CreateDebate


Debate Info

28
28
Yes No
Debate Score:56
Arguments:33
Total Votes:70
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (17)
 
 No (14)

Debate Creator

Micmacmoc(2259) pic



Is the Royal Family a Good Thing?

The monarchy has been around a great many years and have done a lot of things such as change us to a prodestant country and increase our position in the world due to the respect gained by our Queen and other monarchs such as the newly wed William and Kate (their wedding watched by over two billion people across the world). But are all the things they do good? Is being singled out by birth to represent your country fair? And is it discrimination against females that means the heir to the throne is passed along via males?

 

After reading the above, is having a Royal Family a good thing?

Yes

Side Score: 28
VS.

No

Side Score: 28
3 points

It's just the lottery of birth and the Royal family just got the jackpot. The only reason people could dislike the royal family is because they're jealous that they didn't get as good a prize.

The Monarchy is one of Britains main tourist attraction and brings us millions, they are also trained for their position from birth (whether they like it or not) so that they perform their role in diplomacy to the best it could be.

Side: yes
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
2 points

Really? I don't recall the royal family acting as diplomats in any capacity in any country ever. You do know that the UK does have diplomats, appointed I'm guessing by the Prime Minister (though it could be parliment there) and that is an official job title right? Where and when did anyone from the royal family fill that role?

Also, the royal family costs more than they bring in if they only bring in millions in tourism.

It's not a jealousy thing, its an insane waste of time and money thing.

Side: No
Axmeister(4320) Disputed
2 points

"Really? I don't recall the royal family acting as diplomats in any capacity in any country ever. "

If the queen walked up to the leader of China and called him an ass face do you think a war could be triggered? and that's because the Royal Family represent Britain as a whole and have been tutored to represent our nation since they were born.

"You do know that the UK does have diplomats, appointed I'm guessing by the Prime Minister (though it could be parliment there) and that is an official job title right?"

I didn't say they were diplomats as an official title I said they were trained in diplomacy. Just because someone can make a chair doesn't mean they work as a carpenter.

"Where and when did anyone from the royal family fill that role?"

When they visit other countries to show Britains friendship with them.

"Also, the royal family costs more than they bring in if they only bring in millions in tourism.It's not a jealousy thing, its an insane waste of time and money thing."

When I said the millions brought in for tourism I was talking about the 1 day when the Royal wedding happened.

Side: yes
Micmacmoc(2259) Disputed
1 point

You say that 'they perform their role in diplomacy to the best it could be'. But is that good enough? Would it not be better to just have a prime minister, who has to earn his way into control of the country due to his intelligence instead of someone who is born into it? If they are born into it they could be anyone despite their intelligence, however if there is a prime minister who has to earn his way up then the chances of lack of intelligence are zero.

Considering it as a prize is different to how it might be if something happens wrong.

Side: No
Axmeister(4320) Disputed
3 points

"You say that 'they perform their role in diplomacy to the best it could be'. But is that good enough? Would it not be better to just have a prime minister, who has to earn his way into control of the country due to his intelligence instead of someone who is born into it?"

The Prime Minister, someone who wants a job and knows that unless he/she does a good job at it, will probably get removed and therefore try to change the country as much as possible for "the better". the Prime Minister, unlike the Royal Family, only became interested in politics and geography merely to get a powerful job. The Royals have been trained from birth for a job they didn't get a choice for.

"If they are born into it they could be anyone despite their intelligence, however if there is a prime minister who has to earn his way up then the chances of lack of intelligence are zero."

The elected heads of state of other countries can easily be corrupted, you hear about the Italian leader who was involved in a scandal (which the Royal Family aren't allowed to be) , you here of elected presidents causing problems in the Middle East and parts of Africa and South America, even Asian countries sometimes has a bad leader put into power. The Monarchy never have this problem as their view of things and their opinions were already decided before they're born, (e.g they must be christian).

"Considering it as a prize is different to how it might be if something happens wrong."

What do you mean "wrong" the lottery of birth is a term used to describe the luck involved of the family you get born into. e.g a child is born into a rich family that's considered quite good in the lottery of birth, child is born into Royal Family they just scored the jackpot.

Side: yes
2 points

Its good to have a royal wedding because you need to have proper leaders not ones that change every 4 yrs. And its nice seeing people wearing clothes from the 1800s nowadays.

Side: yes
1 point

I am British and I love the monarchy.It reminds us of our Glorious past and it makes us feel patriotic when they parade around with hundreds of soldiers. However on a more serious note they do not cost us anything, they have held together a stable country for hundreds of years and the damage done to get rid of it would outweigh the 'advantages', although I can't see any, for hundreds of years. I don't care that it is a hereditary post because to be honest I don't want to be King. The advantage of this also is that we have a leader who does not change and is not hated after making a political mistake (i.e. Obama) as they don't have to make any

Side: yes
1 point

Ya, elected heads of state of countries can be so easily corrupted, Britain is 15th most corrupted government not monarchy government.

Side: Yes
1 point

8. “The Royal Family cost billions each year" Price of the royal family = 60 million dollars (35 million British pounds) The UK has a population of 62 million people, so financing the royal family per taxpayer literally cost less than 1 British Pound Sterling per person actually its 0.5 British Pound Sterling per person, so it is entirely manageable to maintain the royal family in Britain. Tourism generates well over 100 million dollars in the UK anyway so the economic footprint the Royal Family has on the UK is entirely manageable. The Royal family does contribute to the economy and does not leave a large economic footprint when it comes down to numbers. The Royal Family costs 35 million a year but Great Britain spends about 700 BILLION pounds a year.... to the royal family wastes only 0.005% of Britain money. Does that not seem reasonable? The monarchy doesn’t come cheap? But how much would a presidency cost instead? Perhaps 3.6 trillion. Because in a year government will waste 3.6 trillion dollars and the British

Side: Yes
3 points

RoyalFamily are stupid, all they do is eat and shit. And they look funny and have bad teeth.

