The Instigator
Dali
Pro (for)
Winning
50 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Con (against)
Losing
35 Points

Presidents should serve 6 year unlimited non-consecutive terms.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/6/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,468 times Debate No: 4932
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (15)

 

Dali

Pro

Frame work:
1. I am referring to presidents of the United States of America.
2. The overlying assumption is that they are duly elected for each term.
3. I am referring to changing the current system for the future, not saying that this would have been better in the past.
4. Unlimited is referring to the number of terms.

Arguments:
1.6 years is a compromise between the current 4 or 8 years that is the current law, and would result in an easy transition.

2.Unlimited terms would allow a good president to be elected repeatedly, and discourage presidents from last minute actions that would prevent them from being elected in the future.

3.Non-consecutive terms would prevent someone from staying in power for too long, allow the president to focus on running the country rather than trying to get elected for another term, let the people and business be able to plan ahead more accurately, allow the people to see the long term results of any actions by a president before voting for them again, and help prevent presidents from starting wars to stay in office.
Tatarize

Con

This is a terrible idea.

Six year non-consecutive terms are a horrible idea.

1) The senate currently has six year terms. This would sync the presidency with one of the three senate groups so that a third of the senate would *always* be elected at the same time as the president.
2) Six years is too damned long. If you want to make a modification to presidential terms it should be towards cutting the term shorter when people lose all faith in the leadership. Being forced to endure several additional years of bad leadership is not a boon.
3) Non-consecutive terms is a joke right? You think that you could elect somebody to be president and then have the same individual reelected again 12 years later (6 years of their term, 6 years of next term) and not have them too damned old?
4) What's wrong with people staying in office if they are good at it? You're going to make us dump talent in order to get fresh blood into office? Why not keep the best person for the job. The longest serving president was just over 12 years.
5) There are so many better modifications you could make if you're going to modify. Runoff elections, terms limited by official support (at 2 year congress elections vote out the president and call up a new election), shorten the terms to two years, drop the term limits, etc.
Debate Round No. 1
Dali

Pro

I will start by addressing my opponent's arguments then I will point out my arguments that my opponent has yet to address.
___

My opponent said:
"1) The senate currently has six year terms. This would sync the presidency with one of the three senate groups so that a third of the senate would *always* be elected at the same time as the president."

Um… If there are 3 senate groups that serve 6 years each, then senators are being elected every other year. A president could be elected during one of the years that we don't vote for senators. Thus the president's term would *never* sync up with *any* of the senate groups. As it stands now there are senators that out last the president, so currently a president's terms syncs up with at least one senate group.
___

My opponent said:
"2) Six years is too damned long. If you want to make a modification to presidential terms it should be towards cutting the term shorter when people lose all faith in the leadership. Being forced to endure several additional years of bad leadership is not a boon."

Currently a president can be in office for 8 years in a row, which is why I am forcing a cut at 6 years in a row. Apparently my opponent thinks that 8 is fine but 6 is too much. The president is only part of the leadership. The people can still vote for senators and house reps. That change can happen in 2 years.
___

My opponent said:
"4) What's wrong with people staying in office if they are good at it? You're going to make us dump talent in order to get fresh blood into office? Why not keep the best person for the job. The longest serving president was just over 12 years."

What's wrong is that we don't really know if they are good at it until we have a chance to see the long term effects. I hear that heroin feels great when you're on it. By my opponents logic that means you should use more so that you can feel even better. Bad plan. Social Security was great at the time, but now the hangover is starting. We won't really know what the president has done to the country until we can see the long term impact. And as for the longest serving president, that was over 12 years *in a row*. Don't most people do better when they've had a break? I'm suggesting 12 years *with a break*.
_____

My opponent said:
"5) There are so many better modifications you could make if you're going to modify. Runoff elections, terms limited by official support (at 2 year congress elections vote out the president and call up a new election), shorten the terms to two years, drop the term limits, etc."

