The Instigator
Phyxia
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
kasmic
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Limits for terms should be placed on Congress.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
kasmic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/3/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 623 times Debate No: 82018
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Phyxia

Pro

Back when Congress passed the amendment which would limit the US President down to two terms at a maximum, they said that one man in office for too long can become dangerous and can ruin the nation and its liberties.

While I am not saying congressmen are in an office with as much authority, I am saying that congressmen should be limited because of the fact that sooner or later, they are nowhere near as effective at their job on the national legislature. As such, we should end up having to replace them not by their own choice or us throwing them out at the midterm elections, I'm talking about replacing them because of an amendment to the Constitution which would limit the congressmen to x amount of terms.

Should it be two terms like the President? No, I'm not saying it should be that limited, but it should be 3-5 terms maximum. Should they be restricted from taking office of the President? I'm not saying that either, they should be allowed to run for President, and of course if they haven't served their full terms in Congress after they lose office, they should be able to run for re-election.
kasmic

Con

“We the People”

This Democratic Republic was established “of the people, by the people, for the people.”(1)At the time this government was established, it was a radical change from the governments that preceded it. We the people of the U.S. are to have a voice. We are to be able to elect our own representatives. Our Congress and our president are subject to our approval given via voting. Contrary to the tyrannical governments of history, the United States, “we the people,” are intended to have the sovereignty and power to govern ourselves.

Sovereignty and the power of voting

As indicated above, one fundamental way that we exercise our sovereignty is through voting. The only way a Congressman is ever re-elected is if he or she is able to win and maintain the peoples support. This shows definitively that if a Civil servant is able to consistently gain the support of the people, resulting in their re-election, then the people through their sovereignty have determined the President should stay in this office. Clearly this would be a demonstration of the desires of the people.

The function and impact of Term Limits

Imagine yourself a hiring manager and you are looking for an employee. In front of you a stack of resumes’. Are you going to look through and remove from consideration any and all candidates that have experience? Of course not!? If anything, experience is a positive impact on who may be chosen. Before even allowing the American people to exercise their sovereignty and consider who the best person for the office might be, Term limits does just that. It removes from consideration those with the most experience. This is not only foolish, but harmful. It seems self-evident that experience is valuable concerning positions in Congress.

James Madison in Federalist paper 53 said "[A] few of the members of Congress will possess superior talents; will by frequent re-elections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members of Congress, and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt they be to fall into the snares that may be laid before them,"(3) In an office as important as congress, experience is more important than fresh perspectives, if only to be able to work effectively.

Setting a term limit mitigates the natural function of elections. The people should have the power to determine if a politician has served enough terms in congress. If the people feel this is the case, they could simply vote that politician out of office. Thus the impact of term limits is to limit the sovereignty and choice of the people. This is in direct conflict with our founding principles. I contend that the people should retain the sovereignty to decide when a politician is not suitable for an office in congress. This should be done through voting. To undermine this freedom and sovereignty of the people is to allow tyranny. After all, "The people are the best judges who ought to represent them. To dictate and control them, to tell them whom they shall not elect, is to abridge their natural rights.” 2 Elliot's Debates 292-293. (3)

Impact of no term limits

To not have term limits would keep experienced candidates in consideration, allow our Democratic Republic to function as intended via elections, and most importantly, allow Americans to retain freedom and sovereignty by electing whomever they desire.

Overview

I have demonstrated that it is right for the people of the United States to be sovereign. Any other option is tyranny. Term Limits on Congress threatens that sovereignty. To add insult to injury, this amendment keeps experience out of office. We clearly see that if this amendment is repealed all issues listed are resolved. If my opponent is unable to refute the significant harm term limits pose, I will win this debate.

Term limits are in conflict with core principles and harms our society. Therefore, term limits should not be imposed on congress.


Sources:

(1) http://www.britannica.com...
(2) http://usgovinfo.about.com...
(3) https://www.law.cornell.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
Phyxia

Pro

While I understand the deal with the soverignty we live in as a nation, and the fact that in order to be re-elected, a congressman must still maintain the support he had in the first place, I feel as though there is a potential issue with allowing these congressmen to continuolusly be re-elected.

That issue being, after a while, new generations being born in, the congressmen will not have the ideals the newer generations will be starting to hold. While the people's views on certain topics are not always valid as compared to an experienced politician, the issue is that the congressman may bring up a resolution to an issue which may not work in the modern day, though it may have worked in the past.

With that being said, certain processes may not be able to be completed as efficiently, and later on can lead to issues such as yet another government shutdown due to the inability to function. If we continue to let the older generations congressmen be re-elected, we must face the reality of the fact that their ideals are more likely to spark issues within the legislature.
kasmic

Con

Pro argues that the people maintaining their sovereignty has one potential issue.

“That issue being, after a while, new generations being born in, the congressmen will not have the ideals the newer generations will be starting to hold.”

Not only is this not a potential issue, we already have a process in place that would provide solvency. It’s called elections. Even if you consider the Senate who has elections every six years, the newer generations will have the same right as any other generation to vote in or out of office whomever they so choose.

Thus we see that the only contention pro brings up is a non-issue. I have demonstrated that it is right for the people of the United States to be sovereign. Furthermore, pro does not contend that this it is the people’s right. Term Limits on Congress threatens that sovereignty. To add insult to injury, this amendment keeps experience out of office.

Term limits are in conflict with core principles and harms our society. Therefore, term limits should not be imposed on congress.

Debate Round No. 2
Phyxia

Pro

Well, clearly debating politics ain't my fuckin' speciality when it comes to this,
so,

forfeit round 3.
kasmic

Con

Don't sweet it, it's your first debate and I have a degree in poly sci.... You did well for your first debate.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by kasmic 1 year ago
kasmic
Thanks Zaradi
Posted by Peepette 1 year ago
Peepette
Con successfully rebuts Pros premise of lack of effectiveness over successive terms with Constitutional quotes and making point that voting is reflective of peoples" support for an incumbent; further pressing the point with a James Madison quote. In R2 Con refutes Pros claims in that voting is the means by which successive generation"s needs are met. In R3 Pro concedes. Pro provides no reference material to back his claims. Con substantiates his points in rebuttal and is the winner on this basis.
Posted by Phyxia 1 year ago
Phyxia
Eh, this may not turn out in my favor. Being 16 & 1/2, I have a good understanding for government and law (for the most part), but not so good with debates when it comes the government itself.
Posted by palmertio0 1 year ago
palmertio0
What about introducing a "cool down period" where senators/representatives cannot run for a year after a few terms? That would allow new candidates to have a chance to run while allowing experienced legislators to continually participate in government.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
PhyxiakasmicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit and cuss word in final round
Vote Placed by Zaradi 1 year ago
Zaradi
PhyxiakasmicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit by pro. Con addresses the point brought up by pro and explains to me why setting term limits harms the government and the idea of democracy as a whole.