The Instigator
16kadams
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Raisor
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Resolved: The US federal goverment should pass a term limit ammendment

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Raisor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/20/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,055 times Debate No: 19991
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

16kadams

Pro

First round acceptance only. Voters this is a tournament so do not vote on spelling, grammar, or conduct. Also definitions will be posted next round. Also the term limits apply to the congress (house and senate), and the limit is for the house is 6 two year terms (house), and 2 4 year terms (senate). Any questions ask next round or in the comments, good luck.
Raisor

Con

I accept.

Should also note that this debate is for the Christmas Tournament, run by weirdman.
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Pro

Term limit:

a statutory limit on the number of terms an official may serve: the Twenty-second Amendment, which imposed term limits on U.S. presidents.
http://dictionary.reference.com... limit

The definition we will use for ammentments is:

an alteration of or addition to a motion, bill, constitution, etc.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

Also it takes a 2/3 majority. The debate is is they SHOULD, not if they can. So do not use the "it wont pass" argument.

C1: makes it harder to become a career politician.

This is irrefutable, the refutable part is why these career politicians are "bad" or less favorable then not.

Getting rid of these career politicians will let new people take their place, and add in new ideas to the wash. Our system now has many career politicians, Barney frank (he's retiring), ron paul. etc. Although some career politicians are adequate, having the new people helps fix problems in new ways, not just the old.

Consider Mitt Romney's latest line, a none-too-subtle jab at Texas Gov. Rick Perry: "Career politicians got us into this mess, and career politicians can't get us out!" Sarah Palin took a similar swipe in Perry's direction, inveighing against a "permanent political class."

He makes a good point, if these knuckle head's got us into it, how can they get us out in the same way they got us in? So to conclude this point, career politicians aren't always bad, but new ones circulating in once in a while is beneficial.

C2: Limits the amount of special interests and connections

The breaking of the cozy connections between long tenured pols and their various special interests and lobbying organizations will force those interests to try to reconnect with a new breed of legislator who is not a career politician, but one who thinks differently, and more often with common sense and integrity, and is less often concerned with reelection. [1]

So they happen, but it makes them less permanent, so a company or a person will not have control for 30 years like they can now.

C3: encourages competition: challenger v. challenger, less incumbent advantage.

Seniority systems now in place in Congress discourage truly talented individuals from running for office, because even though they can win, they know they will have to wait years before they will get any recognition for their bills, or a seat on a good committee (much less a chairmanship!). With term limits in force, all legislators will be relatively new arrivals, and therefore seniority will be meaningless. Merit will become the selection method of choice. [1]

This explains itself.

It enhances democracy because it is less incumbent experience, but merit of arguments and beliefs.

C4: if the president has a term limit, why can't congressmen?

f the president gets only eight years to serve, why should senators and representatives be allowed other term lengths? In my opinion, this is the single biggest cause of the problems in Washington.

I will expand later and add more contentions as well, but for now this is it.

http://tenurecorrupts.com... [1]
http://www.usatoday.com... [2]
Raisor

Con

Con's Case:

A) Term Limits Prevents Elected Official From Gaining Experience

Running a government is every bit as tricky as running a business- it takes knowledge of budgeting, management, and relevant “best practice.” In the business world, experience is valued because with experience comes knowledge of how to be efficient in your job and how to perform your job well. In fact, running a government can be significantly more complicated than running a business. A business concerns itself only with its niche in the private sector, e.g. with architecture for a an architectural firm or with food for McDonalds. As Aristotle says in “Nichomachean Ethics,” a politician must concern himself with the entire range of fields that he governs:

“politics appears to be of this nature; for it is this that ordains which of the sciences should be studied in a state, and which each class of citizens should learn and up to what point they should learn them; and we see even the most highly esteemed of capacities to fall under this, e.g. strategy, economics, rhetoric; now, since politics uses the rest of the sciences, and since, again, it legislates as to what we are to do and what we are to abstain from, the end of this science must include those of the others, so that this end must be the good for man. For even if the end is the same for a single man and for a state, that of the state seems at all events something greater and more complete…”