Okay… Then start another debate on one of those suggestions, but here are some things to consider about those scenarios before you do. The reason that the people (and not congress) elect the president is separation of powers. If congress were to elect, or vote out, the president then congress would have the ability to remove a president elected by the people just because they wanted to. My suggestion does drop the limit on terms. It replaces a limit with a restriction. And as for 2 years, I don't see how every other year being an election year is going to provide any sense of stability or even allow the president a chance to get much done.
____

(1,2,4,5,3. Yes. They are out of order. I saved this one for last. Warning: This will hurt.)

My opponent said:
"3) Non-consecutive terms is a joke right? You think that you could elect somebody to be president and then have the same individual reelected again 12 years later (6 years of their term, 6 years of next term) and not have them too damned old?"

If it were a joke it would not have been in the topic. As to the age issue the oldest president ever elected was Ronald Regan. He was elected when he was 69. So 69 – 12 = 57. Here is a list of presidents that were younger than 57 when elected the first time:

Theodore Roosevelt,
John F. Kennedy,
Bill Clinton ,
Ulysses S. Grant,
Grover Cleveland,
Franklin Pierce,
James A. Garfield,
James K. Polk,
Millard Fillmore,
John Tyler,
Calvin Coolidge,
Franklin Delano Roosevelt,
William Howard Taft,
Chester A. Arthur,
Abraham Lincoln,
Jimmy Carter,
William McKinley,
Martin Van Buren,
Rutherford B. Hayes,
George W. Bush,
Herbert Hoover,
Lyndon B. Johnson,
Warren G. Harding,
Benjamin Harrison,
Grover Cleveland,
Richard M. Nixon,
Woodrow Wilson,
and Andrew Johnson.

There are 28 of them. Wait a minuet… 28 is more than half of 43 (the number of presidents we've had). That means that *most* presidents would *not* have been "too damn old".

But wait there's more… Regan was elected for a second term when he was 73. Which pushes the first time elected up to 61. Now we get to add 6 more presidents. And we are now at 34 of the 43 presidents that would *not* have been "too damn old". Only 9 would have been "too damn old". 34 vs 9. (Remember Kids. Study math;) And I think as you go through this list you will find a number of former presidents that we wish were forced out sooner and others you wish were able to come back again.
____

My opponent has yet to address the following arguments that I have already made:

Unlimited terms would:
1. Allow a good president to be elected repeatedly.
2. Discourage presidents from last minute actions that would prevent them from being elected in the future.

Non-consecutive terms would:
3. Prevent someone from staying in power for too long.
4. Allow the president to focus on running the country rather than trying to get reelected while running the country.
5. Let the people and business be able to plan ahead more accurately.
6. Allow the people to see the long term results of any actions by a president before voting for them again.
7. Help prevent presidents from starting wars just to stay in office.

Here I have broken them out a bit better than I did in the first round. My opponent did a much better job of separating points in the last round, I should return the favor.
Tatarize

Con

>>Um… If there are 3 senate groups that serve 6 years each, then senators are being elected every other year. A president could be elected during one of the years that we don't vote for senators.

What? Yeah, every two years there are elections for all of the house and a third of the senate. Which third of the senate is elected during a presidential year changes each time. Election years can drive up the turnout and cause incumbents to lose or get through hard reelections. This would in essence give 2/3rds of the senate easy reelections permanently. Staging presidential elections on odd years would simply add very costly extra elections for no good reason.

>>Currently a president can be in office for 8 years in a row, which is why I am forcing a cut at 6 years in a row. Apparently my opponent thinks that 8 is fine but 6 is too much.

Four. Presidents are elected for four years and then the people get to have their voice heard and figure out if we'd like to clip it off now or not. I'd be more than happy to shorten this to two or to whenever the people hate that bastard in the whitehouse (such as exists in other countries). Being forced to endure an extra two years of a crappy president is not acceptable. Further, what if the president is really really good? Shouldn't we have the option to keep electing very qualified people who do a good job?

>>The president is only part of the leadership. The people can still vote for senators and house reps. That change can happen in 2 years.

