The Instigator
9spaceking
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
UchihaMadara
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

That There Should be Term Limits

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 3 votes the winner is...
UchihaMadara
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/2/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,209 times Debate No: 64377
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

9spaceking

Pro

Preface: Jack here. 9spaceking has lost thrice to Uchiha Madara, and thus he requests a rematch. This time I, Jack McGonnell, will debate for him, since I am a better debater.
Burden of proof is shared.
Term limit: "a statutory limit on the number of terms an officialmay serve",
from http://dictionary.reference.com...
R1: Constructing arguments
R2: Rebuttals
R3: Counter-rebuttals
R4: Conclusion, no new arguments

Term limits are very important in politics. People have worse mental ability to make decisions and think well. Our term limits are already quite long, regardless of the four-year term of the president, or a senator's 6-year-term, we impose limits for a reason. It is very unlikely that a political leader can keep on going for unlimited terms in their lifetimes. We need diverse leaders, we need new ideas. As the world progresses on, we need new thinkers to lead the country or to even think and vote on a political idea.

In addition, term limit encourages and enforces the law-passers to be efficient. Who knows whether the next candidate will enforce an environmental law you think is important? Maybe the next candidate will stress on military spending instead. If a candidate wants things done within the limited time frame that they can work in, they'll have to work efficiently and pass their laws as soon as possible. As the following site notes, [http://www.cato.org...] people heavily support three-term limits to six-term limits. (Of course, in this debate we are not arguing three against six term limits, no, we are arguing whether we should have term limits or no term limits). Regardless, this support for shorter term limits obviously shows that people know that their political leaders will be more effective if they have a time limit—a short time limit—to how long they can vote for laws and see over the country. As a quote in the website states, "8 to 12 years should be a sufficiently long lead time that even the most risk-averse Democrat will not be discouraged."


There is simply no reason why term limits should not be there, whether three-term limits or six-term limits. They make our political system efficient and helps move on our society with modern, diverse leaders.
Onto you Uchi.

UchihaMadara

Con

Thank you for your argument... Jack.
I will lay out a brief constructive case in this round.
Note that since term limits are very specific to democracy, the debate should operate under the assumption that the principles of democratic-republican government are sound. Also, I will be pretending that all politicians are male for the sake of convenient pronoun usage.

C1) Democratic Values

The basic premise of a democratic-republican society is that the rule of the people should be the government's driving force. The people, empowered with their right to vote, choose government representatives based on their capability to best serve the interests of the people with their leadership-- if a representative fails to do an adequate job of serving the people, then, naturally, the people will replace him by electing someone else next term [1]. Theoretically, the only way any politician could ever be re-elected is if he was able to please the people more effectively than any of his competitors. With that in mind, it becomes evident that if someone is able to consistently serve the best interests of the people in this fashion so as to keep getting re-elected, then keeping him in his position of leadership is obviously of net benefit to the people and to society as a whole. Why, then, should we forcibly remove him from office by implementing a term limit mechanism? There doesn't seem to be any rational justification.

C2) Politician Experience

It is a well-known fact that having on-the-job occupational experience is a plus for professionals looking for employment: "After reviewing numerous studies, California State University concluded that work experience began becoming more crucial in hiring in 1980. By 1993, 93 percent of interns in work-study programs were offered jobs by their employers, according to a Northwestern University study that was part of California State's review. A 2013 report by High Fliers Research concluded that college graduates without work experience have "little chance" of getting a job. High Fliers Research managing director Martin Birchall told The Huffington Post that work experience is "now just as important" as a college degree." [2].

Having such experience is valued so highly by companies because it allows for an employee to operate more efficiently and demonstrate greater performance than otherwise, since they would have more knowledge of what to expect as well as more well-developed technical skills. If this is what is expected of society's professionals, then why should the same high standard not be held for politicians? If anything, we should hold a much higher standard for politicians, since they play such an integral role in the survival of society; experience helps them govern more effectively, just as it helps any professional do their job better. With term limits, politicians are basically "fired" just as the on-the-job experience is beginning to pay off, which is absurdly counter-productive-- it is the logical equivalent of only allowing surgeries to be done by medical students undergoing residency-training. By allowing politicians to run for as long as they have the favor of the people, we allow for good politicians to get even better as they gain more experience, thus leading to an optimally functional government.

CONCLUSION

Term limits can only be a detriment to society. They violate democratic ideals by stopping people from re-electing the representatives they want to re-elect, often resulting in a utilitarian loss as well, since repeatedly re-elected politicians would most likely be the most competent ones. Furthermore, term limits prevent politicians from acquiring on-the-job experience, which a necessity in virtually every profession-- especially ones as difficult and important as that of a legislator.

