republic is far better than a democracy.

Since my opponent has jumped straight into the debate, I will do so too. Before I begin, I would like to point that the burden of proof is on my opponent. I will debate this from a philosophical point of view. People’s opinion of what is right or wrong change. In the past, people once believed that men were superior to women, that certain races were superior to others. These beliefs - in our age- are considered wrong. Humans are not perfect - our decisions are prone to error. Our laws are set according to our beliefs, which fluctuate and change over time. Thus a law that made sense in the past may not make sense today. Consider Barack Obama’s efforts at reforming the educational system. Because the American Constitution left the decision-making power in the hands of the state, President Obama could not reform our educational system, no matter how badly it needed to change. The link below gives you an list of problems with the American Constitution. http://rationalwiki.org... While not all of these pointers may be correct, it does point to show that the precedented changes which has marked our era have outpaced our constitution. The laws of the republic cannot foresee what we would need in another century. Another example is the constitution of the Roman Republic. http://en.wikipedia.org... As the source suggests, the fatal weakness in the constitution of the Roman Republic was that “it was the army, and not the senate, which dictated the fortune of the state”. This led to the rise of dictators such as Sulla, Marius, Caesar, and the eventual rise of the Roman empire. If the power was invested in the people and not the law, these transformations would not have happened. Republics may not be stable Between 1792-1958 there were five French republics in succession. The revolts within the Roman republic suggests this as well. America descended into civil war because the constitution guaranteed state rights. These state rights would give the southern states enough power to secede. In seventy years, the Spanish had two republics, the second of which fell when Francisco Franco became dictator. Man is flexible, laws are not Let’s take a look at the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. 10. No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided that their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law… 17. Since property is an inviolable and sacred right, no one shall be deprived thereof except where public necessity, legally determined, shall clearly demand it… There are evidently loopholes in these laws (italicized). Loopholes will most likely be found in any constitution (Men are not perfect). These loopholes would allow people with power to gain strength over the Republic. This would not happen if it were a democracy. Con points out that the immoral majority would dictate to the rest of the people In that case the “immoral majority” will be the ones moral and the “moral minority” will be the ones immoral. For instance, religious intolerance and imperialism (which was a necessary process in spreading the “true” religion) were considered “moral” in few centuries past, and today they are considered “immoral” by the majority of the people. Con points out that democracy will inevitably descend into mob rule The majority of today’s democracies are in fact republic. America and Greece, which seem to be most prone to fall into mob rule, are in fact republics. My opponent will probably debate this from a theological point of view, so I will to (even though i dislike doing so). My opponent would probably like to establish that the words of God are perfect and should be strictly adhered to, thus creating a perfect “republic”. Firstly, I would like to establish that while the ten commandments are fairly straightforward and universally acceptable, they are not enough to govern today’s society. The ones that may be arguably related to law are listed below. “Honor your father and your mother…” “You shall not murder. “You shall not commit adultery. “You shall not steal. “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.” “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” You can see that many things are not covered. An example would be copyright infringement. I doubt anti-plagiarism laws were needed 2000 years ago. Similarly, gun laws did not exist back then. In the end, man must create laws for himself, which leads to problems I established previously. Another problem is that while God’s words may be true, man may misinterpret God’s words. Christians felt compelled to venture out on crusades. The Church threatened Galileo when he declared that the Earth revolved around the sun. The final and most obvious problem is that in a culturally diverse global village (especially in a multi-ethnic society like America), it is impossible to adhere to the words of a certain religion. I doubt my opponent would wish to follow the words of the Koran. Even Roman Catholics, Jews, and Protestants have different interpretations of the ten commandment. In a simple example, traditional Jewish people view “thou shalt not steal” as the theft of an actual person (kidnapping), while others view it as property. There are long lists of differences on the following page, i will not enumerate them (Click on the ten commandments, which are hyperlinks. You will see New Testament interpretations, Roman Catholic interpretations, etc). http://en.wikipedia.org...