The president is the leadership. The congress writes bills to be signed into law. There are some checks and balances but to say that's pretty well nothing more than a roadblock. In 2006 the House and Senate switched parties because the president is a douche. They can't stop him. They just slow him down with the screw ups.

>>What's wrong is that we don't really know if they are good at it until we have a chance to see the long term effects.

Really? So you think we need this president out of office for a bit before we realize that he's an awful president?

You attack my final note by ignoring the time lapse in between non-consecutive terms.

Elected.
Serve 6 years.
Out of office 6 years.
Elected.
Serve 6 years.

That's 18 years. 30 if you want a third term.

----

Unlimited terms would:
>>1. Allow a good president to be elected repeatedly.

It would allow us to get 6 years of subpar executive branch leadership.
They would be 18 years older than when they previously were elected.

>>2. Discourage presidents from last minute actions that would prevent them from being elected in the future.

Doubtful as the non-consecutive terms would be completely unreasonable and nobody few would care. Also, if a president simply served at the pleasure of the electorate they would always be discouraged from such actions.

---

Suggesting the better modifications is an argument against this proposed modification. If you're going to rock the boat and toss a wrench into the system there are much better boats and much better wrenches. It's a massive amount of work to change the system and if you aren't changing it for the better then you shouldn't change it at all.

1) Expand the house to 1500 congresspersons.
2) Presidents should serve until they are voted out of office (40% say out him and new election starts) by the people during the midterms.
3) Presidents elected by popular vote.
4) Run off elections for presidents rather than party primary.

Etc.

There are a number of *ACTUAL* improvements and you're proposing we go about enacting this crap when we could just as easily do far better things?
Debate Round No. 2
Dali

Pro

As math seems to be challenging to my opponent I will attempt a chart below.
E=election year. A=Year with president A in office. B= year with president B in office. Number=Year

1EA 2A 3A 4A 5A 6A 7EB 8B 9B 10B 11B 12B 13EA 14A 15A 16A 17A 18A 19EB

Count it! The time from A's first election to A's second election is 12 years (year 1 to 13. 13-1=12). While the time from A's first election to the END of A's second TERM would be the 18 years (year 1 to 19. 19-1=18). I don't know how I can make that any clearer. Unless I missed something big, I consider the math issue closed.
_
On to real issues...

>Election years can drive up the turnout and cause incumbents to lose or get through hard reelections. This would in essence give 2/3rds of the senate easy reelections permanently.

Yes it can which is why you would have the Presidential election during a year that we don't elect senators, that way none of them would get the presidential election year advantage. And each of the senator elections would occur during the presidential term. All of the senate groups would have an election during a president's term thus giving the advantage to no one.

> Staging presidential elections on odd years would simply add very costly extra elections for no good reason.

For some reason my opponent thinks that an election every 4 years would be cheaper than an election every 6. Maybe elections are cheaper in bulk, maybe they're not, but that's arguing that the cost of an election is more important that the effectiveness of the office.
_
> Presidents are elected for four years…

That is why I said that a president CAN be in office for 8 years in a row. And allowing the president to focus on running the country rather than running for office is one of the reasons for nonconsecutive terms.

> So you think we need this president out of office for a bit before we realize that he's an awful president?

6 years nonconsecutive terms would have forced Bush out of office 2 years ago. The Enron fiasco happened while Bush was in office, but the "creative accounting" that Enron was doing started when Clinton was in office. Just illustrate how the result of one president's actions or inactions would not occur until another president was in office. That is why we need a chance to see the real result of their actions. In the short run we just can't tell.
_
> The president is the leadership.

If my opponent thinks that "the president is the leadership" then why the concern over senate group advantage? Clearly by my opponent believes they are part of the leadership. My opponent is aware that we have 3 branches and the concern over senate group advantage clearly illustrates the importance of the senate's role in leadership. The executive branch is only one of the three branches. The president can't even write laws. The Supreme Court recently overturned part of the Patriot Act. And Congress can overturn a veto from the president, and pass the bill anyway. It is those checks and balances that make all of the branches "the leadership".
___

>> It [Unlimited terms] would allow us to get 6 years of subpar executive branch leadership. They would be 18 years older than when they previously were elected.

