion, that is up to her. I have shown that the queen will have fewer capacities and thus less spending. However, even if you don't buy that, the Queen is paid out of a endowment that was set up during the Glorious Revolution. Even if you removed the title of Queen from the government, the royal family still has claims to this money. Knockout of Rebuttal 13: My opponent has not shown the view of most Britons , I have. I take away power from the monarch, but she still has the Anglican Church, and she still has a traditional role.I just explained why the monarchs spending is decreased, and the government can't touch that money anyway, so it doesn't save you money.I turned my opponents point. He gave me the evidence about Blair and Thatcher. He claims my poll is not good; however, a time of celebration and a time when the future of the royal family is in question forces people to think about who they want to be their king. The news covered the royals more, and people probably researched on their own. My poll is probably a more accurate polling solely because of its timing. Why Opp wins PoC I: My plan solves for the monarchy. I have shown how the government cannot touch the funds anyway, so it is pointless to attack the queen from an economic point. My plan also takes away the bad parts of the monarchy. I take away the fusion of church and state. I represent the people through the president. *** On a side note, my opponent obviously does not know what ad hominem means in argumentation. I never attacked the Queens character or his on this subject. He tries to use "fancy" Latin to increase the validity of his argument. PoC II: My opponent words this clash like my plan does not advocate for change, yet it does. My plan even before my amendment had a change in the status quo. This is a stupid point of clash. PoC III: Plan text analysis.My Opponents plan: Throw out the Queen, elect a president. My Plan: Take away all political powers of the Queen, allow her to remain a figurehead, elect a president. Look at these two plans, and look at the evidence above. My plan is obviously best for the UK. The only reason I amended to include the president is so that my opponent would stop complaining about fair representation. I am allowed to amend because 1. I never had the obligation to defend the status quo, my only obligation was to keep the title of Queen, and 2. I gave adequate time for response to my new plan. Lets go through the contentions of this round:My opponents substantive I falls because I have shown that it is merely an opinion, and it is not the opinion of the British people. Substantive II falls because my opponents plan and my plan happen at the same time, so timing doe not really matter.Opposition Contention I: My opponent never actually addressed Imperialism, he just claims I am calling him racist and dismisses the point. He completely drops this argument. Opp Contention II: He never has a good counter to this, He actually gives evidence for my side when he says that people liked have the monarch with PM( Thatcher and Blair). Substantive III: I have shown that he UK cannot touch this money anyway because it is essentially a trust fund set up 250 years ago. My opponents point is irrelevant to this debate. I have shown that. Contention III: My opponent never addresses this fully. He only says the lords have minute powers, yet he never combats my point on the destruction of chivalry or the destruction of world politics in the circles of nobility. He says I have to uphold the status quo, but he never says that until it is handy for his argument to do so. My plan and amendment are completely valid. On the PoC I, my plan solves this problem better than his. I have shown that the PoC II is silly because we have the same time frame, and we both have change. My opponent's plan falls to mine. I solve for all of his problems and prevent the harms I have listed. For all of these reasons, please vote Opposition. Look back at my opponents original statement on my burden: "the Opposition should seek to demonstrate that the monarchy is not worth abolishing." I have done this. I urge a vote for the Opposition.