Should the USA Repeal the 22nd Amendment?
Hello, audiences, judges, my name is Forever 23 and I am here to bring forth the premise which is that we should repeal the 22nd amendment.
My roadmap will include defining the 22nd amendment and then stating 2 of my own points.
Put simply, the 22nd amendment to the U.S Constitution, ratified in 1951, limits the presidential terms to two for any one person, or to one elected term if the person has completed more than two years of anothers term.
Assertion #1- Presidents political incentive diminishes in the second term.
Since the reelected president knows that he will not be running for office again, he begins to make poor decisions and does not strive to help the nation. The first term is more tense, stressful, prominent and driven while the second one is characterized by apathy and sometimes even lack of hard work and ineffectivity. History books state that several past presidents ended up doing way worse in the second term such as Nixon who resigned under threat of impeachment, Ronald Reagan during the Iran Conta Affair, and Clinton with his many political scandals. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Barack Obama's second-term agenda hit a road block this month when a series of scandals within the administration stacked up, one after another.
From the IRS' targeting of tea party groups, the Department of Justice's probe into Associated Press journalists' phone records and the never-ending criticism of how the Obama administration handled the Benghazi attacks, eyes have shifted away from the broader policy debates that the president spoke of in his second inaugural address in January.
This is very prominent since presidents may not work hard towards fortifying the economy and political landscape of the country since he is aware that he will be kept in office and not have to work towards re- election. This will impact the American people since they will have to be under the leader ship of a president who will not be working to full potential. Repealing the 22nd amendment would make the presidents more ambitious towards holding the throne and further his motivation to work.
Assertion #2- The 22nd Amendement is a clear violation of democracy.
In the case that we do have a well qualified president whod does a very good job while in office, the 22nd amendment bars that person from running for the presidency again. If most people do want him to be re elected, we are then getting one step closer to the dictatorship. The NYTIMES states, The 22nd amendment is anti democratic. Ter limits deny the nation the opportunity to re elect successful presidents. If Americans are pleased with the performance of their chief exectutive, why force him out because of a fear of power? Our checks and balances system is enough to resist the over weening ambition. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... James Madison wrote the U.S. Constitution in 1787 he intended the system of Checks and Balances to operate in such a way that by separating the powers of different institutions "tyranny of the majority" would be countered. He relied on differing opinions in the separate branches. Even now that the majority of Congress has passed the Affordable Care Act, and the president has signed it into law, Madison's system of checks and balances enables the House of Representatives to stand in the way of its effective implementation. Conservative Republicans are using the system, because they can, to bring the healthcare bill back on the agenda by refusing to pass the omnibus budget bill for 2014. This is possible by design and a result of the Separation of Powers. That system of checks and balances incorporates the need for agreement and compromise between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government. Section 1 http://constitutionus.com...
1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
3: The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.8
4: The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
6: In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office,9 the Same shall devolve on the VicePresident, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
7: The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States.
This is the Constitution! It states the strength of our checks and balances system and shows that there is absolutely no danger in repealing the 22nd amendment.
By implementing the 22nd amendment and keeping the president from running for office again even if the majority of the population approves, we are violating the fundamental democratic ideals this country was formed upon.
Thank you. A vote pro is a vote for democracy.
I shall be making two of my own points in this first round while examining the statements given by my opponent. I first would like to examine my opponent's statements and then carry on with the debate formally and as follows.
"A vote pro is a vote for democracy."
To examine this statement we need to understand the government of the United States of America. The United States government has originally been a Federal Republic, Constitutional Republic, with a Presidential System with a two term limit as also given for the intents of the debate.
According to the 2014 Democracy Index, the United States ranked 19 out of 167 countries in scoring. Majority of countries scoring higher in the index were mostly European, Oceanian, or North American such as Canada. Although the United States is categorized as a full democracy by the index, there isn't enough evidence to support that an unlimited term would boost the United States on this scale or possibly correlate with it.
According to the 2014 Corruption Index, the United States was tied with Ireland, Hong Kong, and Barbados for 17th out of 174 counties in scoring. Once again, majority on countries were located in Oceania, Europe, or Eastern Asia. Same argument can be applied to what I said earlier in regards to the Democracy Index.
