The Instigator
Holmes221B
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
Cold-Mind
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Term limits for Congress

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 2 votes the winner is...
Holmes221B
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/1/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 513 times Debate No: 58415
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Holmes221B

Pro

Please take the first round to state your opinion and opening statements. DO NOT, however, use it do write out your arguments.
Cold-Mind

Con

In this debate, I will argue that congressmen should not have any term limits, and I will argue for new election system.
Debate Round No. 1
Holmes221B

Pro

Attack #1: Political gridlock is caused by unlimited terms
As is clearly scene in modern American government, gridlock and partisanship prevent decisions from being made. A recent example would be the government shutdown, caused by the federal government`s inability to pass a budget before the deadline (1). Term limits would prevent politicians from being elected again and again until their death (i.e. Ted Kennedy (2) ). In the current system these politicians (safe with the knowledge that they will be re elected by the voters they try so hard to please) have no concern for what is best for the country at whole, only for what their constituents want. If new politicians were brought in more frequently, they wouldn't`t have time to cultivate political alliances, and would instead work on policies that were best for the country.

Sources:
(1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
(2) http://tedkennedy.org...
Cold-Mind

Con

New election system:
- Each mentally able adult citizen(in further text: MAAC) has 1 electing point
- Each MAAC can give his election point(s) to any other MAAC during the non-voting period.
- Everyone can see to whom every individual gave election point(s), on the official website.
- Each MAAC can take away same number of election points from MAAC that he previously gave his election points to, during the non-voting period.
- Each MAAC that has over 150 election points may vote on suggestions of new laws and suggestions of removing old laws and suggestions of changing laws(in further text: altering laws), during the voting period.
- Everyone can see how MACCs with voting right voted, on official website.
- Only congressman can suggest altering laws.
- Congressmen election is done every 3 months. Simply, 535 MAAC's with the most election points at the end of election time become congressman.
- President election is done every year, simply, the guy with most votes of congressmen wins.
There are much more details, but I think I named all important stuff.
Here is why this system is better:
- It is cheaper
- It is much more harder to bribe voters
- People can change their representative, if he is not doing as they like

Why term limits are not welcome:
- If people consider someone to be the best person who represents their interest the best, then that person should.
- If someone was voting for bad altering laws, people can take their election points back. Person will only have his term again if people who elected him are satisfied.
Debate Round No. 2
Holmes221B

Pro

I would like to begin by asking that my opponent focus their attack on the subject matter, not a voting system. While on the matter, however, I would like to point out that I found some potential issues I found with their system. If you would like to discuss them, please message me or start a new debate, which I will gladly join. However, back to the debate.

To rebuttal my opponent's attacks,
1. I`m not sure I fully understand your point, but I think you mean people should be able to vote for whoever they want for as long as they`d like. This can cause problems however, as people will often vote for what is best for themselves and not what is best for the country as a whole. This is known as sectionalism, and occurred in the 1820s-1860s, and was one of the causes leading to the civil war, which killed hundreds of thousands of Americans.
2. This point seems to be based upon your own voting system (which physically could not be integrated into your system). Therefore, I will skip this attack.

Now onto my 2nd point.

Attack #2: New politicians would bring in new ideas
Many older politicians are stubborn and unchanging. Due to this, they are set in the older ways of solving problems. Newer congressmen could help bring newer ideas to help lower the debt, resolve foreign problems and aid America in solving its ecological issues. In fact, a group of younger congressmen and women have created a group hat aims to shake congress out of its old ways, and help innovate for the congressmen (1) . With term limits, the older congressmen would have been out a while ago. This would make the job easier for this "Future Caucus". These politicians have the right idea, and need to see it through.

Sources:
(1) http://www.buzzfeed.com...
Cold-Mind

Con

Debate is about term limits in general. Resolution does not say term limits within current voting system. Since term limits are highly dependent on and are part of election system, we do not require new debate.
I am arguing that having term limits and not having term limits within the current system makes no difference.
We would still have congressmen representing their own interests and not interests of their voters. Furthermore, congressmen are always interested in their voter's opinion, because they want to get re-elected. If it is their last term, they have no reason to do anything for their voters.

