The United States should have the Queen as Head of State

I would just like to fix two spelling issues, my keyboard has messed me up. "Monarcy would importove the affairs of the United States, and the Monarchy wouldn't violate the separation", what I meant what "Monarcy would importove the affairs of the United States, and the Monarchy wouldn't violate the separation of state and church. Even though I have proved that the words "susurration of state and church" does not appear in the Constitution. I also said "Therefore she would be Head of Church in the United States, or any other countries." What I meant was "Therefore she would not be Head of Church in the United States, or any other countries." Please forgive me on that."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."Before I begin, I would just like to note that this isn't true. "Commonwealth USA" belongs to me, and as for my personal Facebook page or my organization's page, that's irrelevant. "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."This is everything to do with the resloution, as I have stated in the beginning "I will be making my arguments that the United States should join the Commonwealth of Nations, but as a Commonwealth realm, meaning the Queen being Head of State." "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."The Queen is apolitical, she does not have to endorse policies of any countries[1], the Monarch is universally popular [2], and it does unify the people[3]. It's the republic that devides the people, while the Monarch unites the people.[4] The Republicans are irrelevant, they are free to move to the any country that is a republic and they will see for themselves that republics are not good. It's bad enough that the Head of Government here in the United States is doing whatever he wants[5], at least with the Queen being Head of State we would not be worried as stability would be high for the Head of State. [1] http://goo.gl... [2] http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl... to name a few. [3] http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl..., to name a few. [4] http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl..., to name a few. [5] http://www.weeklystandard.com..., http://www.realclearpolitics.com...Speaking of Obama, in parliamentary systems around the globe, the head of state is separate from the head of government. In some countries, like Russia and France, the president (as head of state) is more powerful than the prime minister (who is head of government). In others, like Israel, the president serves simply as a symbol of the nation, while the prime minister runs the country. Europe’s constitutional monarchies limit their heads of royal houses to symbolic functions, while reserving that role to one family. Having a national, unifying position ostensibly standing outside the daily muck of politics provides a rallying point for all citizens and a safety valve to redirecting national passions in a non-partisan way. Such symbols, whether in a democracy, monarchy, or authoritarian state, must serve a purpose above politics, both at home and abroad. Yet that is impossible for a U.S. president who is head of his own government, putative head of his political party and invariably a competitive, partisan politician… We have no such safety valve in the United States. Our experiment in self-government has progressed to the point where the differences in our increasingly complex country are now the salient feature of public life. They are certainly not as fundamental as the questions of slavery or civil rights, but they are deep and growing deeper nonetheless. The role and size of government, individual rights to privacy, immigration, the definition of marriage and the like are all driving polarisation, not just in Washington, but in Peoria and Albuquerque and Manchester. The result is a country that is becoming shriller, more willing to demonise opponents and less united. This deep corrosion of political life is directly responsible for Americans’ growing sense of alienation… Politicians are despised as a class, with congressional approval at an astonishingly low 6 percent, according to a year-end Economist/YouGov poll. Not the courts: The Supreme Court is now viewed unfavourably by nearly half the country, being seen as increasingly partisan after its controversial 2000 election ruling and 2012 Obamacare decision. Not religion: It’s increasingly a private affair, and has become a source of growing contention between believers and often-secular elites. Only American popular culture substitutes for a sense of community, with sports and film stars looked up to as exemplars despite their often lurid and sensational antics and unreachable wealth. It is our belief that to create a true sense of trust between the governed and the government, our nation’s leader must be above the politics of the day, beholden to no special interest group, and free to do what must be done for the good of all Americans, not just the party he or she leads. "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."First of all, I made arguments, I wouldn't call them them brief. And as for your two logical flaws, it does not matter as I have proved that constitutional monarchies rank higher than republics, and that's a fact. You are free to dispute my argument of showing how constitutional monarchies rank higher than republics, if you wish. And it does show how a "broad trend" would improve a specific case.... I have not undermined my own case, I showed how joining the Commonwealth of Nations as a republic would work, yet proved that becoming a Commonwealth realm is much better. As for your last statement, I agree with you: The resolution has been successfully stated and planned, Con has not disputed most of my arguments so as Con agrees, I urge a Pro vote as well. http://goo.gl...