The statesman must learn and master a wide variety of issues, and to do so takes time. Term limits prevents Congressmen from gaining the needed experience to effectively govern. One only needs to look toward the state government of California, which has enacted term limits and has been the premier example of fiscal ineptitude and poor governance:

“The product of this verges on the comical. As a California budget-watcher pointed out to me, when you get Arnold Schwarzenegger in a room with the leadership of the Senate and Assembly, Schwarzenegger has the most budget and legislative experience in the room. A guy who was starring in Terminator films as recently as 2003 is now the most seasoned elected official during one of the worst crises California has ever had. Term limits are one of those ideas that sound good in theory but are madness in practice. You wouldn't want to go to a hospital filled with medical residents or stock a sports team with an ever-changing cast of rookies. Legislating is hard. We need to give people time to learn how to do it.[1]”

Or look at the term-limited state of Missouri:

A new report from the [University of Missouri] Truman School of Public Affairs argues that the shortening of lawmakers' careers has contributed to a lack of political expertise in the general assembly -- resulting in a less effective government.”[2]


B) Term Limits Shift Power to the Bureaucracy and Lobbyists

Traditionally, legislators become policy experts in certain areas and are then able to contribute to the legislative process as a whole. With term limits, legislators cannot gain policy expertise and so rely on lobbyists for policy advice. Missouri proves:

“[Reasearch associate professor] Valentine argues that the disappearance of long-term or career politicians in the general assembly has led to a deficit of policy experts. A former state senate staffer, Valentine said that the traditional route for lawmakers to distinguish themselves was to become a respected expert on a certain policy area and then become a resource for other lawmakers.

Without this practice, Valentine said term limits have given more power to lobbyists who - as non-government employees - can remain in the halls of the capitol longer than any elected official in Jefferson City ever could. But at the same time, these lobbyists are not held accountable to constituents.”[2]

This exacerbates the influence of corporations and big money on Congress. Lobbyists do not get elected and so are only accountable to their financiers.

C) Term Limits are a Blunt Object Where a Scalpel is Needed

Term limits would force out many good career politicians- my opponent even concedes this. That there are bad career politicians doesn’t mean we should get rid of all statesmen with a long history of service, this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Instead it would be better to initiate more precise reform like campaign finance reform, revising the seniority system, rotating committee chairs more frequently, etc. There are a wide array of options that would help disperse the power of long-serving Congressmen that would not force respectable career politicians to retire.

Opponent’s Case:

C1: This is entirely refuted by my opening argument. “Career Politicians” are needed to ensure that our politicians are experienced enough to do a good job.

My opponent even concedes that there are many good career politicians. These are the type of people we need governing our country, and instituting term limits would throw them out of office.

It is easy to invoke cute catchphrases like “Career politicians got us into this mess,” but soundbites like this don’t capture the complexity of the legislative process. Furthermore, the argument is a fallacy; just because many of today’s problems are the fault of some career politicians doesn’t mean other politicians can’t solve those problems. It is even more absurd to presume that simply being a non-career politician makes you magically more capable of solving existing problems. A sea captain crashed the Titanic, but that doesn’t mean we should get non-captains to pilot our luxury mega-cruisers. Instead, we vote out the Titanic-crashing captains and keep the captains that don’t crash into icebergs.

Furthermore, the myth of the invincible incumbent is just that: a myth. There were huge upsets during the 2008 elections by Tea Party backed Republican challengers and notably Arlen Specter was defeated in his 2010 Senatorial campaign after serving for nearly 30 years. New blood comes into Congress each election cycle.

C2: All the long-term politicians with “cozy” relationships to special interests started out as freshman politicians; there is no reason to think the new blood in Congress wont buddy-up to lobbyists. Note that Pro offers no evidence that new politicians are less likely to listen to lobbyists, he just links to some random website. Compare this to my University study showing that term limits cause politicians to rely MORE on the advice of lobbyists.