To also add, in these top countries that ranked higher than the United States, all don't have term limits. This shows that even though the United States in ranked lower, term limits aren't the underlining issue.
Assertion #1: Having Unlimited Term Limits Give no Incentive to do what's best for the American People
I can list numerous examples relating to the consequences of having no term limit on your behalf. In fact, I don't even need to list foreign countries to name as an example. The Supreme Court of the United States have a life-long term and appointed by the President of the United States. To this day, our current Supreme Court has been voting along their favored political lines, rather than objectively looking at supreme court cases and guiding it with the Constitution. Whether you would like to debate that the Constitution should be changed is an entirely different debate. In the 21st century, Justices decides between political lines 98% of the time.
This is a surprising issue because between the periods of 1790 to 1937, only one supreme court case was split between political lines. Only national courts of the United States hold the life-term while state and district judges still have to run for reelection and pose term limits. The consequences of polarization in both Congress and our Justice System is the real threat to democracy we should be worrying about rather than term limits. No competition equals no incentive for improvement, plain and simple.
Assertion #2: History was the simple reason for including the 22nd Amendment.
When George Washington became the first president of the United States on April 30th, 1789, he wanted to set a precedent to prevent the United States government from becoming an absolute monarchy in Great Britain when King George III was still reigning as the King of Great Britain. When Franklin Delano Roosevelt was awarded a third term on November 5th, 1940, he broke that precedent as many American People were thinking at the time,
"Isn't this giving the Executive Branch of the United States too much power?"
Although Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a great president that made a lot of accomplished for the time, this now gave implication that now practically anybody can serve as many terms as they so please, which broke the checks & balances, a system to maintain stability in the United States Government. The consequences of unlimited terms would give the executive branch more wielding of power and less of maintaining stability in the United States Government. They ratified it as a safeguard against possible candidates that might have the same idea as F.D.R. had during his presidency.
Thank you for reading my response to Forever 23. A vote con is a vote for effective government.
2014 Democracy Index: http://bit.ly...
2014 Corruption Index: http://bit.ly...
Bias of the Supreme Court: http://bit.ly...
Why do Supreme Court Judges serve for Life?: http://bit.ly...
Definition of Democracy (Oxford): http://bit.ly...
F.D.R. and the 22nd Amendment: http://bit.ly...
Hello once again, ladies, gentlemen, my name is Forever 23 and I am here upon this platform to bring forth the premise that we must repeal the 22nd amendment.
My roadmap will include refuting my opponents 2 assertions, restating 2 of my own assertions and then introducing one new one into this debate.
My opponents first claim was that having unlimited term limits gives no incentive to do what is best for the American people. However, this is an absurd notion because presidents want to be re elected. In order to be re elected, they need to serve the government well. So of course, they will be motivated to help the USA. http://www.history.com...
Richard Nixon (1913-94), the 37th U.S. president, is best remembered as the only president ever to resign from office. Nixon stepped down in 1974, halfway through his second term, rather than face impeachment over his efforts to cover up illegal activities by members of his administration in the Watergate scandal. A former Republican congressman and U.S. senator from California, he served two terms as vice president under Dwight Eisenhower (1890-1969) in the 1950s. In 1960, Nixon lost his bid for the presidency in a close race with Democrat John F. Kennedy (1917-63). He ran for the White House again in 1968 and won. As president, Nixon’s achievements included forging diplomatic ties with China and the Soviet Union, and withdrawing U.S. troops from an unpopular war in Vietnam. However, Nixon’s involvement in Watergate tarnished his legacy and deepened American cynicism about government. Perhaps Nixon would have tried for the government if it were not for the 22nd amendment.
Her second assertion was that our founding fathers created this amendment. However, a) THEY DID NOT CREATE THIS AMENDMENT and b) she talked about our checks and balances system. She mentioned how it was to weak and would not endure the repeal of the 22nd amendment. However, the checks and balances system survived in the much more brutal times until the 22nd amendment was implemented. Nothing can be better to clarify this amendment than a childrens site.
http://www.congressforkids.net..., By creating three branches of government, the delegates built a "check and balance" system into the Constitution. This system was built so that no one branch of our government could become too powerful.