I think my opponent was referring to the "nonconsecutive" aspect rather than the "unlimited terms" aspect, but my opponent's argument of "subpar executive branch leadership" still needs to be addressed.
The leaving president would not be in the president's office, but that doesn't mean that they would just wink out of existence for 6 years. Whoever looses this election will likely go right back to the senate and work there. The "subpar" president could very easily have the "above par" president in an advisory position, or on the chiefs of staff, or heading the FCC for all I care. The point is that the "above par" president could do any number of things when waiting the 6 years before running again. In which case, that president would only be 12 years older than when he/she was first elected.
___

>> Also, if a president simply served at the pleasure of the electorate they would always be discouraged from such [last minute actions that would prevent them from being elected in the future] actions.

This is why I am arguing for unlimited terms. If a president always had the chance to return that president would not make last minute actions like mass presidential pardons of friends and friends of friends as Clinton did. Not to pick on Clinton, he was just the last president that left office with no chance to return, and thus no consequence of his final actions. I'm sure that Bush will do something similar, because he too will have no chance of returning and thus no consequence of actions. Preventing these types of things are exactly the reason that presidents should be able to serve and unlimited number of terms.
___

My opponent's other suggestions:
>>1) Expand the house to 1500 congresspersons.
This does not address the president's length of term, return ability, or non-consecutive terms. As such it has no place in this debate.

>>2) Presidents should serve until they are voted out of office (40% say out him and new election starts) by the people during the midterms.
40%? That would mean that we out someone that the majority (60%) wants in. And now it appears that my opponent has abandoned the earlier argument of election cost. And that would not give anyone interested in running adequate notice to start campaigning. Maybe an election is coming up midterm, maybe not. This frequency and unknown would not provide a stable government.

>>3) Presidents elected by popular vote.
Cool. And then that president could serve for 6 years, an unlimited number of terms as long as they were nonconsecutive.

>>4) Run off elections for presidents rather than party primary.
This is another good idea from my opponent. And then that president could serve for 6 years, an unlimited number of terms as long as they were nonconsecutive.
__
Here are my standing points.

Unlimited terms would:

1. Allow a good president to be elected repeatedly.

My opponent has time and time again argued that a good president should be allowed to return if they are doing a good job. As all I am asking for is a chance to see how good of a job that president did, it would appear that we agree on this point.

Non-consecutive terms would:

3. Prevent someone from staying in power for too long.

My opponent's distain for Bush has clearly illustrated the strength of this point.

4. Allow the president to focus on running the country rather than trying to get reelected while running the country.

My opponent has made no comment with regards to trying to run the country *while* also running for election. This point stands uncontested.

5. Let the people and business be able to plan ahead more accurately.

My opponent's views have leaned on the immediate rather than the future. As a result my opponent has made no comment indicating that looking ahead would be detrimental.

6. Allow the people to see the long term results of any actions by a president before voting for them again.

My opponent has made some argument here, but all of my opponents arguments seem to reflect the notion that whatever is going on at any given moment is entirely the fault of whoever is currently in office.

7. Help prevent presidents from starting wars just to stay in office.

Here Bush becomes another good example. We invaded Iraq in 2003. 2004 was an election year. If Bush had no chance of being reelected, declaring a war would not have helped him to "run" the country for another 4 years for a total of 8.

This is why I argue that presidents should serve for 6 year unlimited nonconsecutive terms.
Tatarize

Con

The house serves for two years.
The president serves for four years.
Senators serve for six years.

There's a number of very good reasons the founding fathers set it up this way, and while I strongly agree that improvements can be made to the government this is not an improvement and not worth making. There are many many improvements we could make to the system, this one isn't an improvement and should not be utilized. We could easily make the president serve at the pleasure of the citizenry and not just the citizenry of the swing states every four years but the citizenry of the United States all the time.

