I find such rhetorical debates to be rather dull. I also don't see where he got his definition of a republic being where all people get an equal say in everything, because that's not any RL example I can think of and certainly not most IG republics either. His attacks upon the Midland Council are more interesting, but debating what is and isn't a republic... urgh.
This definition helps out his case somewhat:
a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
But this one, which is on the same page does not:
a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.
I am happy to see arguing/politicking but its annoying when he can't stop complaining about a definition he found somewhere not agreeing with definition we use. Its completely meta. His complaints about the MC, I consider dumb, but I am not against them at all.