A Pure Democracy is less free than a Constitutional Republic

I will assume that my opponent has accepted...?Thank you, if that's the case.Basically, I have 3 main points for why a Pure Democracy is less free than a Constitutional Republic.P1. Pure Democracy (PD) is subject to mob rule.In a PD, every member of the population gets 1 vote. All votes are tallied for each election. The winner of each election is the person/option that recieved the most votes. It is a very simple system, and one that would seem quite free on the outside. However, if we look into it, we see problems with such a government.One of the more serious issues involved with a PD is mob rule.Consider this. In any PD, only 50% + 1 of the population are require to pass an election issue/candidate. This means, if a majority of the population decide that all dogs should be outlawed... well, I've got bad news for any dog owners out there. On a more extreme note, if a majority of the population decides your family should be executed for whatever reason.... I've got even worse news.We see an example of this in Ancient Athens, the world's first pure democracy. In Athens, citizens of the city could banish other citizens by popular vote! Also, all major legislative and military decisions were decided by each member of the population! Nevermind that the soldiers who were being deployed only made up a minority of voters in these situations, because in a PD, majority always rules.P2. In a Constitutional Republic, (CR) citizens have inalienable rights.This point actually ties in very nicely with my first. A CR not only can designate certain decisions to different bodies and organizations, but it also provides the people with inalienable rights. My opponent may try and point out that which rights are provided aren't specified, however I believe we can all agree that any rights are better than none at all.Using actual CRs as examples, we find the U.S., Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Colombia, Germany etc. These all provide their citizens with rights that no law or election will take away from them.P3. In the event of a rebellion, those in a PD would face over half the population.Lastly, in the case of an uprising, those being abused in a PD would be a minority. If the majority of the PD's population decided to mistreat the minority, a rebellion would likely be the case. It would make no sense for the majority to rebel against a country where they are in power.However, in a CR, the populace would rebel against the government, and maybe a small portion of the population. However, due to the model of the CR, which makes the government significantly smaller in body, the rebellion would have a greater chance of success.How does this affect freedom, you may ask? Not only are the people freer to rise against tyrrany, but the very threat of rebellion keeps the government in check. The second amendment (and the first) of the United States' Constitution is specifically designed to limit government influence, so as to keep the people free. How does it do this? It makes it easier for people to rebel against the government.For these reasons, and many more I can state if there's a need, I believe the resolution stands affirmed as of right now.Can my opponent change that?Thank you.