----

Sure it's twelve years between elections but I prefer an elected official to do their job and in this case that would take another 6 years. 30 years if they serve three terms (though they will almost certainly be dead or senile by then although medical science is advancing in these regards).

>>Yes it can which is why you would have the Presidential election during a year that we don't elect senators, that way none of them would get the presidential election year advantage.

So your suggesting that we have elections every year for three years in a row? Every three years?

S1 - 0 - S2 - P - S3 - 0, and always tuck the presidential election between a pair of senate elections. Guess what? That's an advantage too. As a senator being elected the year after a president you can *ALWAYS* run on issues of keeping him in check or helping him against the opposition. The first election after the presidential election (usually midterms two years into the four year term) are rather big and make a lot of waves. You're still synching up with the senate elections even are giving a year of buffer zone (at the cost of millions upon millions to the taxpayers, do you know how much additional elections cost?).

>>For some reason my opponent thinks that an election every 4 years would be cheaper than an election every 6. Maybe elections are cheaper in bulk, maybe they're not,

They are. We do house elections every even year and presidential elections every year divisible by four. Along with 1/3 of the senate every two years. We vote for these things on the same ballot and you're not suggesting that we move the presidential elections to odd years. That's not a fix to the syncing problem nor is it cheap.

>>That is why I said that a president CAN be in office for 8 years in a row.

FDR was elected for to serve for 16 years (he served 13) and he's one of the greatest presidents we've ever had!

>>Enron fiasco happened...

Enron? Those were the days. We thought one company lying up a storm and stealing pensions while the presidential buddy thereof sat around was the worst thing he could do.

>>The president can't even write laws.

Writing laws isn't leadership. Oddly this president does think he can write laws (signing statements).

>>The Supreme Court recently overturned part of the Patriot Act.

Overturning unconstitutional laws isn't leadership.

>>And Congress can overturn a veto from the president, and pass the bill anyway.

Getting 3/4ths of congress to override a veto isn't leadership.

>>1. Allow a good president to be elected repeatedly.

Why not repeal term limits. And, we already have that. If you'd like to be elected, serve one term, step aside and later serve another term you're completely allowed to do that.

>>3. Prevent someone from staying in power for too long.

If the electoral process functions correctly they would elected for as long as the people wanted them to serve.

>>4. Allow the president to focus on running the country rather than trying to get reelected while running the country.

I think a good portion of running the country is the ability not to be a complete screw up people want out of office.

>>5. Let the people and business be able to plan ahead more accurately.

Um. The accuracy of my plans do not revolve around who is president 10 years from now.

>>6. Allow the people to see the long term results of any actions by a president before voting for them again.

If those actions are clearly disastrous in the short term they still get to serve several additional years. Also, there's very little to the idea that seeing a plan work six years down the line characterizes a good president. I daresay a good president would see that a plan has been a disaster and move quickly to end it. Some ideas look good on paper and how they turn out half a dozen years down the road makes for very little insight into the effectiveness of a president.

>>7. Help prevent presidents from starting wars just to stay in office.

There's a considerable amount of dumb reasons to start wars but reelection is a new one to me. Bush was much hated for between the time he took office and September of that year when his approval ratings spiked to the high 90s. They then started to sink and were still at about 50% the 2004 election.
Debate Round No. 3
Dali

Pro

>>There are a number of reasons that the founding fathers set it up this way… this is not an improvement and not worth making.

Actually the founding fathers didn't set it up this way. There have been two big changes since they set it up. The president's terms have been limited. And now the people in the state (rather than the state officials) elect senators.

Even though my opponent says "…this is not an improvement and not work making.", my opponent has also said that we should remove term limits. So my opponent and the founding fathers and I agree on part of my proposal.
__

>> Sure it's twelve years between elections but I prefer an elected official to do their job and in this case that would take another 6 years. 30 years if they serve three terms.

