Is Monarchy better than republic, constitutional or otherwise.

I stated in Round 1 that when referring to Republics I was referring to democracies, my failure to address quasi-monarchy dictatorships lay with unclear questioning on the part of my opponent. My opponent refers to communist dictatorships such as the USSR and the DPRK but fails to recognize that that these cases were very limited in occurence, if I wanted to I myself could list a number of Monarchs which were insane but not dealt with by their 'lords of the manor' such as Vlad the Impaler, King Leopold of Belgium, Ivan IV of Russia or the most infamous of insane rulers Caligula of Rome. In all cases listed they were the perpetrators of atrocities and left unchecked by their 'lords'. Furthermore my opponent mentions the House Of Windsor, George III in particular, who while in power (before his regency) was in charge of handling the American Civil War as Head of The Armed Forces, this is a perfect example of how disastrous having a 'divine' monarch can end disastrously for a nation. He was unwilling to make peace with the Americans despite the guidance of his experienced advisers and ended up overextending himself in the war and losing much more territory than was needed. Monarchs often proved to be too stubborn to make the decisions which their advisers recommended a good example being Elizabeth I of England who selfishly chose not to marry despite the diplomatic benefits of doing so or the previously mentioned George III. My opponent then makes a list of advantages of Monarchical government which I will attempt to address: He states that Monarchies make quick decisions, but fails to recognize that the heads of state of Republics can just as easily make those quick decisions. I would add to this that it actually depends much more on the monarch and the statement that decision making was fast is completely baseless as it depends on the individual monarch, again Elizabeth I was infamous for her inability to make decisions and procrastinating for weeks on end about certain issues. He then goes on to state that secure ideals and a constant culture are the result of monarchies but fails to realize that the most constant culture in the world at the moment would be that in North Korea, a republic, albeit a quasi-monarchical republic but a republic nevertheless. Secure ideals are a side effect of culture and therefore his point is weak at best. My favorite point raised is that secure long term plans are more successful under monarchs, and he gives Nicholas III of Russia as an example. What he fails to mention is that the series of five year plans under Stalin of the USSR industrialized Russia much faster than under Nicholas. This is besides the point, if a system in a republic is working then the people instituting them get re-elected or get kept on by the respective party, if a system is failing then the party responsible will be unelected and a new policy will be put in place or as was the case of the USSR people will be stripped of their posts and the policy will be re-thought through. A monarch does not change policies, it does not happen. If a policy is failing the monarch is accountable to no one and this is why the system is defective. My Opponent then states problems with Republics: He states that republics promote extreme political ideologies such as Communism but fails to recognize the extremist monarchies currently in power such as those in Saudi Arabia, Swaziland etc I have already addressed the issue with my opponents problem with 'unfinished plans'. His last point will have to be clarified as I'm unsure what he actually means. My opponent does not address my point that Heads of State in republics can make just as quick decisions as Monarchs, but also seems to submit to my point on corruption. He makes an attempt to rebuke my point on stability but fails to concede that mentally unstable leaders simply do not happen in republics, but can happen in monarchies. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...