Additionally, term limits mean that politicians have a “lame duck” term- a term where they know they aren’t coming back because they have the term limit. These politicians have no incentive to stay accountable to their electorate, what is to stop them from “cashing in” before they are permanently booted from office and selling their vote to the highest bidder behind closed doors?


C3: Pro lists the inequities cause by the seniority and committee chair systems as reasons to limit the terms. This demands the obvious question: why not just reform these conventions instead? I stated in my opening argument that these are the problems with the structure of Congress; these are the issues that should be the target of reform, not term limits.

C4: This is just a modified “Tu quoque”- The fact that we have term limits on the presidency is totally independent of whether we should institute Congressional term limits; the two governing bodies are structurally very different (one person vs. a body of hundreds of legislators) and serve different functions. The relevant question here is “What is the best way to structure Congress?” not “How can we make Congress look more like the Presidency?”

[1] http://voices.washingtonpost.com...

[2] http://ozarksfirst.com...

Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Pro

"Term Limits Prevents Elected Official From Gaining Experience"

BTW I will use the same font as you for consistancy.

This is false. 8 years is a long time to gain experince, and when you run out of one term limit in the house then run for senate. Then you get 16 years of experience. Then run for governer or president (generally a 8 year limit) so you can get a lot of experience regardless of a temilit of 8 years, the one we agreed upon.

Experience in one's profession is a good thing, but even House Members who only serve one term -- two years -- clearly have time to develop significant experience. Despite the protestations of some foes of term limits that Members need a great deal of seasoning before they can make real decisions, no other profession requires two years of on-the-job training. Moreover, the skills developed by years of legislative service surely will find numerous other outlets under term limits; those Members who reach the end of permitted service can still work to improve people's lives in the law, in business, in academies and think-tanks, or even in other branches of government.[1]

"Term Limits Shift Power to the Bureaucracy and Lobbyists"



This makes no sense, it actually reduces lobbying.

The breaking of the cozy connections between long tenured pols and their various special interests and lobbying organizations will force those interests to try to reconnect with a new breed of legislator who is not a career politician, but one who thinks differently, and more often with common sense and integrity, and is less often concerned with reelection. [1]

it breaks special interests. I will use a les scrdible source, but it still proves my point:

They reduce that power, because if a new person comes in every couple of terms, and doesn't hold with the same people, those people lose their influence. [3]


Well that soure is just as credible as us as we are not profesionals it is only as credible as us.

"Term limits would force out many good career politicians- my opponent even concedes this. "

Yes but getting rid of them is good.

The late U.S. Senator Teddy Kennedy served in Congress a mind-numbing 46 years. The only thing that stopped him: death. U.S. Senator Robert Byrd served 51 year. Death finally voted him out. U.S. Senator Strom Thurmond served 46 years until death overtook him. U.S. Senator Ted Stevens racked up 40 years. Daniel Inouye at 46 years and John McCain over 30 years will serve until they too-suffer death as their only way out.

What do they all share in common? Career politicians! They enjoy(ed) the 'good old boys club' in Washington, DC, a kind of present day 'royalty' enjoyed by Prince Charles, Queen Elizabeth, et al. [4]

If the Founding Fathers made one huge mistake in the U.S. Constitution, 'term limits' for citizen politicians would be that blunder. Many wonder why our government officials fail us on so many levels. They wonder by Washington politicians won't enforce our laws or enact legislation that benefits ordinary citizens instead of people from other countries. Why do our politicians approve outsoucing, insourcing and offshoring of jobs when we suffer 15 million unemployed Americans and 41.8 million Americans subsisting on food stamps? Why do they fail us on multiple levels?

Answer: Lifelong and long term politicians formed a 'royalty' club in Washington DC that dances to a 'money and elitist' tune that resembles the monarchies of former empires. Even as they become infirmed enough to stagger or wheel-chair themselves across the Senate floor, or become dottering old goats that cannot and do not offer fresh, new ideas for our challenging times-they cling to power, to their status, to their 'royalty' of being called Senator So and So. Ironically, Americans reelect them out of habit. [4]

carreer politicians are bad on average. Also term limits force ideas, no senority to rule the race. incumbants win 80% of the time. Even if they suck. So term limts would let in people with good ideas trump senority every few elections.