Each branch is restrained by the other two in several ways. For example, the president may veto a law passed by Congress. Congress can override that veto with a vote of two-thirds of both houses. Another example is that the Supreme Court may check Congress by declaring a law unconstitutional. The power is balanced by the fact that members of the Supreme Court are appointed by the president. Those appointments have to be approved by Congress.
Now let me move on to quickly restating my own points.
1. Presidents political incentive will diminish in the second term.
Presidents will understand that there is no way to be re elected. Of course, they will never purposely harm the country. However, they can make mistakes due to carelessness and that will be a detriment to the USA.
2. The 22nd amendment is a clear violation of democracy.
Is it not true that the citizens of a real democracy receive the right to elect their own leaders? They do. They 22nd amendment is denying citizens this constitutional right.
My new point is that this amendment takes away the most qualified leaders. In the case that we do have a well qualified president who does a very good job while in office, the 22nd amendment bars the person from running for presidency after the second term. The New York Times states, "The 22nd amendment takes away the most qualified and experienced leaders from office. Why not let American people decide if they want to take advantage of the service instead of risking the job on an untried leader?" http://clinton1.nara.gov...,
""Economic Leadership and a Stronger Economy
Fighting Crime and Restoring Our Communities
Strengthening Our Families: Security and Opportunity
Making Education A Priority
Expanding Markets for American Products
Protecting Our Environment
Perhaps if Bill Clinton held the throne, we would be a much more prosperous nation.
Thank you. Vote for pro if you want your right safe.
I shall defend my earlier points in Round 1 and create further driving points that we may want to discuss about later on in Round 3.
To begin, the Founding Fathers of the United States of America did not create the 22nd Amendment. The Founding Fathers only originally created the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10) and has since added and other American officials modified additional amendments from there. The 22nd Amendment was ratified in 1951 following the death of Franklin Delano Roosevelt who served 4 presidential terms. The 22nd Amendment was considered apart of the "Unwritten Constitution" meaning, that the practice of not having more than 2 presidential terms was traditional as I mentioned in Round 1 stating that George Washington set this precedent, this tradition, they never ratified an official rule about the matter until 1951.
Another notion I'd like to address is in regards to my first assertion in Round 1 stating that having unlimited terms would give less of an incentive to do what's best for the people. Since my opponent has been mentioning the Watergate scandal in both of her rounds, let's give a bit more background that my opponent might not have mentioned.
In Mid-1971, the Pentagon Papers were leaked by the major news outlets at the time. The report stated that multiple administrations, from Truman to Johnson, had intentionally expanded their Vietnam War Efforts, despite what the public were lead to believe. The Nixon Administration panicked, as Nixon Adviser John Ehrlichman assembled the White House Plumbers, which included former CIA director E. Howard Hunt and former FBI agent G. Gordon Liddy. Soon, Nixon's political rivals were recorded on Nixon's "enemies" list. Politicians, journalists, and some Hollywood actors were placed on this list, fearing Nixon would prevent him from being re-elected. These people placed on this list were harassed with tax audits, legal action, among other such threats.
Nixon's ends didn't justify the means when it came to his reelection. A plan was approved by the Nixon Administration to annoy and steal information from the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate Hotel. Nixon feared of not being reelected so he had to cover up and deny the charges affiliated with the Nixon Administration. It had nothing to do with the 22nd Amendment. Nixon could've easily ran for a second term at the time as it lasted between January 20, 1969 " August 9, 1974 when he resigned to evade and avoid being charged and impeached.
Another thing you mention is in regards to William Clinton's presidency and how it burdened the United States against what the American people wanted when he was outed to George W. Bush because of the 22nd amendment. A misconception I would like to address is let's say Hillary Clinton won the primary for the democratic spot in 2016, can she appoint William Clinton (her husband) as Vice President or any other White House affiliated spot? The answer is no because of the 12th Amendment and the language it uses to address a matter like this. Irrelevant to this debate at hand, although it's something I believe both my opponent and myself will be able to clear up on.