Side: No
Axmeister(4320) Disputed
2 points

ARE YOU SICK OR SOMETHING! I bet you're american and you have no clue what anything is.

Side: yes
2 points

Not much of my business since I'm not British but it does seem a little silly to me to continue this... I think the French did the right thing by getting rid of it altogether. It's not much more than state sponsored celebrities although they do a lot for charity which is nice.

P.S. I look forward to Ax's rebuttal because I know it's coming... LOL

Side: No

Tourism wise they are good for england's economy, in that they do generate a great deal of pounds for the treasury.

But to me they are simply inbreeding insects with horse toothed smiles.

Great for england, for me not so much LOL

Side: No
ultralaser36(3) Clarified
1 point

Actually it is good for you the better England the better for trade for everyone

Side: Yes
Axmeister(4320) Disputed
1 point

"Not much of my business since I'm not British but it does seem a little silly to me to continue this... I think the French did the right thing by getting rid of it altogether."

France did it through a bloodbath and the excecution of random innocents, Russia did it exactly the same way, U.S on the other hand just sat there like a stubborn child and waited for us to get tired out trying to get to their country.

Getting rid of the monarchy hasn't proven easy, and I'm actually glad that so many countries got rid of it, that way Britain gets even more tourists when something big happens with the Royal Family.

"It's not much more than state sponsored celebrities although they do a lot for charity which is nice."

They also fight in the army (though of course they have more protection from fellow soldiers) and promote public buildings (by visiting them).

"P.S. I look forward to Ax's rebuttal because I know it's coming... LOL"

You know, I say this debate and thoguht: "Aha, something to do with the Royal Family, Hellno will be on this" XD

Side: yes
Nautilus(628) Disputed
1 point

rance did it through a bloodbath and the excecution of random innocents,

Are you actually coming out against the French revolution? Coming out against the starving peasants who killed their oppressive rulers who were born into their positions and did nothing to deserve the support of the people?

Side: No
ultralaser36(3) Disputed
1 point

1. The Monarchy in the UK existed more than just to run an empire. The monarchy reminds British people of their roots and where they came from and inspires patriotism among British citizens whether they live in the UK today or in the British Empire in the past. Just because it is old doesn't mean it should be thrown away, should we get rid of the US national anthem because it is old? The Monarchy does serve a purpose, they are very important factors in international politics and international negotiations, they inspire patriotism among British people, and the monarchy is there to lead people through hard times. In "The King's Speech" for example the Monarchy was central into leading the British people into and through the darkness of WWII, without them British people would have been less inspired and hopeful while facing the Nazi's.

Side: Yes

Unless it is charity, the Royal Family doesn't contribute anything to society. For centuries , they used guns to steal from their own citizens, and now, they use the democratic British government as their agent to steal from them, yet the British people still praise them and treat them as gods.

Side: No
Axmeister(4320) Disputed
2 points

"Unless it is charity, the Royal Family doesn't contribute anything to society"

So the millions generated from the public selling Royal memerobilia doesn't count as a contribution? And what about the publicity they give to certain businesses, I've seen many large brands who got to where they are because they could stick "approved by the Queen" on the label and get loads of customers.

"For centuries , they used guns to steal from their own citizens,they use the democratic British government as their agent to steal from them,"

You could say that about any world leader, it's just to prevent revolution. And what do you mean they're stealing from us? It's called tax you fool and you pay it as well, the only difference is that you pay it to some idiot who isn't going to be in the same position in 4 years time. I could equally say : The President of America has used the U.S democratic system to steal from americans.

"yet the British people still praise them and treat them as gods."

You clearly haven't been to Britain or met anyone who's british in real life.

Side: yes
3 points

"approved by the Queen"

Not directly contributing to society. Sticking an approval doesn't constitute anything.

You could say that about any world leader, it's just to prevent revolution.

The Royal Family and Queen Elizabeth are constitutional monarchs, which means they have no government authority, she is merely a figurehead.

The President of America has used the U.S democratic system to steal from americans.

Oh, I wholeheartedly agree.

You clearly haven't been to Britain or met anyone who's british in real life.

I have, a few, but also, from scenes of the wedding, millions lined the streets to show their worship.

Side: No
1 point

The concept of the royal family incredibly stupid, ultra outdated, and down right offensive. They take a yearly stipend from every citizen of the UK so they can live as royalty; traveling the world, living on gigantic estates, having every luxury imaginable afforded to them, not to mention that they are virtually exempt from the law. You know what that means? That means the average UK citizen is a peasant. The existence of the royal family says that citizens of the UK are peasants.

Side: No
1 point

The royal family represents a bygone era, one in which birth came before merit. Today's modern societies are meritocracies. The existence of a royal family undermines this important development in the advancement of civilization. While I am an American and have no king or queen, I can assure you the British monarchs are very famous here. I don't believe any good they do in the name of Britishness over shadows the negative their continued exists supports, that being: birth is more important than merit and some people are more equal than others. Maybe I believe this because I'm American, so perhaps I should be happy they exist, to point out to me another aspect of American exceptional ism. That we need not symbolic figureheads to look up to, but only look to ourselves to find our bests to lead and guide us.

Side: No
0 points

Of course not. It's stupid.

The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.

Side: No
ultralaser36(3) Clarified
1 point

"Of course not. It's stupid." Please elaborate because their is no facts there.

Side: Yes
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
2 points

Being born isn't an accomplishment and in itself ads nothing to society.

Side: Yes