C1: makes it harder to become a career politician.


Spanbauer was only half way through his first term and he is already a career politician. Our elected officials got us into this mess and they dump everything on our citizens and are protected by a law they made to avoid paying their share. We have to vote all of these bums out of office, not just a few. If the president is limited to two terms, why aren't all elected officials? [5]

yes they got us into it, how will they get us out? BTW Ron paul is the only good carrer politician in my view.

Looking back at history to the Roman Empire governments usually run its course around 200 years. Well the U.S.A. is long past that time. We can no longer have a person get elected and run time and time again on name recognition. The time has come where we stop complaining about our officials and go to the polls and do something about it. [5]

basically saying that people who are incumbants win by senoity and name recognition and need to be stopped and allow new people with fresh ideas help. These new people are morin touch with the american people, not washingotn.

C2: Limits the amount of special interests and connections

I still do not see why you argue opposite.

Since political exchange is rarely simultaneous or subject to enforceable contracts there is potential for opportunism. Will the representative exert high effort for the interest? Will the interest fulfill its promises of support? Answering these questions in the affirmative requires that there be mutual trust between interest and representative, which can only be created in a long-term relationship. Similarly, log-rolling requires that representatives know and trust one another. Term limits will increase the turnover rate for committee chairs and indeed for the entire legislature--every 12 years the legislature will be composed of entirely new representatives--thereby making trust difficult to build up. Long tenure also allows committee chairs to develop "property rights" in certain areas of legislation (Weingast and Marshall 1988). With term limits, property rights in policy areas will be more difficult to establish and this will make it difficult for politicians to logroll and trade political support. [6]

reduces special interests

C3: encourages competition: challenger v. challenger, less incumbent advantage.

No need to expand, this is given.

C4: if the president has a term limit, why can't congressmen?

this is given too.

I will add another contention as I have the room.

C5: REDUCES POLITICAL LOBBYING

This is linked to special intrests (basically the same thing) but I will dwell on this.

Term limits would reduce the power of lobbyists and special interest groups. These parties have made long-term investments in politicians. As a result, these are the people who oppose term limits. [7]

SO this is linked above, and it reduces lobbyists whom preform politial lobbying.

Every time I hear a politician say that something is “politically infeasible,” they are basically saying “we put our re-election ahead of the interests of the nation.” [7]

well thats it I am running out of room now.



Good luck I await your response :)



sources:
http://www.termlimitsforcongress.com... [1]

http://tenurecorrupts.com... [2]

http://answers.yahoo.com... [3]

http://www.rense.com... [4]

http://www.thenorthwestern.com...- [5]

http://www.cato.org... [6]

http://leedsonfinance.com... [7]

Raisor

Con

A) Term Limits Prevents Elected Official From Gaining Experience

Pro says politicians should run for other positions in Congress once their term limits are over. This effectively invalidates his entire argument. He says to solve the experience problem, politicians should serve long terms, just in different positions. This proves that even with term limits, being a career politician is still possible (in fact Pro advocates it!)

To say that two years is time to develop significant experience is laughable. With two year’s experience you are applying for entry level jobs in the private sector. Additionally, there are many many professions that require more than two years on the job training. To be a doctor you have to complete several years of residency. You need 5 years job experience before you can apply to be a licensed engineer.

Almost every job fits into a tiered system where people with more experience hold more responsibility and authority. But with term limits, there is no one with experience to take those positions. All the legislators are freshman so no one has any job experience. No business would boot all employees after 10 years- this just amounts to preventing the accumulation of experience. Congress shouldn’t operate like that either.

In my opening round I pointed out that legislators must be up to speed on an exceptionally wide range of issues. Currently, younger legislators rely on the expertise of more senior members for guidance on a wide range of issues. Term limits boot legislators out of office just as they are developing the expertise needed to deal with these issues.

