The Instigator
crazypenguin
Pro (for)
Losing
37 Points
The Contender
Cindela
Con (against)
Winning
49 Points

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,510 times Debate No: 1503
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (22)

 

crazypenguin

Pro

Hello and thank you for being here.

I believe we should have term limits for a couple of reasons.

My first point is because if a president is doing so well what if some people of the other party don't like him they would be stuck with him for the rest of however long he is still elected.

Secondly presidents views change over time, suppose you elect him for the 3rd time and he's run for 10 years what if he changes his views can you do anything? No by making a 8 year limit you have stopped this from happening.

Thirdly power is a strange thing and it always gets to people. After running for 3 terms you don't think that he might get greedy and want to run for more or abuse his power that he has.

Thank you
Cindela

Con

I have accepted this debate assuming that by term limits, by opponent means USA Presidential Term Limits. I will continue in this debate assuming that I am correct. For those who do not know, a president cannot have more than 2 terms in office. I believe that it is the 22nd amendment that prevents this.

Also, I would like to ask everyone who willl eventually vote in this debate to vote based upon who had the better points and advanced their points better, and who refuted their opponent's points better. Thank you

Now to my rebuttal to my opponent's points.

>>My first point is because if a president is doing so well what if some people of the other party don't like him they would be stuck with him for the rest of however long he is still elected.
The USA is a democracy. The power that the President has is from the people. If the president is doing very well, and everyone likes him, then why should we stop him?? Why should we limit how long the President has in office if he is very greaty liked? If there was a President that we all liked very much, and he/she did what we wanted him/her to do, then should we limit how long they can be in office? If they are very popular and many people like the President, then there is no reason for us to not let him/her in office! If we did not want them in office, then we could just not vote for him/her in the next election! Also, my opponent mentioned that, "what if some people of the other party don't like him." Well, if they are in the other party running against him, do you expect them to be best friends? Of course there will be some discord between the President's party and the party that was running against him.

>>Secondly presidents views change over time, suppose you elect him for the 3rd time and he's run for 10 years what if he changes his views can you do anything? No by making a 8 year limit you have stopped this from happening.
I do not quite see your point here. If we elect a President for their second term, and they change their views halfway into their second term, can we do anything about it??? What about if they are halfway into their first term??? This point is immaterial.

>>Thirdly power is a strange thing and it always gets to people. After running for 3 terms you don't think that he might get greedy and want to run for more or abuse his power that he has.
That is what the other 2 braches of government are here for. I am quite sure you have heard the term "Checks and balances", right??? In case you do not know what it means, it means that each branch of the government has another brach making sure that they do not do more than they are supposed to do. The President's job is enforcing laws. If he tries to do more, Congress can stop him by stopping his funding.

My arguements were mentioned in the rebuttals. If the president is a popular person, and everyone likes him/her, then there should be no reason he/she cannot hold office for more than 2 terms.
Thank you
Debate Round No. 1
crazypenguin

Pro

Thank you for joining this debate.

First I will rebutt your points and then move to mine.

If the president is doing very well then we can't just let him keep on running what would the world be like. The first to fifteenth president was MR.PRESIDENT all the time. You act as an election is the next it is every 4 years you can't just If we did not want them in office, then we could just not vote for him/her in the next election. That can't happen.

Yes we can do something about it for if it is his third time running obviously he is liked very much, now do you think that we can just easily convince everyone not to elect him the next terms, rather then 1st or second term it would be much easier and people would be convinced.

Thank you for informing me but I had already had a good understanding of it. Suppose he wants to make a bill that would help him greatly and he's a republican, just assume: I am pretty sure that in the congress or supreme court has at least one republican-I said AT LEAST do you think that they would vote against him or for him? Exactly giving him supreme power. Also on that point if he has been elected for his 3rd term I am pretty sure he is liked by a lot of people which means, they would vote for him if he wanted to pass a bill and they would support him.

Now to my points it will be brief:

If there was no term limit you have to think about the rest of the world, how would they deal with the same president over and over again. What if that president has a view to keep all the soldiers in france. Now do you think that the French President would be happy and not wage war against this president? That's why we should have term limits.