Nothing I am suggesting would prevent a president from doing their job. In fact, not allowing a president to be in office for consecutive terms would allow the president to focus on doing his job rather than running for reelection, and prevent some conflict of interest because people would not be able to make campaign contributions to someone that is currently in office. My opponent still seems to think that once a president leaves office they cease to exist. If one president was popular then they could act as an advisor or secretary of the state or a number of things before running for president again. Being able to return would eliminate the "lame duck" period because that president could come back. And check the math. It would be 24 years between the first election and the third election, not 30.
___

>> So your suggesting that we have elections every year for three years in a row? Every three years? S1 - 0 - S2 - P - S3 - 0, and always tuck the presidential election between a pair of senate elections.

Yes. And now that my opponent has mapped it out, it is easier to see all the advantages. This would make it possible for the incoming president to know who all will be in the senate he becomes elected. As it stands now 1/3 of the senate leadership could change just as the president is trying to get in and oriented. Having a senate election the year after would allow the people to react after the presidential election. And this would allow one senate group election half way through the president's term. That sounds good to me. And the senate election before the presidential election would again allow the people who like the current president to shift the leadership toward that, and those who dislike the president to shift the leadership away. Everyone wins. Over all, each senate group would have to run on issues, rather than just tagging along with the popular party.
__

>> Placing the presidential election between senate elections would cost the taxpayers millions upon millions. Elections are cheaper in bulk.

my opponent is simply asserting with no basis, rather than arguing with evidence. My opponent must mathematically prove having more presidential elections at the same time as senate elections is cheaper than fewer presidential election that are independent of senate elections. Just the cost of voting and counting, not the cost of campaign donations/expenditures. My I suggest over a 12 year period (because 12 is devisable by both 6 and 4). And we would like to see sources. And even then, all my opponent would be arguing is that the cost of voting is more important than the effectiveness of the leadership.
___

>> If the electoral process functions correctly they would elected for as long as the people wanted them to serve.

No they won't. Presidents cannot serve for more than 8 years. That's why we should remove term limits.
___

>> I think a good portion of running the country is the ability not to be a complete screw up people want out of office.

People are quick to change their minds. The president would have to be "a complete screw up people want out of office" at the moment of elections. Bush's approval ratings went from low to about 90% to about 50% in just a few years. People appear to be rather fickle in the moment, yet we still seem to be able to look back and see what was a good idea. This is why I am suggesting 6 year nonconsecutive unlimited terms. It prevents people from voting based on the heat of the moment, and still allows a good president to be reelected.
__

>> The accuracy of my plans do not revolve around who is president 10 years from now.

My opponent appears to be arguing what would be better for my opponent rather than what would be better for the country. Consider how the price of oil has consistently gone down ever sense Obama said that he might consider drilling, despite how long it will take to actually get that oil. My opponent's plans may be rather short sighted but many other people and business plan farther ahead.
__

>>Some ideas look good on paper and how they turn out half a dozen years down the road makes for very little insight into the effectiveness of a president.

Then why was the first thing my opponent mentioned in the previous round the founding fathers? Because my opponent knows the reality, how an idea turns out several years down the line makes for tons of insight into the effectiveness of leaders. Otherwise my opponent would appear to be saying that if it looks good on paper then the long term effects don't really matter. Communism looks great on paper, the reality however has been devastating. Social security looked good on paper, but we can already see how much of a disaster that has been. If my opponent thinks that we should ignore the long run, then I would certainly like to understand why.
__

>> There's a considerable amount of dumb reasons to start wars but reelection is a new one to me.

Really? This country is incredibly hesitant to change presidents while a war is going on. Here's a list of major wars; the president(s); and if that president was reelected.

