British Monarchy: The United States should have the Queen as Head of State

I would like to start my closing round by noting that my opponent has broken multiple of her own rules. 1."You must agree that this will be a fair debate, using unfair advantages is not allowed.","No cheating." -My opponent is using the comments section to try and persuade readers to take her side, this also allows her more time to speak. This is not only disrespectful; but is unfair and in fact "cheating". Therefore I urge the voters to hold her accountable for breaking her own rules. Rebuttals 1."No, not every role the Queen holds is convered by the President or Congress. The Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (also Queen of Canada, Queen of Australia, Queen of New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis) The Queen's mail role is to: "Perform the ceremonial and official duties of Head of State, including representing Britain to the rest of the world; Provide a focus for national identity and unity; Provide stability and continuity in times of change; Recognise achievement and excellence; Encourage public and voluntary service." [1] Who said we are wanting to replace the President? The Queen would simply be Head of State and the President would be Head of Government, but equivalent to a Prime Minster..... You said it yourself though, "No one in the US is above politics" and that's the problem. I have already proven that the two party system is corrupted and not working, the political parties no longer has the United States's interests and the American people are getting sick of politics, which I have already addressed and you seem to have dropped my points on that. "The reason we have term limits is to prevent the abuse of power." "There have traditionally not been any term limits in the United States Congress"[2] " -Most if not everything in this paragraph is either plain wrong or biased. My opponent clearly has a very poor or non existent knowledge of American Government and how it works. Take this quote for example about the Queen's duties,"Perform the ceremonial and official duties of Head of State, including representing Britain to the rest of the world". - In American Government the Head of state and the Presidency are the same thing. The President is the leader of the nation both symbolically and logistically. The Queen may be able to be the head of state in a Constitutional Monarchy but as I have repetitively said WE ARE NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY. Putting the Queen as the head of state would BE PUTTING THE QUEEN AS THE PRESIDENT AND LEADER OF THE UNITED STATES. You can not separate something that can't be separated. This is where my opponents clear bias shows. She claims that there would be no civil war, well the technical definition of a civil war is an attempt to overthrow the government. Which in order to put the queen ( OF A FOREIGN NATION) as the head of state you would have to change the entire government as well as our constitution. You minus well just invade the US. She claims that the economy would be untouched. Every single war known to man has hurt the economy. She also claims that other nations do not depend on the US. She clearly does not understand economics and clearly ignores the fact that not only are we the largest and most powerful economy on the planet, but we also control the FEDERAL RESERVE. She continuously claims that the US government no longer works but has provided no evidence as to how nor how to fix it. I will provide a clear example of her ignorance below. "The United States does not have checks and balances, look at its Government Shutdown". -The government shutdown was a direct result of checks and balances, otherwise the Obama Administration would've just done what it wanted anyways. No the US government isn't at its prime but this isn't the first time nor the last. We may be losing our spot as the undisputed superpower but we are still at the moment the top one and will remain a superpower for a long time. "Constitutional Convention (per Article V of the United States Constitution). Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution may be altered. Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments and subsequent ratification". - Yes we can alter the constitution but practically the entire nation and government would have to agree to do it. Especially with the type of amendment you are proposing we would practically have to rewrite it. Good luck. -As far as the misconceptions about my opponents data; She uses Canada as an example. Canada is one country and on what earth is it superior to America in any way? We have a bigger economy, a bigger country (Most of Canada is unsettled), and a higher population. I would know this because i've driven through a large part of Canada. Plus anyone can look it up. Most of Americas debt is to ourselves not other nations. It is a headache of a situation but that is irrelevant as we control the federal reserve, Canada does not. I have shown statistical up to date evidence that America is well above the averages of Constitutional Monarchies my opponent so conveniently provided. So my opponents claim that Constitutional Monarchies are richer and healthier is misleading and in most cases downright false. -The only possible truth my opponent has said is a Constitutional Monarchy is more Democratic. That may be true but it doesn't prove that it would be better for America and that we should adopt a monarchy. - My opponents lack of knowledge of American government and attempt at cherry picking the constitution is a direct insult to America and what she stands for. My opponent wrote the title of this debate as "British Monarchy: The United States should have the Queen as Head of State", but she continuously ignores what that statement truly means and the process it would take in the real world to make that happen. She provides stats from polls that have nothing to do about running a country but of peoples opinions and uses it as evidence to why America should let an institution of the British government run our country. Not only is this not proof but it is absurd. They are opinions, Americans have an opinion about everything trust me. - I also would like to note that most if not all Constitutional Monarchies were once or still is a territory of the British Empire. We have not had any affiliation with the British Empire for over two centuries. Not to mention we have fought two wars against them. The Revolutionary war and the War of 1812. So to let an icon of the British government take the top executive office of our country is not only an insult to what it means to be an American but it is illogical. How is the queen of Britain an icon of America and a symbol of unity? Everything in our culture and history states the exact opposite. -My opponents stats are vague and misleading, I have effectively debunked her evidence. -My opponent has stated many times that because she thinks it would be cool and Obama isn't very popular (no really?) that we should adopt another nations leader to run our country which is absurd. - My opponent clearly does not grasp how the American Government works and the Constitution as well as Global Economics and International political structure. - My opponent has failed to uphold the BOP to "British Monarchy: "The United States should have the Queen as Head of State" besides the fact that she thinks it is cool. In the name of logic and evidence I urge everyone to vote Con. Since my opponent has successfully insulted me and every other American I will simply say move to the UK and DON'T TREAD ON ME.