Thank You
Cindela

Con

v=Before I begin my speech, I would just like to ask my opponent to use the spell check. It makes it easier for everyone to understand you.
>>If the president is doing very well then we can't just let him keep on running what would the world be like.
Why not? Is there any reason that a President should not be allowed to be in office if he is liked very much? If he is liked very much, and everyone approves of what he is doing, then there should be no reason that he cannot have more than 2 terms.
>>You act as an election is the next it is every 4 years you can't just If we did not want them in office, then we could just not vote for him/her in the next election. That can't happen.
I do not quite understand what you are saying with this statement. Please clarify.
>>Yes we can do something about it for if it is his third time running obviously he is liked very much, now do you think that we can just easily convince everyone not to elect him the next terms, rather then 1st or second term it would be much easier and people would be convinced.
If there is a better candidate, then of course the people would vote for the other candidate! It is not like one president will always be liked by everyone forever. Also, if the President is not doing a good job, or is not doing what we want him to do, then we can always not vote for him in the next election.
>>Suppose he wants to make a bill that would help him greatly and he's a republican, just assume: I am pretty sure that in the congress or supreme court has at least one republican-I said AT LEAST do you think that they would vote against him or for him? Exactly giving him supreme power. Also on that point if he has been elected for his 3rd term I am pretty sure he is liked by a lot of people which means, they would vote for him if he wanted to pass a bill and they would support him.
No offense, but this is a ridiculous argument. You are giving a hypothetical scenario where the President tries to suggest a law giving him supreme power. Fist of all, no one would pass this law. This clearly goes againts the Constitution. There are supposed to be 3 equal branches of the National Government, and no one branch is supposed to have more power than the other ones. Also, if the President tried to do anything unConstitutional like try to get more power, it is the Supreme Court's job to make sure that the President never does it. The Supreme Court is in place as a check for the other 2 branches of government to make sure that everything thye do is Constitutional.
My rebuttal to your point:
>>If there was no term limit you have to think about the rest of the world, how would they deal with the same president over and over again. What if that president has a view to keep all the soldiers in france. Now do you think that the French President would be happy and not wage war against this president?
First of all, all the power of this country is not with the President. You make it seem as though he has unlimited power. He cannot order the military to stay in any place outside of the US for more than a certain amount of time. More than that, and he has to get approval from Congress. Also, the real power of this country lies with its citizens. It is the citizens who give the power to the government. I believe that we drafted the Declaration Of Independance saying that if the people do not believe in the government, and they are not doing what the people want, then there should be no reason for us to follow the government in place, and it is our right to overthrow the government and create a new one. I belive that the quote is:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
If you look at the quote, you will see that it introduces a concept that was well known in Europe: consent of the governed.

As you can see, if we don't like the President, we don't have to vote him into office again! If the President tries to do something unConstitutional, the Supreme Court and Congress were created to stop something like that. I have refuted all of your points, and now I will advance my points.

The crux of my argument is simple: if the President is doing a good job, then why should we not let him be in office? If the President is doing what the public wants him to do, then what are we fearing? My opponent has said that the President might want to pass a law getting more power. He has also said that the President might change his views after 2 terms in office. You could turn this around and say that even if we had a limit for only one term in office, the President could change his views by the second year. Then we could do nothing about it. When we vote a President into office, this is a risk that we take. However, unless we liked the way the President was President, we most likely would not vote him back into office. Thank you.

P.S. By saying him, or he, in reference to the President, I am not trying to be sexist. I just did not want to have to type him/her again and again.
Debate Round No. 2
crazypenguin

Pro

Now to start my arguments and rebutt yours. Except I was just curious what does v= stand for?

I'm saying that if you don't like the president you can't vote for another one the next day you will have to wait till the next election which probably is in 4 years.

Not really if there was another candidate people still might vote for the same president, he actually can be liked forever because if the leading religion or belief is the one he shares then he will always win whether he should or shouldn't.

I do believe that we did draft the declaration of independence but are you sure that the people are always right. Have we always been right to not pass the alcohol bill or anything else? No. Also overthrowing a president? Do you know how hard that is to do. You act as if you can just decide and he's overthrown the next day. No, it takes a long time and a lot of people have to agree with you.

If the president is doing a good job that is good that's what our country needs but what about the other people who want to try to become president? Are we just going to give them no chance because one guy has ran for a decade? We should have a term limit to stop this and also even if he changed his views on the second term he wouldn't be able to do much because it is only his second term and he is not known that well/ he also can be impeached at any time.
Cindela