I do agree that William Clinton made some remarkable achievements as President and I may argue that Clinton's presidency was my 3rd personal favorite presidency of the 20th century. Allow me to make an analogy almost children-like since you make that form of move yourself with the checks and balances, which I will get to in a moment. Let's say you're in school and it's show and tell time. Everybody is sharing and telling what they did over the weekend. Almost everyone speaks and shows for a set amount of time. However, one child went to Disneyland and he's telling and showing every little detail about what he saw and he's showing everything he bought there. Since he or she is performing for a way longer period of time (twice as long to be exact) this is making it unfair for others who want to make their own turn at showing and telling.
This analogy can be applied for people who would like to run for President. Even if people don't like this president, there are set guidelines to be able to remove him from office such as impeachment. The first person to even bring up the idea of ratifying an amendment to the Constitution was 47th Republican Governor of New York Thomas Dewey saying that, "16 years or 4 terms is the biggest threat to democracy and freedom we've ever seen. Just because some people possibly even a majority of people want the president in office for this long, that sort of practice prevents others from having a chance to lead the nation other than this one guy that's had say Stephen Harper (Former Prime Minister of Canada) who went through 4 elections until he was outed by Justin Trudeau in 2015.
Now I shall begin my defense in regards to the checks & balances system in America. Overall, the checks & balance system still applies in every portion of American History and not just the "brutal times" before the 22nd amendment was ratified. Historically, the framers were terrified of a tyrannical central government that would destroy people's rights. The main purpose of the checks and balances system we have in America is because it makes it increasingly difficult to act in ways that might harm the rights and interests of the citizens. It's a safeguard to prevent fallibility into what we want as people. The 22nd Amendment, although unpopular by some, helps give people more say into what they think is better for the country, giving them at the very least 4 years to do what they can to make the nation better.
" The Nixon Administration and the Watergate Scandal involved Nixon doing the "lie, cheat, and steal" tactic to be reelected for a second term, having nothing to do with the 22nd Amendment preventing from having that next term.
" The 22nd Amendment actually gives people more say than less as they let people choose different people every 8 years.
" Although quality is important, some may see it unfair to have the same guy in power for more than 2 presidential terms.
" The Checks & Balances system is a safeguard to prevent fallibility into rights & interests of the American people.
" The Founding Fathers only created the Bill of Rights as when America was in its infancy.
" The 22nd Amendment was created to prevent the Executive Branch from having too much power over the faster cycled Legislative Branch and its environment for who controls it and the polarization involved with it.
Once again, please vote for Contender if you want everyone to have a say which is, the true form of democracy.
Checks and Balances Explained: http://bit.ly...
The 22nd Amendment Explained: http://bit.ly...
The Watergate Scandal Explained: http://bit.ly...
Hello once again, audience, honorable judges, respected opponent. Hello, once again, I am Forever 23 and I will be introducing the premise which is that we must repeal the 22nd amendment.
I would like to begin by refuting some of my opponents conclusions, restating some of my points, pointing out some blatant observations and finally weighing this debate for.
So as to say, lets dive right into it.
I would now like to begin with my refutations.
She first talked about how the 22nd amendment had nothing to do with Nixons actions. But again, this is not about when Nixon did it. It is about the mindset of the man. Perhaps, he would have been more cautious if he knew that he had a chance to go for the third term. For, if he really did not care about whether he will be chosen again, he would have perhaps hurt our nation in his first term. http://www.analytictech.com..., In other words, you have certain needs or wants (these terms will be used interchangeably), and this causes you to do certain things (behavior), which satisfy those needs (satisfaction), and this can then change which needs/wants are primary (either intensifying certain ones, or allowing you to move on to other ones).
A variation on this model, particularly appropriate from an experimenter's or manager's point of view, would be to add a box labeled "reward" between "behavior" and "satisfaction". So that subjects (or employees), who have certain needs do certain things (behavior), which then get them rewards set up by the experimenter or manager (such as raises or bonuses), which satisfy the needs, and so on.
So lets apply Nixons example. He needed to become president. So his behavior matched his wants. At the end, he gets elected. But with 22nd amendment there was a fallacy. Nixon had to need which completely broke the cycle.
