The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Stop voting incumbent

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/6/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 442 times Debate No: 62732
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




Not voting incumbent is the best shot at ever getting term limits.

1. I think turnover in politics is good
2. It stops nepotism & cronyism
3. Fear of losing an election strikes fear to get something done for the people.


To address each of your points.

1- Turnover in politics is not inherently good. Perhaps in a chiefly bipartisan system alike to the United State's may be beneficial, but only to improve political variety, which is also not inherently good. Political variety is best when the variety equally represents the people and their wishes, in a democracy. Continually using the United States as an example, Presidents are not allowed to run for office after they did previously. This ensures a fresh flow of candidates in every successful party, promoting this political variety. Instead of voting on presidents for the purpose to have variety, the best choice would be to vote for the president whom will best further the people of the world, but of the mother country primarily interests.
Two can be responded to similarly to one.
3- I agree, but usually this entails promises, and not actual work. If one really wanted to instal a fear of impeachment in the president to coerce him/her to work harder, the simple act of changing impeachment laws to be easier, or very well defined, is a better alternative.
Debate Round No. 1


You spoke about what we have had crammed down our throats. I'm from Illinois. What I have noticed is that if you give these guys/girls more time they become cushy. People have asked several times for term limits. It never comes up. Voting based on party does not work. What has your party done for you lately? Nothing. The work these politicians do only benefits them & their friends. If they were really working for the people term limits would have been imposed a long time ago. It is not Republican vs Democrat. It is us vs them. Once these politicians get a grip on power it is harder & harder to get rid of them. The 1st mistake people make is believing a word of what they say. The only thing good about an election year is prices don't go up.


I don't think you properly addressed my argument, but you bring up valid claims. The current American executive system can

be improved upon, as the bipartisan system can be as well, but that is not the topic. Avoiding voting incumbent is not an

answer to solve any political problems. I already proposed simpler and easier solutions above. Unless you can accurately

explain why my above points are not valid, you cannot prove your rule of thumb is true.
Debate Round No. 2


You describe what we have now. It obviously does not work. I propose trying a revolving door. I don't know if it will work. We have not tried, but it is better than what we have meow.


I disagree. You base your claims on the logic that because your idea is different, it will be better. You don't know if it will work, ad you have not tried to get any data. It is ridiculous that you would assume so. I believe I have clearly demonstrated your failure to fulfill you burden of proof, and thus I rest my case.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Yogapants 3 years ago
the only "people" politicians listen to are mighty corporations. My choice in Illinois is Pat Quinn or Bruce Rauner. - what I know. Pat Quinn has been in to long and done to little. Rauner, is a billionaire who could only want office to fix rules to benefit him. So the smartest choice would be vote Quinn out, put Rauner in, then vote Rauner out.
Posted by Yogapants 3 years ago
I live in Chicago. i am right. we have lisa & mike madigan. what makes them so good we need two of them?
Posted by Spite_Guts 3 years ago
I am willing to debate that voting incumbent should not be a defining factor, and term limits should not be absolute.
Posted by AstridDragonSlayer 3 years ago
I agree that we should not vote for incumbents if we dislike them. I mean, come on, we have a primary system. Use it!!! Once Congress realizes that they aren't guaranteed to win the next election, they might just conform more to the opinions of the people instead of their own agenda. But it's kinda pointless to complain about government and then put those same officials back in power for another term. We don't need term limits, we need a "vigilant and manly spirit" in the people.

I can't debate you on this, since I absolutely agree with you. :D But good luck in debating whoever accepts!
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
I kinda agree with you.There should be term limits. We did it with the presidency. But the ones who would decide are the ones who would lose their cushy jobs if it passed.

But one thing I would NEVER do, is vote democrat. So even if I do not like the republican, I would still vote for him.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Con wins this because of the point that the increase in diversity of officials isn't inherently a good thing. Pro suggested it was different, and might be better, but really failed to give us a reason to think so. I will also note, and this didn't affect my scoring since Con didn't bring it up, but point #3 is nonsense--if the rule of thumb is DO NOT vote for incumbents, as opposed to "vote for them if they've done something", then Pro never offered a reason why it would make officials be more likely to work for the people. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.