Debate Tournament:Saucerat v LeenBakkema:Monarchy

Here we go!First round of the new ATS Debate Tournament.


Each debator will have one opening statement each.This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each.There will be one closing statement each and no rebutal.
No post will be longer than 800 words and in the case of the closing statement no longer than 500 words.In the event of a debator posting more than the stated word limit then the excess words will be deleted by me from the bottom.Credits or references at the bottom count as part of the post.

Editing is Strictly forbidden.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements only 1 image or link may be included in any post.Opening and Closing statement must not carry either images or links.

The Debate topic is:There is no place for a monarch to be head of state in the 21st century.

Saucerat will argue for this proposition and he will open the Debate.
LeenBekkema will respond and argue against this proposition.

As a guide responses should be made within 18 hours.However if the debate is moving forward then I have a relaxed attitude to this.

Defaulters will not be excepted in the next Tournament.The winner will receive 1000 ATS points the loser(on condition of completion)will receive 500 ATS points.This on top of generous points allocation for Debate forum posts.

This Topic will be opened on Sunday Nov 23rd Evening GMT and the debate may start.

The debate will be judged by 7 independent and anonymous judges who will consider the quality of debate and not be swayed by personal sympathy for either argument.
Winning the debate and winning the argument are two different things.

I wish you both goodluck.

LeenBakkema, I wish you the best of luck and look forward to a wonderful debate. I also would like to make note that what I say only reflects my position in the debate and that I bear no personal animosity towards you.

In my position, I stand firm in the belief that a monarch should not be a head of state in the 21st century. There are numerous reasons why a system of government such as the monarchy should not be allowed in our times.

A monarchy is a system of government where supremacy is handed to a single person whose right to rule is generally hereditary and is usually empowered to remain in power for life. History has proven that leaders given totalitarian powers abuse their inherited governance and use it in oppression of their own people. History has also shown that people governed under a monarch have generally rejected their supreme ruler and have rebelled or overthrown their leader. In troubled and tense times like today, countries cannot afford to lose their head of state like that.

A discriminating trait that distinguishes monarchies from other systems of government is that the monarch always inherits power. The opinion of the people doesn�t count since they don�t get a say if they like their non-elected leader. There is no way to remove the monarch, except by use of force and violence, which will cause an excessive number of lost lives and chaos within the country. In fact, a British law makes it a serious offence to publish an article advocating the abolition of the monarchy. The monarch may have little or none political experience, weakening the country�s political status and reputation (which is what the monarch is supposed to represent). Can you imagine how stable the world can be if every head of state is put in power in a way which the people have no say in their own government?

In a few cases, a hereditary monarchy exists, but the real power resides in the military. Given the enormous response when the idea of having the military run the country comes up, do you truly think that peace and order will be maintained if a police state is the government?

WWI killed off most or the remaining monarchies in Europe. The royal families of Austria, Germany, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire have been stripped of their titles or deprived or their lives. Now, losing the head of state during peacetime is bad enough, but losing the leader in a war is a completely different problem. Once the head dies, so does the body. Needless to say, without a selected leader, chaos and hell will engulf a country during war. Germany is a particular example to this, as nearly it�s entire military was destroyed, millions dead, the monarch gone, economy in shambles, and was subjected to the conditions off the Treaty of Versailles. In the 21st century, can a country really afford to risk plunging into a state like this just because it wasn�t properly governed? In the age where a volley of nuclear weapons can be launched at a minutes notice, where a wrong move on the political chessboard can mean checkmate, where people are afraid to fly on airplanes within their own country, does a leader with inherited power really deserve it�s place?

Thanks man, I don�t feel animosity towards you neither. Goodluck to you too and like the forum itself already says �it is no Project Mayhem�. I however have to disagree with you about the idea to forbid monarchies.

