Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: Yes.

I had to do this twice as my first didn't show on the board for some reason. "You cannot, sir, do both."And just why not? "Does she need to be? "In my opinion yes. The only fair hell is one the people have chosen. "it stands before the palace of Westminster and bears the inscription "Oliver Cromwell 1599 - 1658""Lifelong power simply for being born? "Her authority is to approve a war that has been proposed by parliament."But would she act as commander and chief during the war or would her jurisdiction over military be handed over to a generals council? "To stand, sir, is not a noble objective for one born with two functioning legs"Nice one. Im using that next time I can. "So I am to understand that your position is a moral one rather than a technical one?"Depends if you view my stance as rights as a means of ensuring fair government that way. That is not the way I see it. "I cannot see any way that it might be otherwise, as you have no actual suggestion. "My suggestion is that the people need to design a system in which they hold elections that don't last for life n order to ensure the wants and opinions of following generations are honored and offered a chance. "offence against democracy? "Democracy has not existed since the greeks. It is an offense to the people. "By definition, there can be no rights in an entirely free, libertarian world"Depends on how you define free. Freedom as a whole is interpretative. Freedom dictated by basic rights is less so. "There is no system of government that does not bear the marks of oppression. None whatever and I defy you, sir, to produce one."I agree. Doesn't mean we can't strive towards it. "Should we tear down democracy because the Roman republic utilised a consular system?"Considering no true democratic state exists, no. "How can one base his beliefs on the rights of man without recognizing a moral imperative to provide them?"Such rights can be established on the grounds of knowledge of what happens when such rights aren't provided. Morality is an extreme variability. If such a term absolutely must be used to satisfy you, fine. I see it as wrong that a symbol of oppression is revered and honored as it is."label rights as the utmost authority. "Okay? I see rights as the most important aspect of society that must be held over all other authority and must be protected by the executive branch in order for such rights not to be twisted and abused. "But where do rights come from, sir? "The people, who more then often base them on rights not provided by previous authority."Who provides and protects them?"It is the people who chose the rights. It should be the duty of the executive branch to defend threats to those right both foreign and domestic. The power of the executive branch should not be connected to the people's choosing of rights save for a simple vote of the individual, which is where I disagree with the US system in which one man has the right to intrude on voted rights and laws and make decisions not agreed upon by the people. "In a truly libertarian society, is it not the strong who prosper and the weak, those who need rights, who suffer and perish?"All have equal rights, but yes, in an ideal libertarian world, the weak would perish. I am a believer in the survival of the fittest. "Your only objection to the English monarchy seems to be that cannot be reconciled with your beliefs, and must therefore be deracinated. "I see the sustainment of the royal family to glorify an oppressive system without any irreplaceable vital importance to justify keeping it. "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!"Purely democratic states would lack an executive branch capable of defending rights, so I am not for a purely democratic state.