The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Hello everyone, a few of you may remember a while back that I entered in to a debating tournament representing my school. Well me and my partner were victorous and now round two is just a couple of weeks away and I have to prepare! The motion this time is...
This house would disband the Monarchy.
My team is proposing this motion so basically we want to tell those wasters down there in England to get off their throwns and leave. I have written just under a page of sort of note arguments if you will. I just sat down and typed points that I thought I could maybe use but in no particular order and with no research lol. I do think I have a few good points to make though and I'd like it if some of you could have a read and maybe suggest improvements and other points aswell? Thank you for your time guys and gals :D
----------Monarcy Debating Work---------------
The Monarchy itself is not a family built on tradition, as the opposition would have us believe. Maybe at one point hundreds of years ago but now the monarchy is nothing more than a racist and classist way of appointing an entire family to a status that allows them all to live a life of luxury at our expense. Having a monarchy simply means that by blood there will always be a White Anglo-Saxon King or Queen of high class and status in society. Anyone can run for Prime Minister if they so desire whether they are black or white or from a variety of social and ethical groups. The monarchy on the other hand denies their status to all ethnic groups of society. Surely the opposition cannot condone such an obviously racist part of our society. What is this tradition you speak off?
If tradition means so much now then why did it not mean anything when the monarchy changed their names? Just so as not to be associated with the Germans. Already they have changed their identities but kept the money for themselves. Tradition is nothing more than a memory to them. Even events such as the Trooping Of The Colours are not even held on the actual birthday of the Queen. That’s not tradition, that’s an excuse to gain tourism, and who says we can’t have that same parade every year without relating it to the Monarchy? As I’m sure many of you would agree we don’t need much of an excuse to throw a party.
At one point the smartest men in the world would argue that woman would never gain enfranchisement but that passed, at one point it was believe that women could not go to university, become doctors or lawyers but all of these things in our society have changed. Are the opposition really saying that they are so arrogant as to completely deny the obvious fact that there have been and will be major changes in our society. The passing of the monarchy is inevitable only the opposition is too blind to see it.
What use is the monarchy in affairs regarding the general running of GB? To my knowledge despite the fact that the Queen has met weekly with a vast variety of prime ministers who have come and gone over the years she is simply told what is happening and told what to say. The monarchy may look nice on a stamp but where’s the power they used to have? I can imagine her meeting with Tony Blair now…
Tony – “Lovely cup of Tea your highness, oh did I tell you we are invading Iran this week? It’s been in all the tabloids. Maybe you read about it?”
Their power is gone and they should leave too.
I have never seen a poorer excuse for a family in my life! To those of you that say the Monarchy represent Britain we the proposition would argue that anything they really haven’t been giving us some good press lately or well…ever to my knowledge. When I say the phrase “Dysfunctional family” I’m sure many of you would think of a family such as the Osbournes. Another exceedingly wealthy family who have been thrust into the public eye. However it occurs to me that although they are dysfunctional at least they come across as actually loving and caring about each other. Can you imagine Christmas day with the Monarchy!? Some family members are excluded while their children get an invite? It’s clear that the monarchy can’t stand each other so why should we tolerate them? The answer is we shouldn’t.
-----------
Comments? :D
This house would disband the Monarchy.
My team is proposing this motion so basically we want to tell those wasters down there in England to get off their throwns and leave. I have written just under a page of sort of note arguments if you will. I just sat down and typed points that I thought I could maybe use but in no particular order and with no research lol. I do think I have a few good points to make though and I'd like it if some of you could have a read and maybe suggest improvements and other points aswell? Thank you for your time guys and gals :D
----------Monarcy Debating Work---------------
The Monarchy itself is not a family built on tradition, as the opposition would have us believe. Maybe at one point hundreds of years ago but now the monarchy is nothing more than a racist and classist way of appointing an entire family to a status that allows them all to live a life of luxury at our expense. Having a monarchy simply means that by blood there will always be a White Anglo-Saxon King or Queen of high class and status in society. Anyone can run for Prime Minister if they so desire whether they are black or white or from a variety of social and ethical groups. The monarchy on the other hand denies their status to all ethnic groups of society. Surely the opposition cannot condone such an obviously racist part of our society. What is this tradition you speak off?
If tradition means so much now then why did it not mean anything when the monarchy changed their names? Just so as not to be associated with the Germans. Already they have changed their identities but kept the money for themselves. Tradition is nothing more than a memory to them. Even events such as the Trooping Of The Colours are not even held on the actual birthday of the Queen. That’s not tradition, that’s an excuse to gain tourism, and who says we can’t have that same parade every year without relating it to the Monarchy? As I’m sure many of you would agree we don’t need much of an excuse to throw a party.
At one point the smartest men in the world would argue that woman would never gain enfranchisement but that passed, at one point it was believe that women could not go to university, become doctors or lawyers but all of these things in our society have changed. Are the opposition really saying that they are so arrogant as to completely deny the obvious fact that there have been and will be major changes in our society. The passing of the monarchy is inevitable only the opposition is too blind to see it.
What use is the monarchy in affairs regarding the general running of GB? To my knowledge despite the fact that the Queen has met weekly with a vast variety of prime ministers who have come and gone over the years she is simply told what is happening and told what to say. The monarchy may look nice on a stamp but where’s the power they used to have? I can imagine her meeting with Tony Blair now…
Tony – “Lovely cup of Tea your highness, oh did I tell you we are invading Iran this week? It’s been in all the tabloids. Maybe you read about it?”
Their power is gone and they should leave too.