Term limits at the state level shows what happens when you remove experience from office. Term limited state have on average a much poorer ranking of healthcare policy:

“Overall, the average [Best States for you Health] ranking for the fifteen states with term limits is 31st in all three rankings. The average ranking for the 35 states without term limits is 23rd.

The reason term limits have such a significant effect on the health of a state’s population may be because term-limited politicians don’t have the time to come up to speed on complex health issues.”[1]

B) Term Limits Shift Power to the Bureaucracy and Lobbyists

Pro offers no reason why we should expect new politicians to have “common sense and integrity.” He just assumes this is the case and his source is merely a blog with a list of generic arguments. All of the “career politicians” Pro decries started out as new politicians, yet somehow they became, in Pro’s eyes, no longer tolerable. Simply being new to Congress doesn’t make you a paragon of virtue; new legislators are just as vulnerable to lobbyists and special interests (in fact they are more so, as I argued in my opening round).

I cited in my opening round a study conducted by the University of Missouri that showed that term limiting state representatives actually gave MORE power to lobbyists. Lobbyists have no term limits, so as the legislators come and go it is the lobbyists who stick around and gain experience in how to run the government. Additionally, lobbyists are often much more familiar with the issues they represent. This means that all the experience that used to be stored in long-serving politicians becomes located solely in lobbyists. When new legislators find that they lack the experience to develop robust policy, the ever present “guidance” of the lobbyists becomes much more convincing. Keep in mind this is supported by the research of the Missouri study, while Pro’s claim is totally unsupported by evidence.

Also, Pro offered no rebuttal to my point that term limits create regular “lame duck” legislators who know they cannot be re-elected. These legislators are totally unaccountable to the public since they do not have to worry about re-election. What prevents these legislators for selling out to special interest in their final term? Career politicians have to protect their career and so cannot upset their electorate by selling out. A term-limited politician does not have this concern and is free to bow to lobbyists during their final term.

D) Term limits are Undemocratic

Almost all the “career politicians” you cite were very well respected and liked by their electorate. Ted Kennedy and Ted Stevens were continuously re-elected because their constituency loved them. These are prime examples of the politicians we do NOT want to force out of office. I am sorry the Pro didn’t like these politicians, but their electorate thought they did a very good job and it is the electorate that these politicians were elected to serve- not Pro.

Pro’s argument betrays the true undemocratic nature of term limit movements. He doesn’t like the politicians other parts of the country elects, so he wants to boot them out through term limits. Well, Alaska’s hero may be your villain, but it is Alaska’s decision to elect a representative. Similarly, there are many people who think Pro’s “only good career politician” Ron Paul is a villain- these people do not have the right to create legislation to force Ron Paul out of office anymore than Pro has the right to try and force McCain out of office.

The claim that only death stops career politician is blatantly false. I pointed out in my opening round that Arlen Specter was defeated in his Senate race after 30 years of service. In 2010 alone 54 incumbents were defeated! [2] It is quite simply false that career politicians are invincible. New blood enters Congress with every election cycle, bringing with them the new ideas Pro says are needed in our government. New ideas are valuable in Congress, but so is experience and expertise. Currently our system allows for both; term limits would totally do away with experience. Incumbents do have a high win percentage, but this is often because their constituency is satisfied with their service.

C) Term Limits are a Blunt Object Where a Scalpel is Needed

Instead of talking about sweeping reform like term limits, we should be looking to more pointed reform like campaign finance, revising the seniority and chair system, etc. These more pointed reforms would solve all the problems Pro brings up without forcing out the experience in Congress, enabling lobbyists, and undermining democratic choice.

This is the key point in this debate: the problems brought up by Pro can be solved through other reform measures. Term limits are a clumsy and dangerous tool and we should be looking to more specific reform.

C1:

“Spanbauer was only half way through his first term and he is already a career politician.”

This quote from Pro illustrates my point exactly- new politicians aren’t magically more virtuous, they are just as susceptible to political gamesmanship and special interest as career politicians.

