Monarchies are superior than Republics

Con seems to be confused. He thinks that I'm arguing for a "plain" Monarchy, not for Constitutional Monarchy. First, what the hell is a "plain" Monarchy? Second, I'm arguing for MONARCHY, I never said "plain" Monarchy. Therefore, I can use any kind of Monarchy to defend my thesis, being them Constitutional or "plain".1- STABILITYCon shows he did not read my sources and doesn't now much about Latin America History. Yes, there was slavery during the Empire of Brazil, as the United States had and all other Republics on Latin America. The difference between the Brazilian Monarchy and the Republics was (a) there were no Coup d'etat in Brazil until the fall of the Monarchy (which was a Coup d'etat against the Monarchy support on ending slavery) and (b) the Monarchy made the end of slavery peaceful due to the stability the country had because of the Monarchy and because of the continuity factor. This did not happened in the United States. 300 thousand people died in the Civil War because of the slavery. In Brazil, none have died. The only one who lost was the Imperial Family, which due to it's support for the end of slavery was overthrown by the military with support from ex slave owners. And, please Con, explain to me: if Brazil and the other Latin American countries had almost the same kind of colonization, why was Brazil better than it's neighbor Republics? Why was Brazil stable and the Republics where not? And why when the Monarchy in Brazil was overthrown it then started the Political persecutions, instabilities and corruption?Cons states that I did not give him an examples of Monarchs following the law. Well, he also did not gave examples of Monarchs not following the law, nor about Monarchs killing the opposition and the others in the line of the throne. I know there were persecutions in some Monarchies, but there is also political persecution in some Republics. And here are a list of Presidents that persecute and kill the opposition:Getulio VargasEmilio MediciJoseph StalinAdolf HitlerMao ZedongFrancisco FrancoJuan Domingo PeronPol Potand many othersAnd being Constitutional Monarchies MONARCHIES, I already gave examples of working Monarchies. 2- CORRUPTIONCon argues that a dictatorship can't be a Republic. Why not? And Con thinks that, since the power in Cuba and North Korea is passed by blood, they are a Monarchy. This is wrong. There where in history cases of elective Monarchies, like the Holy Roman Empire, Sweden until 1544, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Vatican! And Con did not explain why s there so much corruption in Republics that are considered to be democratic, like Brazil, Argentina, Italy and Russia. It is certainly not because of the Monarchy. Con only criticizes the Monarchy, but he doesn't shows any arguments or sources to defend Republics3- ECONOMYHere, Con again runs away from the topic. He doesn't argue about economics, but politics. And Con shows again his lack of knowledge on history. ALL CHRISTIAN EUROPEAN MONARCHIES ALWAYS HAD PARLIAMENTS! Yes, all of them! France had one, England had one, Portugal, Spain, all had one. The difference between the Parliaments of those days and of today is that before they where elected by the Aristocracy and the rich bourgeois, and they didn't had as much power as today. Local Parliaments also existed and they had a lot of power, like in Federalism. BUT THIS ISN'T ECONOMICS! Con did not show how a Republic is better for the peoples prosperity than a Monarchy.4- LEGITIMACYMonarchies have a significance importance in history, especially in Western history, on building the civilization. Christianity wouldn't get to the point it is today if it weren't for Monarchies. The Western culture was preserved because of Monarchies. Therefore, it is completely legitimate that the ones who preserved our culture and our liberties should reign over us.5- REPRESENTATIONI gave an excellent example of representation of minorities in a Monarchy, which my opponent doesn't accept. But he still did not give me one example of Republics supporting minorities. Think about the United States. Blacks were treated in a different form from whites until the second half of the XX century. After WWI, when Monarchies were erased from Europe by the stupid idea of "democracism" from the United States, minorities were persecuted all over Eastern Europe, especially Jews. Except for rare examples, Jews lived a safe and prosper life in Europe during the monarchies times(especially with the Hapsburg), but with the Republics they were soon persecuted, since 51% of the electors did not like them.Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... https://mises.org... Page 133-179(Chapter IV)