Rusty, it was only a small distinction. Republic vs Democracy was not debated for reasons of security. Republic or Confederacy was debated for reasons of security (constitution ratification arguments found in the Federalist Papers).
Republic or Democracy as a governmental model was debated because of perceived ignorance and stupidity of the people by the founders and from the fear of mob rule over those that didn't hold the majority.
The basic disagreement was in that the founders (some anyways) definitely found the populace to be either stupid or ignorant and incapable of actually running the government. The founders also gave us a mechanism to rid ourselves of politicians that were also stupid and/or ignorant; it is called voting. Which again boils down to the stupidity of the masses. Poly Sci 101 asks the question; should politicians represent the will of the people or should politicians represent the interest of the people? These are two distinctly different things. My belief is the latter (matches a republic more than a democracy). That politicians play to the ignorant masses during elections, and then are supposed to go back and represent the interests of the masses when they actual begin their work and are not campaigning. And interests meaning; doing whats good for them even if they don't agree with it because they are too..........whatever to understand what is good for them. There are some correlations here with the whole head controversy.
But what I do agree on is the wonderfulness of being an American and being able to speak our minds and debate without fear of going to jail. A gift that some would trade for the comfort of security. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Franklin