C2:

Extend my argument that reforming the chair and seniority system will solve the problem of “property rights” in different policy areas. Note that the Cato evidence Pro cites specifically says that term limits will solve by way of increasing turnover rate for chair positions- indicating that the problem here is with the chair system. This shows that targeted reform is the true solution, not term limits.

At the same time, a certain amount of trust between politicians is necessary for political compromise. Political horse trading is a time honored tradition of the U.S. Congress; it allows opposing parties to come to agreements on complicated and contentious issues. In the absence of trust and political negotiation, the party system creates gridlock where nothing is able to be accomplished.

C4:
Again, the president serves a different function and is structured differently than Congress. The two are apples and oranges. We need to focus on what is right for Congress, not how to make Congress look like the presidency.

[1]http://pgionfriddo.blogspot.com...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Pro




"Pro says politicians should run for other positions in Congress once their term limits are over. This effectively invalidates his entire argument. He says to solve the experience problem, politicians should serve long terms, just in different positions. This proves that even with term limits, being a career politician is still possible"

Well of course 6 years is enough for experience, but let mealso prove running for other offices amy not help:

1. you lsoe the incumbant advantage and have a smaller chance at winning.
2. What it the point just run for president or have a fall back job as most of them are lawyers and in the case of ron paul a doctor.

Also I do not avocate being a career politician. Term limits would limit career politicians due to the fact if they ran for another office they would lose the incumbant advantage.

"To say that two years is time to develop significant experience is laughable."

like clarified in the first round you get 6 year term limit. Also we agreed to that as well in a PM before I insigated this tournament debate. So this argument is against the begining precpepts.

"To be a doctor you have to complete several years of residency. You need 5 years job experience before you can apply to be a licensed engineer."

My dad who is a doctor went through like 3 years of internship and 3 residency, and an optional 1 year fellowship.

But that is 7 years, anengineer is 5 years, the term limit proposed is 6 years. So therefore since you say that those are good enough times for gaining exxperience then we agree.

"Almost every job fits into a tiered system where people with more experience hold more responsibility and authority."

That is my poit because there is no more incumbant advantage. Senority no longer trumps quality. It forces politicians to be good at their jobs.

"But with term limits, there is no one with experience to take those positions. "

Disagreed, in politics people get experience fast. Allen West, a new tea party representative, is already a big player in congress. So depending on the person, a person can gain experience fast.

"No business would boot all employees after 10 years- this just amounts to preventing the accumulation of experience. Congress shouldn’t operate like that either."

1. Congress isn't a buisness
2. Since it isn't a buisness it nedn't act like one.
3. Also the system works well for presidents, so why wouldn't it work for congress? I asked that question and you never asked it.

"Also, Pro offered no rebuttal to my point that term limits create regular “lame duck” legislators who know they cannot be re-elected."

you offered no proof to this resolution. And also wouldn't this happen in the cirrent system? A term limit doesn't create this as it only affects them in 6 years.

"Term limits are Undemocratic"

I will now destroy your statement:

Perhaps the most popular argument against term limits is that they restrict the choices available to voters. Voters, say opponents, should be able to vote for as wide a field of candidates as possible. Additionally, the ballot box makes statutory term limits unnecessary. "In effect, there are term limits in place every two years -- candidates have to go before constituents and get reelected," says Jeff Biggs, press secretary for House Speaker Tom Foley. (Debbie Howlett, "Speaker Foley Challenges Home State Term Limit," USA Today, June 8, 1993, p. 8A.) But arguments that term limits are undemocratic because they restrict voters' choices run into two problems: (1) the tremendous electoral advantages enjoyed by incumbents make it difficult to argue that the elections they win are truly democratic, and (2) term limits would be more likely to expand the field of candidates than to restrict it.[1]

Term limits will likely end incumbents' traditional ability to insulate congressional elections from true competition. In fact, experience at the state level suggests that voter choice actually is increased by term limits. In California, for instance, the imposition of state-level term limits in 1990 led to a 1992 increase of over 25 percent in candidate filings for the state senate and over 50 percent for the state assembly; senate candidate filings for 1994 reflect yet another increase, and while assembly candidate filings have dropped from 1992, they remain 15 percent higher than they were in 1990. Although the limits do not take effect until 1996, they have encouraged some incumbents to find other work before they were forced to do so. [1]

It enhances democracy.