I have never seen a poorer excuse for a family in my life! To those of you that say the Monarchy represent Britain we the proposition would argue that anything they really haven’t been giving us some good press lately or well…ever to my knowledge. When I say the phrase “Dysfunctional family” I’m sure many of you would think of a family such as the Osbournes. Another exceedingly wealthy family who have been thrust into the public eye. However it occurs to me that although they are dysfunctional at least they come across as actually loving and caring about each other. Can you imagine Christmas day with the Monarchy!? Some family members are excluded while their children get an invite? It’s clear that the monarchy can’t stand each other so why should we tolerate them? The answer is we shouldn’t.
-----------
Comments? :D
Page:
*laughed
I would be shocked and disgusted if people lacked at your misfortune. They really should put a sign on those electric tin openers.
And it wouldn't be a ritual mockery of my lost testicles if it was actually a funny comment.
No it wouldn't, and it wouldn't be a reply to one of Blank's posts without the ritual mockery of your lost testicles.
Incorrect use of the word "evolve" there, really.
But hey, it wouldn't be a Cubist thread without an insult from Blank, now, would it?
But hey, it wouldn't be a Cubist thread without an insult from Blank, now, would it?
Blank wrote:
> My advice would be to get out now, before you come up against someone
> who can tie their own shoelaces.
Why not? Maybe I could get them to help you evolve from velcro?
> My advice would be to get out now, before you come up against someone
> who can tie their own shoelaces.
Why not? Maybe I could get them to help you evolve from velcro?
I highly doubt most of the tourists come here to see the royal family. I believe saying they increase tourism is a weak arguement. Firstly hardly any tourist would get to see the Queen in person, it would save British tax payer money (though the monarchy is relatively cheap in comparison to defence or the NHS) and finally the majority of things to see are stately homes and castles; with the royals gone we could open up all the ones they used to live in like Buckingham Palace. Thus, if we got rid of the royal family it would surely increase revenues by creating more tourist attractions and save tax payers money.
Thats my two cents. Use it if you wish.
Thats my two cents. Use it if you wish.
My advice would be to get out now, before you come up against someone who can tie their own shoelaces.
Some more facts:
1. Apparently Jesus proclaimed "do not worship we in a church as the buildings contain me" (see 'Stigmata'). The church would naturally deny the existence of this fifth gospel, and so the entire church is meaningless.
2. Secondly, the church is led by men as corrupt as any of the rest of us.
1. Apparently Jesus proclaimed "do not worship we in a church as the buildings contain me" (see 'Stigmata'). The church would naturally deny the existence of this fifth gospel, and so the entire church is meaningless.
2. Secondly, the church is led by men as corrupt as any of the rest of us.
A couple of angles you could take when defining the motion (you are first prop, right? Or is there only one prop?):
1. They aren't the real royal family, and should be replaced with the rightful heirs to the throne.
There was a program about it a while ago, and there's a thread in this forum linking to an article about it - Edward 2 or someone was illigitimate, meaning the 'rules' of passing of royal title make somebody else king now.
This'd be an interesting angle - you'd basically be taking a very pro-monarchy line, to the extent that you'd be arguing monarchs have a birthright to the throne, which is valid despite centuries of someone else wearing the crown.
Then the opposition would have to change their arguments completely, to argue that the queen isn't really there by any 'right', but somehow that she should stay there anyway.
A fun way to turn the whole debate on its head.
2. Stop the monarchy before Charles can get to the throne.
He's allegedly bisexual, allegedly had sexual relations with a butler, looking at camilla he must be a bestialist ( :^D ), and allegedly (by dianna) killed di by arranging her car crash.
Sounds like reason to argue disbanding the monarchy, and an.. unusual debate.
Or you could do it normally.
Some other thoughts on pro & anti monarchy arguments
PRO:
They bring in money from tourism, effectively paying for themselves
They're a good figurehead for the nation, people to look up to, blah blah
They don't do any harm as such, they don't hold any real power
ANTI:
The monarch is supposedly ordained by god. Their whole basis is thus rooted in christianity. In a multi-faith society it's an outrage for religion and state to be so closely related.
The elitest nature of it is bad
They're kind of pointless
They're expensive (if you ignore/refute the tourism argument)
Good luck
1. They aren't the real royal family, and should be replaced with the rightful heirs to the throne.
There was a program about it a while ago, and there's a thread in this forum linking to an article about it - Edward 2 or someone was illigitimate, meaning the 'rules' of passing of royal title make somebody else king now.
This'd be an interesting angle - you'd basically be taking a very pro-monarchy line, to the extent that you'd be arguing monarchs have a birthright to the throne, which is valid despite centuries of someone else wearing the crown.
Then the opposition would have to change their arguments completely, to argue that the queen isn't really there by any 'right', but somehow that she should stay there anyway.
A fun way to turn the whole debate on its head.
2. Stop the monarchy before Charles can get to the throne.
He's allegedly bisexual, allegedly had sexual relations with a butler, looking at camilla he must be a bestialist ( :^D ), and allegedly (by dianna) killed di by arranging her car crash.
Sounds like reason to argue disbanding the monarchy, and an.. unusual debate.
Or you could do it normally.
Some other thoughts on pro & anti monarchy arguments
PRO:
They bring in money from tourism, effectively paying for themselves
They're a good figurehead for the nation, people to look up to, blah blah
They don't do any harm as such, they don't hold any real power
ANTI:
The monarch is supposedly ordained by god. Their whole basis is thus rooted in christianity. In a multi-faith society it's an outrage for religion and state to be so closely related.
The elitest nature of it is bad
They're kind of pointless
They're expensive (if you ignore/refute the tourism argument)
Good luck
Page: