The Instigator
KingHades1722
Pro (for)
The Contender
Cogitatio-et-veritatis
Con (against)

Should Congressional Members have Term Limits?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Cogitatio-et-veritatis has forfeited round #5.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 620 times Debate No: 100493
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

KingHades1722

Pro

Rules of Engagement:

1. Be polite and professional. No ad hominem attacks or personal insults.

I will be taking the stance that yes, Congress should have debate limits.

I look forward to debating with whoever accepts.
Cogitatio-et-veritatis

Con

I will be taking the stance against congressional term limits, Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
KingHades1722

Pro

Edit: I meant to say congressional limits, not debate limits. I apologize. Good luck to you, as well.

I am in favor of congressional term limits. I say this because our current situation is in many cases that of an aristocratic elite, and this undermines the very freedom we seek. When people can become career politicians, spending their entire life in Washington, this surely leads to an increased rate of corruption, and decay. Politicians become less responsive to their constituents, especially in states that vote one party almost always. I believe congressional term limits would help to change the status quo; if new blood is regularly sent to Washington, then new ideas and new ways of thinking are bound to follow. Destroying this aristocratic process would make our nation more democratic; instead of people going into politics for wealth or power, as they do now, they will go in with a wish to truly help their nation, since they will know that they can only serve for a certain time. In many cases Congress is more powerful than the President, and yet we only restrict the latter and not the former, which I find absurd.
Cogitatio-et-veritatis

Con

I stand against the thought of congressional term limits because of the fact that the idea could rid congress of either well-liked or experienced congressmen who know the ropes on how to; vote against and for the passing of certain policies, represent people properly, and serve on committees. Also the suggestion of "congressional term limits" are unnecessary due to the fact that there are congressional re-elections if a certain member of the house or senate does something questionable he/she could be elected out and replaced by another person. The process is all done by the people. Congressional term limits could also give more power to the bureaucrats and the lobbyist which isn't something I'd think would be good for the country, some may find it unconstitutional.
Debate Round No. 2
KingHades1722

Pro

I agree that the idea could rid Congress of well-liked or experienced politicians that know how to do what you said. However, the same argument could go for not applying term limits to the Presidency, which most everybody would disagree with, due to the obvious arguments that the danger of the President becoming a tyrant is too great. Why does this argument not apply to Congress as a whole, which has no term limits and far more power than the President has(or, at least, is suppose to have)? While I admit that in a perfect world a congressman would be held accountable to his constituents and could be voted out, that is not the case in today's current world. When people have been in power for so long, they forget how to represent their people and begin to serve their own interests, which includes the process we call gerrymandering(in my opinion it should be more appropriately called election-rigging). Until we establish a national, non-partisan committee to write districts, then gerrymandering will occur, and in doing so it decreases the accountability of politicians. If a politician knows that no opponent could ever garner enough votes in his or her district to face him due to gerrymandering, what is forcing him to work for his or her people? We elect Presidents based on what they promise to do; we elect congressmen due to the fact that often there is no better alternative, and they are who we have become comfortable with. Also, I would argue that congressional term limits would actually reduce the power of lobbyists, as a continuous reset of who is in Washington would ensure that lobbyists would never be able to get a steady hold on a certain group of politicians(again, this is just my opinion, but a restriction on lobbying of some sort would also be nice). When politicians know they only have a certain amount of time in Washington, they will be more apt to accomplish things, which would force them to do things they would not do otherwise, like reach across the aisle.
Cogitatio-et-veritatis

Con

Most politicians aren't terrible tyrants serving as congressman only for their self. Most are public servants trying their best to find and meet the country. With the constant bustling of new inexperienced members could lead to an even more ineffective government. I can also disagree with your statement that congressmen will always become corrupt and self-indulges in their power. Like I said before there are decent, amazing, and corrupt politicians. Lobbyist are people who's main goal is to influence legislature, with more gullible and new congressmen coming into the job, this would encourage lobbyist to perform their duty and jobs. The final point you've made is considered a "lame duck session" which happens with or without a term limit, it always happens with presidents.
Debate Round No. 3
KingHades1722

Pro

Most politicians aren't terrible tyrants, that is true; however, there are some who do serve in government only to serve their interests, and these people tend to gather more and more power the longer they stay in Congress. A large part of the government's inefficiency is due to mass partisanship across the board, which is only furthered when people get into Congress and garner grudges against people on the other side. With a constant rotation of people, this would ensure that:
1. Those grudges cannot cause any impasses in Congress for too long.
2. Mass partisanship does not occur.
Lame duck sessions are pushed to get things to happen, and everybody wants a legacy, causing people to do things they may not have done if they knew they would always be around, like reaching across the aisle to achieve legislation. When it happens to Presidents, you see them consistently push their agendas, because they want to leave a legacy.
Lobbyists are able to garner votes and steady representatives in Congress because they know that they can attract certain Congressmen than will be in Washington for multiple terms. If rotations are constantly happening, then lobbyists cannot get a steady hold on any certain politicians, meaning they will be restricted in their jobs.
Cogitatio-et-veritatis

Con

Limiting the power of congressmen won't solve that problem. We have presidential terms limits, but we still experienced incidents like Watergate where one person went out of their way to corrupt the system for their own gains. Most congressmen have been in office for fifteen plus years, so how come a man who has been in office for under four years was almost able to rig the election?
1. We could have people step down due to incompetencies with their seat in the house. Political grudges should be solved through a good healthy debate, not feelings like Michigan and Ohio State fans.
2. As long as there are two or more parties than there will always be a bias. No stopping that unless we turn into a dictatorship with one unified party, and I don't like the sound of that.
Debate Round No. 4
KingHades1722

Pro

Watergate was not a case of one man trying to rig an election in his favor; it was a case in which his subordinates attempted to break into the Democratic Party's headquarters and wiretap them, and the one man attempted to protect those subordinates instead of giving the police what they needed. Instead he chose to try and shut down the investigation. Nixon was corrupt, that is true, but his office is one in which such corruption is assuredly shown at some point. That is not the case when it comes to Congressmen. Look at the Keating 5, for example; five Congressmen accused of corruption on behalf of a company. Not a single one was convicted, and one of the five was nominated to be his party's Presidential nominee 20 years later. Whether or not they were guilty, this abuse of power shows what happens when one person is in government for too long.
In a perfect world people would step down due to their incompetencies, that is true, but we do not live in a perfect world, and to some a person may be incompetent and to other's may be perfectly fine; this is the case with most every president.
I did mean in insinuate that a healthy bias is bad, if that is what came across. However, the blatant disregard for civility and respect in favor of blind partisanship is not a healthy bias, but a cancer, and it needs to be resolved. When Congressmen announce that they intend to make someone a one-term President and blockade their every move, things have gone too far. Something must be done, and rotation of office seems to be one way of alleviating the problem.

I thank my opponent for the debate. I believe both sides presented good arguments, and that each side was represented adequately.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by daryljj5 5 days ago
daryljj5
oooooooooooooooooooofffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
oof
oof
OoOoOofFfFfF
Posted by Jay1980 2 months ago
Jay1980
Thank god for term limits for president. Thank god obozo couldn't run again. I had to live threw his 8 year nightmare.
Posted by Jay1980 2 months ago
Jay1980
Yes there shell be. Somebody needs to tell steney hoyer that. He's been in way to long
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.