"These are prime examples of the politicians we do NOT want to force out of office. "

There are other people with similar and more popular views that are better. Also you don't know how good they are for one reason, the incumbant advantage.

Congress apporval rating:

9% look at my 2nd source for info.


Congress reelection rate:

In November of 2004, 401 of the 435 sitting members of the U.S. House of Representatives sought reelection. Of those 401, all but five were reelected. In other words, incumbents seeking reelection to the House had a better than 99% success rate. In the U.S. Senate, only one incumbent seeking reelection was defeated. Twenty-five of twenty-six (96%) were reelected. [3]

SO you can't base their re election's on their quality as they almost always get re eleted.


"Again, the president serves a different function and is structured differently than Congress. The two are apples and oranges. We need to focus on what is right for Congress, not how to make Congress look like the presidency."

It is a great question, the president is just a powerful politician. The Congressmen/women are just weaker versions. Why can't they et term limits like him? it is a liginamant question. Also you critisise me for having a blog as a source yet you have one, not to be rude just saying.

Also you haven't refuted many of my added on case.

Conclusion:

I have refuted your arguments and proven term limits for congress to be benificial. It reduces the amount of creer politicians, it increases competition, it brings in new ideas, and I now refer to my video as my final arguments, and a quote:

"Politicians are like diapers: they must be changed often and for the same reason."-Paul Harvey

Your a smart guy I just want to point out the obvious, he hints to term limits. Also my 4 source has more.









sources:
http://www.termlimitsforcongress.com... [1]

http://www.nytimes.com... [2]

http://thisnation.com... [3]

http://www.dennis.polhill.info... [4]

Raisor

Con

In this final round, I am going to break from the preceding structure of the debate to present a more streamlined way to analyze the arguments.

1) Why Term Limits Are Not Needed

To be sure, Pro enunciates some very legitimate concerns about Congress. He points out the long-time members often wield large amounts of influence and often have strong ties to special interest groups. He points out that we need to allow new blood more freedom to contribute ideas and to make sure Congress is not controlled by lobbyists. But these are all problems that can be solved without initiating term limits. Revising campaign finance laws would limit the power of lobbyists and special interest groups. Restructuring the seniority system and increasing the frequency with which committee chairs rotate would limit the power of older Congress members and give freshman more of a voice in Congress. These are just a few of the reforms that are targeted specifically at the problems Pro mentions, and in fact even Pro’s sources show that the issues these reforms target are at the heart of the matter- for example when his Cato source says “Term limits will increase the turnover rate for committee chairs and indeed for the entire legislature…”

Throughout the course of this debate Pro has not offered a single reason why the reform possibilities I have offered up are inferior to term limits or why we should prefer term limits over targeted reform.

Additionally, term limits do not solve many of the concerns put forth by Pro. He has not explained why younger members of Congress would somehow ignore the influence of lobbyists and special interests.

The bottom line is there are other, more efficient and direct ways to solve the problems Pro outlines.

2) Why Term Limits Hurt US Congress

First, term limits prevent Congress from accumulating valuable experience. In every industry, experience is a valued commodity- to even apply for an engineering license you must have 5 years experience and Pro has pointed out doctors require 6 years of on the job training (on top of years of medical school). Congressman must understand issues from economics to healthcare to agriculture- the wide range of issues requires a long time to master. With term limits, by the time a legislator has mastered an area of public policy they are booted out of office. No business operates like this- you don’t fire an architect once they hit 10 years of service- and the reason for this is that experience is crucial for any organization to run successfully. This is illustrated by the poor healthcare ranking of states with term limits and the fiscal ruin of term limited California.