The resolution is negated.
Back to you, sir.

[1] https://web.stanford.edu... (Sec. I)
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 1
9spaceking

Pro

Jack here.

C1: Democratic values
This point contradicts itself; what if voters want to re-elect the representative? With no term limit, the political candidate is there for all his or her life time. The people cannot re-elect him if there are no "term-ends", points at which people can chose to re-elect. Without term limits, people have lack of choice to re-elect the representative, the political candidate will slowly decline in quality naturally, and this point is moot.

C2: Political experience
We can just have very long term limits to allow the political leader to gain enough experience, but not so much time as to impair their judgement. I think allowing the term limits, with a re-election every 4 years and allowing the same candidate to keep on coming, up until retirement age, will be good. The term-limits are good as they are, with Senators on average having a total of 12 years to work. This should be enough time for them to gain good experience and contribute to society.

Our term limits are fine as they are. They provide experience, allow contributions while giving chance to others to come up and beat the old candidates, and are risk-proof as long as the candidate becomes impaired for some reason within their 4-year or 6-year term, which would be very unlikely, as few reported incidents have occured, and even those, the candidates were replaced or treated quickly.
Back to you, Uchi.

UchihaMadara

Con

Thanks, 9space.

Rebuttals:

Pro makes two cases in favor of the resolution:

1) Politicians should constantly be cycled out of office to ensure a steady supply of new ideas in government.

2) Limited time frames force politicians to work more efficiently to get what they want done before they must step down.

Both of these points are easily refuted by cross-applying the observation made in my "Democratic Values" contention-- a politician will not be re-elected by the people if he isn't doing the best possible job (i.e. better than all the other potential leaders that could be elected instead) of serving the people's interests. Originality and efficiency are both traits which are expected of a good leader anyways; if a politician is unable to demonstrate such qualities, then, naturally, he will get booted from office in the next election. In other words, if a country is in need of new ideas and more efficient leadership, then they will elect a new leader to suit those needs on their own-- there is no need for term limits. All term limits would do is prevent legislators who actually *are* creative and efficient from continuing to lead the country, which is blatantly counter-productive.

The resolution remains negated.
Debate Round No. 2
9spaceking

Pro

Jack here.
There is a reason we have term limits. As this source [http://ourgeneration.org...] can justify, "Case studies show that the longer an individual stays in office, the more likely they are to stop serving the public and begin serving their own interests." This shows that the six-year term limit is already pretty generous and risky, no need for unlimited/unrestricted term-limits. Furthermore, regardless of what my opponent says about experience, "there is a 94% re-election rate in the House and 83% in the Senate". This clearly shows something is wrong with the democratic candidates. However, without term limits they wouldn't be forced to be re-elected. As the same source notes, "Because of name recognition, and usually the advantage of money, it can be easy to stay in office." Most of the public is uneducated or not informed when it comes to politics and voting for candidates. I doubt anyone other than RoyLatham would go and research about what the candidates' actual policies are, or their previous experience. Instead, they would probably mostly rely on news sources and ad campaigns. And you can't trust those! The candidates fund them! Again, there's a reason I said that candidates will be more effective under term limits. With their limited time, they really have to "think about the impact of their legislation because they will be returning to their communities shortly to live under the laws they enacted". Finally, it'll bring new ideas and new types of people to the congress. We need more ideas, we need the diverse modern culture in order to adapt to the new, changing world.
As you can see our founding fathers were justified and correct in their decisions to implement term limits.
Back to you, Uchi.
UchihaMadara

Con

This round is for counter-rebuttals

R1) Democratic Values

Pro seems to confuse the definition of "term limits" with that of "term length"... a term limit is just a restriction on the number of terms a representative can serve [http://dictionary.reference.com...], so a system without term limits *does* still have established term lengths. Pro's false definition implies that politicians invariably serve for life after being elected-- that is not democracy; it is monarchy. Since the entirety of Pro's rebuttal to this argument is based in a blatantly inaccurate definition of "term limits", it should be rejected.

R2) Political Experience

Pro comes up with a counter-proposal to allow for politicians to gain experience yet still incorporate term limits: "a re-election every 4 years... allowing the same candidate to keep on coming, up until retirement age". There is one small problem with this proposal... it doesn't incorporate term limits at all! In accordance with the provided definition, a world without term limits does have defined term lengths, with the difference being that the politician can serve as many terms as he wants to (i.e. until he retires)...... and that is *exactly* what Pro has attempted to put forth as a counter-proposal. By supporting this counter-proposal, he is basically negating the resolution for me.