Con

>>Except I was just curious what does v= stand for?
I don't know what you are talking about, but this is irrelevant.
>>I'm saying that if you don't like the president you can't vote for another one the next day you will have to wait till the next election which probably is in 4 years.
Then how does having a term limit stop this? If the President is someone who is very good, and he is elected for his first term, and he changes his views, then what can we do about it? If he does something we don't want him to do, then what can we do about it? When we elect the President, we compare him against everyone else and we choose who we think is best for the job. If on the first day of the job, he changes his views, then what can we do? This point is irrelevant.
>>Not really if there was another candidate people still might vote for the same president, he actually can be liked forever because if the leading religion or belief is the one he shares then he will always win whether he should or shouldn't.
This is assuming a lot. This is assuming that a Christian President is going to be elected no matter what because he is Christian!!! Just in case you didn't know, Christianity is the leading religion in our country. According to the World Almanac of 2003, 84% of people in America were Christian. There are approximatley 300 million people in the USA today. Assuming that this figure is correct, which I believe it is, there should be 252 miliion Christians. Back to my argument. Just because there are a lot of Christians in the US, it does not mean that they will all vote for a Christian candidate. That would not be a separation of church and state. That would be millions of people voting based upon religion and religion only, something that goes against one of the founding principles of this country.
>>I do believe that we did draft the declaration of independence but are you sure that the people are always right. Have we always been right to not pass the alcohol bill or anything else? No. Also overthrowing a president? Do you know how hard that is to do. You act as if you can just decide and he's overthrown the next day. No, it takes a long time and a lot of people have to agree with you.
No, I am not sure that people are always right, but I do believe that the reason that they are not right is that they do not know the full story. If we had known the horrific effects of an atomic bomb, would we have dropped it on Japan? Most likely not. But back to my rebuttal. I am not saying that if one person does not like the President we can throw him out. The only way you can throw the President out of office is if you impeach him, or convict him of a crime. If our president does not break a single law, but does things that we do not want him to do, then we cannot order him to stop.You can petition him, but that is the extent of it. I am not saying that we should overthrow him, I am just saying that if it was needed, it is possible. But we are straying from the topic. The topic is about Presidential term limits.
>>If the president is doing a good job that is good that's what our country needs but what about the other people who want to try to become president?
Then the people who want to run for the Presidency can do so! It is not like one President will always be president! Look at every President before FDR! They all had a chance to run for more than 2 terms, yew they did not have a third term! Why? Because someone else wanted to run for president and the people liked the new person more!

My opponent has not been able to put forth an argument that holds any water, and because I have refuted all of the ones that hold any water, if any, I should win this debate.

In conclusion, my main argument is: if the President is very well liked, and all of the other candidates are not as good, then there should be no reason that the President should not be able to run for a third office or more! To elaborate, if the President can do a better job than all of the other candidates, then shouldn't he be the President next? Why should a term limit limit how long a President can be in office if he will only be in office as long as he shows himself to be better than all of the other candidates in the Presidential Election! Thank you
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by mmadderom 8 years ago
mmadderom
"What do you mean by this? I don't quite understand what you are saying."

Google chappaquiddick. Then call anyone you know who lives in Massachusetts and ask them what they are thinking...
Posted by dayntwillrise 8 years ago
dayntwillrise
Term limits are a safeguard against tyranny. Its unhealthy if a Democracy solely depends on one man (or woman) to lead our country in the right way. However, the 'Con' argument was put together waaaaay better, and you've got my vote.
Posted by Cindela 8 years ago
Cindela
>>When a man who committed DUI manslaughter and didn't even report it until the next day can be elected over and over for his lifetime solely because of his family name obviously there needs to be some kind of limit to political power.

What do you mean by this? I don't quite understand what you are saying.
Posted by mmadderom 8 years ago
mmadderom
I agree with the basic premise of Pro, but my God that was a horrible argument. Vote to con.

Oh, and we need term limits in Congress DESPERATELY.

When a man who committed DUI manslaughter and didn't even report it until the next day can be elected over and over for his lifetime solely because of his family name obviously there needs to be some kind of limit to political power.
22 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by sdcharger 8 years ago
sdcharger
crazypenguinCindelaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Vote Placed by padfo0t 8 years ago
padfo0t
crazypenguinCindelaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Vote Placed by sagarous 8 years ago
sagarous
crazypenguinCindelaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Vote Placed by crazypenguin 8 years ago
crazypenguin
crazypenguinCindelaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Vote Placed by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
crazypenguinCindelaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by bigbass3000 8 years ago
bigbass3000
crazypenguinCindelaTied
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 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
crazypenguinCindelaTied
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 
Vote Placed by balluh 8 years ago
balluh
crazypenguinCindelaTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by indicolts 8 years ago
indicolts
crazypenguinCindelaTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by toytakover 8 years ago
toytakover
crazypenguinCindelaTied
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