Second, term limits give greater power to lobbyists. While legislators are term limits, lobbyists and special interest groups are not. This means that lobbyists learn the workings of Congress better than the legislators. Coupled with the lack of familiarity with policy issues due to lack of experience, legislators have a tendency to rely on the guidance offered by lobbyists in developing public policy. Keep in mind that this isn’t my own conjecture, this is the scenario discovered by research from the University of Missouri, which found the influence of lobbyists to increase in the state legislature after Missouri instituted term limits.

Third, term limits force out respected and efficient members of Congress like John McCain and Ron Paul. These are politicians who have been instrumental in developing important legislation and have valuable insight on how to reach compromises on difficult issues.

Finally, term limits mean that at any given time, half of the U.S. senate would be “lame ducks”- meaning they have no option of re-election and so are unaccountable to their electorate. These politicians might vote in unpredictable ways. Also, these politicians could be tempted to sell out during their final term, bowing to lobbyists and special interests, since they have no fear of jeopardizing future election bids and have a need to secure a future after they leave office. For example, a Senator may vote in line with a group of lobbyists in exchange for a job offer once he leaves office.

3) Why Term Limits are Undemocratic

Pro would have you believe that if term limits increase the number of candidates in an election, this represents an increase in choice. Allow me to show that this is false by analogy. Imagine you go to a restaurant because you know they have a great filet mignon steak. However, the waiter informs you that you may not order the steak, but instead you may choose from a wide variety of other dishes. Of course from your perspective the waiter has restricted your ability to choose, not expanded it. You wanted the steak, but that option was taken away form you- it doesn’t matter what the other dishes are because your first choice was taken away from you. This is exactly the situation the good people of Texas would face were they told Ron Paul was ineligible for election.

Note: this is a new argument, but it is only in response to a new argument presented by my opponent in his final round so I ask the judges to allow it.

Of course I have shown that while incumbents have an electoral advantage, there are plenty of historical examples of long-term politicians losing reelection bids and of mass incumbent losses during times of political dissatisfaction. In 2010, in the House of Representatives alone, 58 incumbents loss re-election bids. This shows that incumbents are vulnerable to a dissatisfied electorate and that new blood enters Congress frequently.

Again, the answer to solving any structural inequities in elections is not to restrict electoral choice but to institute targeted reform of how elections are carried out.

4) The Non-sequitur

Pro seems to think Congressmen are just less powerful versions of the president, and so wants to know why the president should have term limits but not Congress. Congress is entirely different than the President- only Congress passes laws, Congress must act by group consensus, Congress represents individual states, etc. The very different purpose and structure means comparison between president and Congress is inappropriate.

Conclusion:

Term limits are a superficially appealing solution to systemic problems with Congress- it represents an easy solution to a complicated suite of problems. Unfortunately, easy solutions are rarely as great as they seem.

From 1) we see that term limits are inadequate to solve the problems outline by Pro and that targeted reform is the true way to solve these problems. From 2) we see that term limits actually initiate a slew of problems that would be detrimental to U.S. Congress. From 3) we see that term limits restrict the choice of the voters and so represents an anti-democratic policy move.

The question we are left with is why would we choose to initiate a policy that fails to solve the core problems, initiates more problems, and is undemocratic when we have alternatives available that do solve the core problems, are unproblematic, and preserves our democratic values. Term limits are clearly an undesirable course of action, and so I urge you to vote Con.

Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
i know I will
Posted by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
I dont think the whole debate is due yet, just the challenge. Anyways lets just finish the debate either way - its your turn.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
the debate for the tournament was due on Friday
Posted by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
What?
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
dude the debate is due today I will submit as is
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
16kadamsRaisorTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Thought I would initially agree with Pro I felt Con had strong convincing arguments.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
16kadamsRaisorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 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: Pro never attacks the logic that good politicians will be kicked out of office with term limits. Cons counterplans solve the issues pro brings up, without the disadvantages TL would bring. Con wins on the args. that new congressmen are more vulnerable to lobbyists and that it takes a long time to gain experience. Spelling and Grammar to Con because pro engaged in "ultra quoting" which is an ineffective and horrendous looking way to debate.