Now onto her second conclusion.
The 22nd Amendment actually gives people more say than less as they let people choose different people every 8 years. However, if the people don't want the leader to stay for a second or third term, they can vote for someone else. Its up to the citizens, who they want as a leader. That is what a democracy is. People get more rights- to re elect for more terms and to not elect for more terms.
Her third arguments was that it is not fair.
However, saying that repealing the 22nd amendment is unfair is a thin veil to cover up the words that democracy is not fair. The 22nd amendment stop Americans from voting for candidates who they actually like.
What is a democracy? https://en.wikipedia.org...
Democracy, or democratic government, is "a system of government in which all the people of a state or polity ... are involved in making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting to elect representatives to a parliament or similar assembly," as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary. Democracy is further defined as (a:) "government by the people; especially : rule of the majority (b:) " a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections."
According to political scientist Larry Diamond, it consists of four key elements:
1.A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections.
2.The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life.
3.Protection of the human rights of all citizens.
4.A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.
The term originates from the Greek δημοκρατ^3;α (dēmokratía) "rule of the people", which was found from δQ34;μος (dêmos) "people" and κρ^0;τος (krátos) "power" or "rule", in the 5th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in Greek city-states, notably Athens; the term is an antonym to O36;ριστοκρατ^3;α (aristokratía) "rule of an elite". While theoretically these definitions are in opposition, in practice the distinction has been blurred historically. The political system of Classical Athens, for example, granted democratic citizenship to an elite class of free men and excluded slaves and women from political participation. In virtually all democratic governments throughout ancient and modern history, democratic citizenship consisted of an elite class until full enfranchisement was won for all adult citizens in most modern democracies through the suffrage movements of the 19th and 20th centuries. The English word dates to the 16th century, from the older Middle French and Middle Latin equivalents.
Her final argument was that the 22nd amendment was made to prevent dictatorship. However, that is also why the checks and balances system was made. And Im sure that we all know the saying that too many cooks in one kitchen will lead to detriment. http://study.com.... Let me just go over the importance of the checks and balances system. When the U.S. government as we know it today was first being formed, the founders of the Constitution thought it was best if the government was divided into three sections, or branches: the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Each of the sections would also have its own separate powers: the legislative branch creates laws, the executive branch enforces laws, and the judicial branch interprets laws. This was done so that no one branch would become too dominant.
This concept of each branch having its own set of job duties and authoritative capacities is known as the concept of separation of powers. The concept of separation of powers is directly related to the system of checks and balances because each branch has its own set of powers (balances), and some of the capabilities that each branch has makes sure that another branch doesn't abuses its power (checks).
Now to quickly summarize my points:
1. Presidents political incentive diminishes in the second term.
2. The 22nd Amendement is a clear violation of democracy.
3. Takes away strong leaders.
Dear judges. The 22nd amendment restricts democracy.
So which side do you vote for? The side that dropped 3 of pros points? The side that wants democracy to be decreased? Or pro, which is for democracy, which supports the ideals engraved in the constitution. Thank you. Vote pro.
To begin I shall begin with refutations and move along to conclusions.
I'd like to question some of my opponents conclusion making skills, and how much of her argument can be interpreted as subjective.
Subjective: is the opposite of objective, which refers to things that are more clear-cut. That Earth has one moon is objective " it's a fact. Whether the moon is pretty or not is subjective " not everyone will agree. Facts are objective, but opinions are subjective.
First off, her first refutation in regards to Nixon is what I'll tackle first.
"But again, this is not about when Nixon did it. It is about the mindset of the man." -Forever23
At first, it sounds like a clear-cut argument. Except for the fact that the mindset is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. She later spins her argument turning it from a political topic debate, to a psychology topic debate.
"Perhaps, he would have been more cautious if he knew that he had a chance to go for the third term." -Forever23
I don't understand why exactly you would bring something that isn't objective. It's skepticism and skepticism is not really the best path to take in a debate because then you can debate just only about that statement itself.
