This House Believes that the United Kingdom Ought to Dissolve the Monarchy

I have not affirmed the Resolution. Nor did I affirm the second Argument. The Resolution is about abolishing the crown, not completing 1 and 2, or even 3. If we completed all three, the Resolution would still have not been upheld. Pro has attempted to move the Goal Posts from "Abolishing the Crown" to "Agreeing with Arguments I, II, III".I argued to limit their power, not eliminate all funding, and most certainly not to eliminate the Crown. Every argument stands by the Resolution. They look like this: "Argument I is why the Resolution is right." When someone says "Argument I is actually why the Anti-Resolution is right." They have not conceded to your argument. Your argument is to prove the Resolution right, if they have not conceded that that Argument proves the resolution, they have not conceded.Outline: I have to defend my position that keeping the Crown and restricting her powers is a better option then abolishing the crown.Rebuttal I: The Powers of the Monarchy.That statement affirms nothing, and is cherry-picked from my argument and misrepresented. If you read it, is says that while the powers of the Crown should be limited, abolishing her must only be done if it's the most benefical possible option. As the rest of my argument would show, it's not the best option. Pro is trying to make it look like I said it's the best option, but by reading the quote in context, we'll see that is not what I said."That being said, abolishing the Monarchy would have to be the most beneficial option. Being unelected, the remaining, and practically useless powers of the Monarchy should be limited and some removed. There is no reason abolishing the Monarchy would be better than limiting her powers to ceremonial, and keeping the income she produces."a) Veto Powers:Pro misreads my argument. I said she, while able to use vetoes because she always consulted advisers (as I acknowledged she uses vetoes), she couldn't use any other power without risk. Pro was to show evidence that I'm wrong in this case, and that she does in fact use the other powers. He sticks with maybes and theories. The Queen could dismiss the Parliament in an emergency, but she never has, and never will. If she did, Parliament would abolish the crown, backed with the citizens of Britain. The queen only exists still because she doesn't use her other powers, as I've been saying. Con has shown no evidence that these powers are used. He argues in theory, but not with a practical application to the real world. While I agree the Queen's power should be more limited, that doesn't mean I affirm to Argument 1. You see, Pro's argument is this:"The crown has too much power, and should be abolished."My argument is:"The crown has too much power, and those powers should be limited."The premise is entirely different. Pro is shifting the goal posts, and fails to understand that his Argument I is about supporting abolishing the Crown, not limiting her. This is cherry-picking, shifting goal posts, and misrepresentation of my case.Rebuttal II: Cost of the Crown.I conceded nothing. My claim was simple, the Crown's funding could be cut back, but the Crown shouldn't be eliminated.My source backs up my claim, but as for Graham Ruddick, he shuffles through his words carefully, and what he says is basically meaningless. If you read the source, he is saying she receives a 15% share of her estates income, but essentially, tax payers pay it. This contradicts... Saying it's 15% of the income from HER estate, but is paid by income from other people's estates. Tax payers is nothing more than a well-worded way to say the Government, that word, Tax Payers, is meaningless. Anything that gets money from the government technically gets it from "the tax payers." However, his first line was saying she receives 15% of what her estate brings in, it's her share of her estates income. The phrasing is shy here because of the process at which she gets it.The Queen doesn't give the Treasury 85% of her income and keeps 15%. She gives them 100%, and they budget her 15% back, so it "comes from the taxpayers" (the Government) but it's not the Tax Payers money.The (unsupported claim of) £202 million the Queen got was from one year, when her estate was running out off money and needed funding, as Pro's sources says. The source talks about how the estate was going bankrupt, and drew in funding from each member's districts and several other sources. There is no evidence that she receives that annually. Even if she did, would it matter to the resolution? Pro argues that the Monarchy should be disbanded because she costs too much (obviously no, if they are still making a profit.) All his argument really says is that the Queens budget should be more conservative. She is, however guaranteed that 15% of her income. Pro's argument is false cause and correlation. The funding came mostly from district sources and other places, not from Parliment. So the cuts wouldn't relate to the funding.Pro is misrepresenting the situation. The Crown receives several million more than they cost, for the Treasury, not themselves. The reason they need public funding is that every penny they bring in goes straight to the Government. Without that 15%, they would have no funds. Pro assumes that the Crown's "business" makes such a good profit that she doesn't need funds, which is exactly NOT how the situation works. The Crown makes the Treasury such a good profit, and they give her 15% back so she can fund her estate. That 15% is her only income remaining at the end of the year.As for the Crown's estate, Con misrepresents what is said. The source fully claims the Monarchy owns the Crown Estate, but that it's still public property. That being said, if you disband the monarchy, their estate, that they own, stops being public, and becomes private property. The source says that it's Public Property owned by the Queen, not Parliament. If the Monarchy is disbanded, the Queen still keeps her estate. She will get wealthy while the Treasury stops earning £240 million. They would only earn the tax revenue. The Treasury's funding would go from a possible £204 million to less than £100 million within a year. Abolishing the Monarchy is not the best option. And no the Treasury would not be able to divert their £202 because they wouldn't have that £202 million. Pro has continuously ignored this point.. The Treasury GETS that £202 million from the crown in the first place. Pro still never fully supported his £202 million claim.Pro made highly unsupportable claims and gravely misrepresented the situation at hand. Either he has lied on purpose, or he is truly uninformed about the Crown's system of funding.I did not concede to Abolishing the Monarchy because they earn a lot of their own income back.Rebuttal III: Alternatives.Pro has dropped this whole case. It then still stands that there are better alternatives. The Crown should have it's powers limited and funding cut back to only 15% of income. This way, the UK and the Treasurey still recieves the benefits without the negatives (assuming her powers are a negative, seeing as, aside from vetoing, Pro hasn't proven those powers to be practiced in the real world). Abolishing the Crown has to be the best option for the Resolution to be true, but it isn't,Final Defense:Pro has dropped ALL of Argument III: Benefits of Abolishing the Monarchy.Pro has misrepresented my entire case, and shifted the Goal Poles. His argument is that the Crown should be abolished because of Argument I and Argument II. I'm saying that the Crown's power should be limited because of Argument I and her funding cut back to the 15% it should be because of Argument II. I conceded to nothing, and didn't affirm the Resolution. Con completely dropped my last Argument about alternatives. My arguments prove that the Queen shouldn't be disbanded because of the alternatives.Conclusion: Pro was to prove the Resolution is true, and that the Crown should be disbanded. He failed to do so, dropping the most important argument of all, the argument of Alternatives. His arguments don't prove we should disband the Monarchy, but that we should limit her power and funding, nothing more. Pro shifted goal posts to make it appear I agreed with him, and left out Argument I: Alternatives, because if he didn't, his attempt would fail.The Resolution is NOT affirmed. The Crown's power and funding should be limited, but abolishing the Crown is NOT the best option available. The Crown should not be Abolished.