Is Monarchy better than republic, constitutional or otherwise.

My opponent makes a number of weak points to substantiate the claim that a Monarchy would be superior to a republic. I would argue that a Republic system would be superior to a Monarchical one. By Monarchy I am assuming my opponent is referring to an absolute monarchy similar in nature to that of Renaissance France. By Republic I am referring to a system where regular elections using universal suffrage are used to elect a government. Firstly they make the claim that a Monarchy is a more stable form of government, this assertion lacks any evidence or reason. A Monarchical form of government is subject to the Monarch's health, sanity, education, motivation, initiative etc and therefore can be far less stable than a democratic system. Assuming a Monarch has all of these there is the issue of succession, how would the heir to the throne be decided? If the throne lacked an heir who would take over? This highlights another problem with the argument that a Monarchy is more stable, which is that even if the current Monarch is fine there is no guarantee that the next one will be so. While in a Republican system there are a number of ways of choosing a potential successor in the case of the head of state dying, examples being, new elections , the party with a parliamentary majority electing a new Prime Minister/President etc. etc. Because the successor is subject to scrutiny by the public, or a body of people elected by the public, they are unlikely to have any serious health/motivational issues. My opponent's second point is that corruption is less likely as the Monarch has been brought up with a certain set of values. This argument is also full of holes as even if there is a Monarchy there needs to be certain institutions to maintain public order and these institutions are still susceptible to corruption. The argument that because a Monarch has been brought up with a set of values and is therefore incorruptible is naive at best because even if a monarch has certain values this does not necessarily mean that they will follow them. A system in which government is transparent, owes its power to the people and is subject to the law would be far superior because in a transparent scrutinized system corruption is likely to be minimal and if present rooted out, the party which is guilty of corruption would become subject to the judiciary and an election to re-fill the post of the guilty would follow suit. My opponents third point is that because of minimal bureaucracy decisions can be made much faster. Firstly I would point out that if a Head of State was elected every five years in a free and fair election there is no reason why they could not make decisions as fast as monarch could, as long as those decisions are made according to previously defined law and not in conflict with the nations constitution. Furthermore, it is far more beneficial that serious problems are dealt with after a debate/review of the facts present rather than making a snap decision based on instinct, which is far more likely to happen when the people making that decisions are not accountable to the people for doing so. To conclude, none of the points made were convincing in arguing the point that a Monarchy would be preferential to a Republic. Republics which are highly scrutinized and accountable are preferential to a Monarchy in nearly every way.