"So lets apply Nixon's example. He needed to become president. So his behavior matched his wants." -Forever23
Needs and wants are vastly different from each other. No person 'needs' to become president regardless of their history or background. Nixon wanted to become President for a second term. The 22nd Amendment didn't prevent him from reaching that goal. It was the cover-up of illegal information that did prevent him from reaching that goal.
The reason I dropped this argument is because it's completely off-topic to the debate at hand. Yes, Nixon did become President after the 22nd Amendment was ratified. The Watergate Scandal happened in his first term. Not his second.
Her next refutation gives little to no refutation on my behalf. Slightly confusing because she simply restates my point and just adds on a bit to it.
"However, saying that repealing the 22nd amendment is unfair is a thin veil to cover up the words that democracy is not fair." -Forever23
It appears as though my opponent is implying (not stating) that we live in a democracy and that democracy is perfect when in reality, democracy is not perfect.
Many people in history especially before & after the 22nd Amendment was ratified that were democratically elected that we wouldn't consider good leaders.
The following is a list of leaders that were democratically elected:
-Benito Mussolini (1924)
-Adolph Hitler (1933)* *Lost but appointed after the winner died.
-Vladimir Lenin (1917)
-Vladimir Putin (2000)
-Silvio Berlusconi (2008)
-James Buchanan (1857)
Even if the United States, we don't have a direct democracy, we have an indirect democracy.
Direct democracy: Direct democracy (also known as pure democracy) is a form of democracy in which people decide (e.g. vote on, form consensus on) policy initiatives directly.
Indirect democracy: Democracies are sometimes divided into direct and indirect (also known as representative democracy). The latter are the most common. In indirect, or representative democracy, citizens elect representatives to make laws on their behalf.
To go back to her statement. How much of a democracy do you want exactly Forver23? You can't have your cake and eat it too. There isn't always a good side to democracy. However, that's another entirely debatable topic so I'll refrain from going on so I can stay on topic.
"And I'm sure that we all know the saying that too many cooks in one kitchen will lead to detriment." -Forever23
As my opponent discusses about my final 'conclusion', she talks about how the 22nd Amendment and the Checks & Balances System working together will lead to detriment.
Detriment: the state of being harmed or damaged.
The 22nd Amendment is a part of the Checks & Balances System. Even if it wasn't a part of C&B (Checks & Balances* *Simplification), we've had this type of system for over 60 years at this point. If it was really leading to detriment, then we would've had already repealed the amendment in the 1970's.
As we progressed with the debate, I noticed at times when my opponent would take a good majority of my points out of context and spin it around to make her argument more legitimate. I also noticed that a lot of her points were irrelevant to the topic at hand as were debating about the 22nd Amendment, which is the reason why I dropped most of her arguments.
Although I do agree that the 22nd Amendment restricts democracy it's for a different reason than for my opponent. The United States is not a pure democracy, if it was, the 22nd Amendment would've never been ratified. In context with the United States government, democracy is completely different to the democracy of for example, the Nordic Countries. Different countries like democracy in their own way. There is no exact blanket statement of democracy you can put on a global scale.
Now I will do a summary refutation and then carry on with my summary.
1. Presidents political incentive diminishes in the second term.
Not 100% of the time. For example, President Obama, according to critics, has had his best performance for his last years in office compared to earlier in his presidency. 
2. The 22nd Amendement is a clear violation of democracy.
Already discussed this topic in my refutations.
3. Takes away strong leaders.
Isn't that kind of a good thing? Would you really want the same guy as POTUS for an unlimited amount of time. Besides, historically, when Presidents tried to run for third terms such as Theodore Roosevelt, he didn't make it past the primary. Many presidents have tried running for third terms but never made it past the primaries which says a lot for what the American people actually want. This is discussed more in-depth in the 22nd Amendment Explained on my second round sources.
1. Having unlimited terms gives no consequence or incentive to do what's best for the people.
2. History gave the simple reason of ratifying the 22nd Amendment.
3. Democracy is not perfect everywhere or in history.
4. Historically, people don't want Presidents to serve third terms.
'Democracies Always Fail': http://bit.ly...
'The Darker side of Democracy': http://bit.ly...
'Is Final-Lap Obama the best Obama Yet?': http://bit.ly...