political opinions voted for against totalitarianism

Nephilism, Thank you for proposing this debate. I take it that your resolution is that monarchy (hereditary rule by one), either in its pure form or when restrained to some extent by a constitution, and perhaps other sources of power like a legislature, is a better form of government than a government whose power is derived from popular representation, of which you offer the U.S. as an example. If I am mistaken, I apologize, and would ask that you re-state it. I understand that one of the main reasons you would support such a resolution is that you believe a hereditary monarch is better able to run a society because he, being the offspring of monarchs, is thus likely to be best able to direct government: "Birthright is indeed not a new idea. Can law be inherited? Yes, and I believe it should be as natural selection very much serves public good." And I think that you try to draw validity for this idea from the idea of evolution, suggesting that a monarch is more fit to rule because he is somehow physically bred for it, or more "evolved", and that having such a person in a place of power would be a good thing for society. I think that this idea is not plausible being that physical "evolution" is a process that takes an extremely long time, relative to the lifespans of states, and that even if the monarch is from a line of kings which goes back dozens of generations, the likelihood of their offspring being somehow more fit because of evolution is absurd. Evolution is due to beneficial random mutations which occur very infrequently, and the chance of such things happening regularly in the line of monarchs, over a relatively short period of time is basically non existant. If I am wrong about your stance, and by "natural selection" you instead meant selection naturally made by people, then I think that you support democratically derived authority, not monarchy. You also claim that you support individual rights, and that democracies, like the US occasionally don't necessarily respect such rights. I would agree that democracies can be terrible places to live and that they don't always respect what I think of as individual rights. However, this does not mean that a monarchy would be any better, but in fact can be worse being that those individuals don't necessarily have any powerful representation to fight for them. Furthermore, though in both types of government there may be some constitution to protect those rights, it would be much easier for a monarch to be able to ignore such protections being that he has so much more power than any given representative in a democracy. You seem not to like the idea of a centralized Europe, in which the individual countries have less say over their own affairs, and use this too as a justification for your resolution. I fully understand your apprehension to signing up to such a system, for I don't like the level of centralization in the US democracy in which I live. However this does not mean that a monarchy would by any means be better, and is not at all a condemnation of democracy generally, because democracy can also be a lot less centralized, as the US was initially set up. I look forward to your explaining why a monarchical system, of any stripe, would be better than a government with power derived from the free choice of the people.