Democracy is the best known form of governance

Judges please note: A satisfactory definition of a Republic was not provided, it lacked brevity and clarity. Etymology: The word republic comes from again a merger of two Latin words Res (Thing) and Publica (People) so the people’s thing that is the law is supreme. Republic: The term "republic" as known today refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term. Even in a republic, it's the voice of the majority that rules through chosen representatives; however there is a charter or constitution of basic rights that protects the minority from being completely unrepresented or override. Now I shall be rebutting my opponent’s arguments paragraph by paragraph. A Republic recognizes that all people have certain inalienable rights, that can not be taken by any just government. In a pure Democracy you have the risk of Tyranny by the Majority. If 51% of the people in a democracy do not like Joe, they can have him executed by a simple vote. (First of all a judiciary is a separate wing in a democracy, independent in all aspects, not elected or subject to a majority’s opinion, it doesn’t matter if 51 want him dead, what matters is his innocence or guilt that is what will decide his fate) A Republic recognizes that Joe has a right to live even if half of the people want him dead. A pure democratic system does not guarantee you any rights or freedoms; It only guarantees you those rights so long as you agree with the majority. (BoP, provide an example, or some facts.) In a Republic, however, you have a right to freedom of speech regardless if the Majority of people agree with you. You can be part of any religion, even if the vast majority of people don't like that religion. (Fallacy, no, not in all republics, not in an Islamic Republic, a republic does not necessarily have to be secular)Because a Republic protects people from the Tyranny of the Majority, It is the only government better than a democracy. Let me put it this way; my opponent says a democracy is same as the rule of the majority. I believe otherwise, look at a country like India, it is a democratic republic, the official name goes as ‘Republic of India’ however, and this republic has repeatedly failed to protect its citizens from suffering, from experiencing what my opponent puts as the wrath of the majority. However, it does not necessarily have to be the majority that imposes itself on the minority. The conclusion is, a Republic is too is a great deal like democracy, a form of majority rule. My opponent said we have inalienable rights, but these rights can be amended and how are they amended, take a guess, of course – by a vote. Who are the people who vote to decide whether there should or should not be an amendment to the current set of laws? Take another guess, the elected representatives, you got that right too! These leaders are again voted into power by people where the majority has an obvious advantage over the minority. Therefore, a Republic is only different in concept and theory, not in practicality. Closing Statement: Well if a Republic is so particular and protective about minorities why was there a Malcolm X or the need for a Martin Luther? Wasn’t the darker colour oppressed in this same wonderful republic? My opponent should explain with an example where a republic has succeeded in exemplifying the idealistic and utopian ideologies as stated by my opponent. Half the Americans don’t know whether their country is a democracy or a republic and many of these people are famous politicians and leaders. A democracy and a republic are the same and if a Republic is so great I am sure we have read about Rome’s model of Republic which ultimately succumbed to the Caesars.