Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: No, God save the Queen.

So in other words, she does nothing important in terms of economy and state security? Sounds vital.You can either lament the power of an unelected individual, or deride a ceremonial position for its insipidity. You cannot, sir, do both.Was she elected to that position?Does she need to be? I am not a democrat, sir, so your argument shall have to constitute a little more than a moral plea.Is there a statue of limitationAye, sir, it stands before the palace of Westminster and bears the inscription "Oliver Cromwell 1599 - 1658". In the case of war would she be commander and chief?Her authority is to approve a war that has been proposed by parliament. My sentence still stands.To stand, sir, is not a noble objective for one born with two functioning legs.The executive powers? That is for a legislative body to construct.So I am to understand that your position is a moral one rather than a technical one? I cannot see any way that it might be otherwise, as you have no actual suggestion. Why then do you take issue with and inquire so extensively after her actual role? And should you not actually know what that role is before declaring it an abhorrence and an offence against democracy? So they get paid for owning big houses and looking royal?You touch it with a needle. ؟ I believe in that rights are the most important aspect of society. By definition, there can be no rights in an entirely free, libertarian world. The royal family is a tribute to a system that has oppressed countless people in history.There is no system of government that does not bear the marks of oppression. None whatever and I defy you, sir, to produce one.A tradition honoring an oppressive system.Should we tear down democracy because the Roman republic utilised a consular system? One imagines the Gauls of yore would think so.What I perceive as moral has very little impact on my views.You clearly have very little understanding of what is meant by the word "moral", sir. How can one base his beliefs on the rights of man without recognising a moral imperative to provide them? And if you see the belief in rights as the highest authority as malcontent fine, that is not the way I see it.As previously perceived, so you do continue. Your moral indignation at any form of subservience to any authority that you did not contrive, or even conceive, has led you to arbitrarily label rights as the utmost authority. But where do rights come from, sir? Who provides and protects them? In a truly libertarian society, is it not the strong who prosper and the weak, those who need rights, who suffer and perish? Incidentally that is quite close to my ideal philosophy, but that is not the subject of this debate.Your only objection to the English monarchy seems to be that cannot be reconciled with your beliefs, and must therefore be deracinated. Yet you provide no clear motive for thinking so, nor do you see fit to present any rationale for their removal.Purely democratic institutions are doomed to disintegrate into either tyranny or barbarism , and I do not hold your intellect in such high esteem as would compel me to dissent from the learned opinion of Lord Macaulay!