You give some good reasons why a monarch shouldn�t be head of state in the 21st century, let�s make a summary:
* 1. History has proven that leaders given totalitarian powers abuse their inherited governance and use it in oppression of their own people.
* 2. History has also shown that people governed under a monarch have generally rejected their supreme ruler and have rebelled or overthrown their leader.
* 3. The opinion of the people doesn�t count since they don�t get a say if they like their non-elected leader.
* 4. The monarch may have little or none political experience, weakening the country�s political status and reputation (which is what the monarch is supposed to represent).
* 5. The argument that a monarch could make a country in a disastrous state.

First of all it is very important to know what the powers and tasks are of a generally accepted monarch:

* He or she accredits his or her country�s ambassadors.
* He or she receives Letters of Credence, sent by other heads of state accrediting his/her ambassador to the state.
* He or she signs international treaties on behalf of the state, or has them signed in his/her name by ministers.
* He or she appoints all the key officials in the state.
* He or she appoints all the key officials in the state.
* He or she may dismiss office-holders.
* In the vast majority of states, whether republics or monarchies, executive authority (i.e. the source of governmental power) is vested in the head of state.
* A head of state is often empowered to summon and dissolve parliaments.
* Most states require that all Bills passed by parliament are signed into law by the Head of State
* Veto a Bill.
* Reserve the Bill to be signed later.
* Send the Bill to the courts to test its constitutionality.
* Put the Bill to the people in a referendum.

In Presidential systems or in absolute monarchies, a head of state is normally not merely head of state but the active chief executive officer of the government. The principal example of this is the United States.

Symbolic role
* one of the most important roles of the modern head of state is being a symbolic national symbol of the nation.

Are we going to look at the translation of the dictionary
Monarchy (plural: -chies)
1. A form of government in which supreme authority is vested in a single and usually hereditary figure, such as a king, and whose powers can vary from those of an absolute despot to those of a figurehead
2. A country reigned over by a king, prince, or other monarch

After this information let�s take a look again at the arguments:
* 2. This argument becomes invalid because the monarch as described above and the tasks which he has isn�t rejected generally, just the so-called monarchies which are drained with despotism, of which we all know which countries that are. These are however different kinds of monarchs then described above because there is a big difference between the powers of monarchs as you are describe them, and the monarchs which should stay head of state, and are generally accepted. As you have read a monarch is not always merely the head of state, but sometimes also the active chief executive officer of the government, but only in Presidential systems or in absolute monarchies .

Are we going to look at the other arguments, then we have to say that also the arguments number 2. and 5. apply to the Presidential or absolute monarchies, not the monarchy which everybody wants to have. These kind of monarchies however don�t resemble the monarchies in general ,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
or do you have the feeling that the monarch of Germany during the World War 2 is applicable to all the monarchs, or are these just exceptions, exceptions in which the country itself didn�t follow the normal line of the tasks and powers which a monarch should have?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These kind of monarchies shouldn�t exists in the 21st century, I agree with you on that one, but they aren�t the monarchies which are generally applied , and the other monarchies do function very well because of the limited powers which the monarch has, and also because it should represent the country itself, symbolically, in a positive manner.

The real question at hand is which kind of monarchies (and the monarch which goes with the kind of monarchy) should be allowed, not if the monarchy itself should be allowed in the 21st century, because the monarch itself as described above with its powers, the symbolisation of the country itself is the monarch as it is supposed to be, and as the people of the country also want the monarchy to be.

The presidential systems and the absolute monarchies (which is also the active chief executive officer of the government) should be decreased in their powers, the majority of the monarchies however are satisfying to the people needs, that�s also the reason why they are still here in the 21st century, not because they should be forbidden.

I really really regret to say this but...

Forfeit.

LeenBekkemaa, I'm terribly sorry. Schoolwork and other stuff have swamped me over my head. I'm afraid I can't continue on.

Congrats, and I wish you the best of luck in the second round.

Too bad, it would have been a nice debate, and it also was. Well, perhaps we meet again in the future.

Saucerat forfeits.

Leen wins and goes through.