War of 1812; Madison; YES
Mexican War; Polk; did not seek reelection
Civil War; Lincoln; YES
Spanish War; McKinley; died in office
World War I; Wilson; YES
World War II; F. D. Roosevelt / Truman; died in office/YES
Korean Conflict; Truman/ Eisenhower ; not eligible/YES
Vietnam Conflict; Eisenhower / Kennedy/ L. B. Johnson/ Nixon / Ford; not eligible/ died in office/ YES/ YES then resigned/ YES
Desert Storm; Bush Sr.; NO
Iraqi Freedom; Bush Jr.; YES

9 out of 10 that could have and tried got reelected. 9 out of 10 are pretty good odds, after all it even got NIXON reelected. The president has the power to declare war. Since war makes the odds of reelection pretty good this could certainly create a conflict of interest. If the president was not allowed to serve consecutive terms then that conflict of interest would be removed. This is why it is important to study history and look at the long term effects of choices.
_

Presidents should serve 6 year unlimited nonconsecutive terms. It would eliminate numerous points of conflict of interest, allow better response from the people, and help to align the interests of the all of the leadership and the people. My opponent only seams to disagree with the 6 year and the nonconsecutive aspect. My opponent's arguments appear focused around another type of change (something for a different debate) or focused entirely in the short run. There are countless examples of how only looking at the short run can be detrimental. Everything from adjustable rate mortgages to dropping out of high school is nice in the short run, but I want this country to last. And if you want this country to last and have the leadership better represent the people and the people be able to cast more informed votes then vote pro.
Tatarize

Con

Wasting money on an extra election when the current system works just fine isn't helpful. Further you're still going to sync up between some of the senate elections which effectively makes the senate classes very different when the entire point is that they are suppose to be the same. And ignoring the main problem with your argument it isn't worth it. If you're going to make profound changes to the way government works there are countless ways of doing that... some random unhelpful nonsense you pulled out of your hat doesn't qualify. Also, everything you offer as benefits could be achieved equally and easier by other methods.

Presidents should not serve really odd terms as you suggest.

----

The founding fathers set up the time periods so that they sync which is my point. I don't think there should be any limit on quality persons serving in the office of president. But, I'm okay with term limits. My main objection to your plan is that it's utterly absurd, it's a lot of work for no improvement, and it ruins the sync set up by the founding fathers. The 6, 4, 2, year setup between senators, presidents, and house members is very specific and done for good reason.

You are suggesting that presidents get half of a second term (4+2) regardless if they are completely horrific or absolutely fantastic. It whitewashes skill completely as getting elected 12 years after you're first elected is pretty much a joke.

What's worse is pretty much everything you're saying is better done with simpler methods. Don't let presidents take special interest money.

- My measurement is between first election and end of third term which is 30 years.

>>Yes. And now that my opponent has mapped it out, it is easier to see all the advantages. This would make it possible for the incoming president to know who all will be in the senate he becomes elected. As it stands now 1/3 of the senate leadership could change just as the president is trying to get in and oriented.

Um, there's a grace period of several months where the president elect can get to know the new junior senators.

1 election is more expensive than 2. You need to pay a lot just to setup shop. In California alone an election costs about 13 million.

>>Bush's approval ratings went from low to about 90% to about 50% in just a few years.

9/11 happened and people rally. He never did anything impressive.

>>My opponent appears to be arguing what would be better for my opponent rather than what would be better for the country. Consider how the price of oil has consistently gone down ever sense Obama said that he might consider drilling,

That's simply not true. If anything the drop in oil is because of a drop in demand. If people actively stop driving because of the prices then there's hope for the near future oil markets.

Presidents are more likely to get reelected during a war, but they typically don't start them just to get reelected. In fact, very few of them start them at all.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Dali 8 years ago
Dali
Sorry it took so long to respond. I had to help my sister move.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Demauscian 6 years ago
Demauscian
DaliTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 6 years ago
Tatarize
DaliTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
DaliTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
DaliTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
DaliTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
DaliTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by zach12 8 years ago
zach12
DaliTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Corycogley77479 8 years ago
Corycogley77479
DaliTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by greengrl223 8 years ago
greengrl223
DaliTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by Dali 8 years ago
Dali
DaliTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70