For my opponent's information, civil war was caused by slavery, not by voting system.

As for attack #2
Old politicians have more experience. New politicians may repeat the same mistakes.
Debate Round No. 3
Holmes221B

Pro

I would like to point out to my opponent that the title of the debate is "Term limits for Congress". This refers to our current congress, not one in your proposed system.

To rebut my opponent's statements on my 2nd attack:
This is exactly what I mean. If you know you have no chance of being elected again, then you can do what is best for the country (not what is best for your voters). Also, some congressmen find a way to combine their voters` wishes and what is best for the country (not their party).

Also, regarding my opponent`s statement that slavery was what caused the civil war, I feel the need to correct it. You see, slavery was a contributing factor, but was far from the sole cause of the war. Perhaps the largest instigator was the issue of state`s rights. States in the South believed they had the ability to decide what congressional laws to follow, while ones in the North believed you should follow all laws passed by congress. One of the most famous incidents of this was the Dredd Scott Case (1), in which a slave sued the state. This slave had traveled to a free state and was free there, but was taken as a slave soon after. Many states disagreed over how to react to the decision. The rift caused by these states` reactions was a major causes of the civil war. Another one, which I referenced in my debate, was sectionalism. This was when politicians focused on what was best for their regions, not the country as a whole. This led to Southern politicians, such as Preston Brooks (2), to support laws which only aided farming in the south (such as slavery). Northern politicians were not blameless either. They supported industry and manufacturing in the north, such as train tracks and high tariffs (which ended up helping the north in the civil war).

Now to respond to my opponent`s second attack:
Yes, but experience can also harm politicians. Older politicians aren't as likely as younger ones to be able to adapt to changes in the system. They also form alliances and political ties, which they must consider when making decisions (instead of the country as a whole). Also, unless we stop teaching history in schools, younger politicians will learn about the mistakes of past politicians in school.

Here is my final attack:
The current system promotes stagnation.
Compare our government to a pond. The older politicians are like a dense pond scum on the surface of the water. This scum sucks up the pond`s oxygen and dies, building up on the bottom and providing food for future scum. No fish or animals can survive in this type of environment. The only solution is to remove the scum from the top and the bottom of the pond, and replace it with new, stable plant life. Eventually, fish, bugs and amphibians will move back, and create a positive, healthy ecosystem which is beneficial for all involved. The new plants are the new politicians, the fish are the American citizens, and the removal of the scum is the term limits we need to bring in, to benefit everyone in America. Thank you for your time.

I would like to thank my opponent for his time and work.

Sources:
(1) http://www.pbs.org...
(2) http://www.senate.gov...
Cold-Mind

Con

Conclusion: If voters believe congressman would, without any supervision(by the people), work for the best interest of the people, they should vote Pro. If voters believe congressman should not be blindly trusted, they should vote Con.

I am also thanking my opponent for making this a good debate.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
Holmes221BCold-MindTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's args unrelated. Why not MAACs + termlims? Pro largely unrefuted.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Holmes221BCold-MindTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both debaters practiced proper conduct throughout the debate. For that, I commend them both. S&G - Con. I immediately noticed a spelling error made by Pro in R2 - "scene". There were also minor grammatical errors made by both, but since Con failed to make any spelling errors, I must award him this point. Pro, always remember to use the spell-check feature before posting your rounds. In debates where spelling is a factor for voting, it is vital to maintain proper spelling. Arguments - Pro. Con wasted two rounds promoting a new system of congress altogether. This failed to rebut any points raised by Pro in relation to the resolution being debated. In addition, Pro provided counter-arguments to every rebuttal raised by Con which, in themselves, stood unchallenged in turn by Con. This is most evident in the final round where Con presented no real rebuttals. For this, Pro takes arguments. Sources - Pro. Con failed to utilize sources in this debate whereas Pro did.