In conclusion, Pro's unfortunate misunderstanding of the definition of "term-limit" has caused both his rebuttals to fail.
Debate Round No. 3
9spaceking

Pro

Jack here for the final round.
I see what my opponent means. But he still hasn't refuted my arguments about diversity and limit of power. Therefore I win. Vote me.
UchihaMadara

Con

I'm not really sure what to say... Pro has literally conceded my entire case, and since much of it serves to directly undermine his arguments, this can be treated as a concession of the debate. All of Pro's points [which are not based in faulty definitions] revolve around how candidates who stay in office for too long stop being optimal candidates, so my 'Democratic Values' argument takes them all out in one shot, as described in Round 2. The only time he gets even close to attacking the Democratic Values argument is with his claims that most people are too stupid to make informed political decisions; the obvious problem with this is that if 'the people' were really that unreliable, then all democratic societies would inevitably crash and burn, since they *depend* on the people to direct the government. Seeing that this is obviously not the case, with democratic nations being among the most successful countries in the world, Pro's claims cannot be true.
In conclusion, my case remains unscathed, and Pro's case is in shambles-- the resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BLAHthedebator 2 years ago
BLAHthedebator
@Uchiha

Lol, I know, but however stupid they may be, they're my own opinions on how this debate went.

Seemingly shty ones, though.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
RFD:

Much of this debate from Pro was focused on term length limits rather than term limits, so that ended up being unapplicable. Pro gives me two other arguments: diversity and "limits of power." I'm not sure how to regard these arguments since Pro doesn't really spend any time weighing them within the context of the actual definition. Yes, we need diverse leaders (though Pro doesn't explain why beyond "new thinkers good". Why does enforcing term limits increase that diversity? He doesn't say. He doesn't say why the system should require more diversity either. I think Con actually had a good response to this: all that Pro's case does is remove an option from the list of possible candidates, decreasing the range of diversity that voters can choose from. Perhaps there's some benefit in ensuring that people don't become career politicians, but that argument never appears in the debate. The limit of power point doesn't even apply to the correct definition of term limits as far as I can tell. Since they're up for election every term, they still have to act efficiently, otherwise they won't be reelected.

Meanwhile, Con's arguments still stand. It might be best to explain why democratic values are good, but given the assumption that a democratic republic is inherently good in the context of this debate, I can give him some leeway here. The experience point basically goes uncontested " Pro doesn't explain how more terms impair judgment, but Con does explain how it's beneficial.

Hence, I vote Con.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
I know lolz
Posted by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
UchihaMadara
Blah, you're a fvcking idiot.
Pro freaking passed his final round and let me refute all his arguments without any opposition whatsoever
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
bleg. I guess I didn't really understand what Term Limits meant before I started this debate eh? Even mighty Jack was forced down grasping to the last straw of arguments. Oh well, better debate next time!
Posted by debatability 2 years ago
debatability
ffff i would have totally taken this debate. i hate term limits XD
Posted by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
UchihaMadara
wtf... I submitted my argument literally 20 minutes ago...
Posted by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
UchihaMadara
Will probably end up posting my argument last minute because of how many other debates I'm already doing.
Posted by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
UchihaMadara
The instigator bonus is meant to compensate for not having last word. I think it is only justified to have both when the contender clearly has the BOP, which isn't the case here.
Posted by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
UchihaMadara
Why am I starting round 1?
You're making the positive claim... don't be a Mikal >.>
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
9spacekingUchihaMadaraTied
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: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by BLAHthedebator 2 years ago
BLAHthedebator
9spacekingUchihaMadaraTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I think that pro's case that new people with new ideas should be elected instead of having a person run for unlimited terms, yet con fails to rebut this. He states that just because one can have unlimited terms does not mean other people can't be elected, but this is a faulty statement. Just because his statement is true does not mean people won't keep voting for the same candidate that they thought had good ideas for the country, but ignore other candidates that might potentially have even better ideas that people did not think about. Pro had an already strong argument, and yet it basically remains unchallenged. He proves that since we want to have different people as candidates, we must make that definite.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
9spacekingUchihaMadaraTied
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: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct throughout. S&G - Tie. Neither committed any major spelling or grammar errors. Arguments - Con. Pro failed to rebut Con's clarification regarding "term limits" and "term lengths". With Pro failing to rebut that, he let Con's argument unchallenged. Pro then accuses Con of failing to rebut against limits of power and diversity, but this is working under Pro's faulty premise that a lack of term limits necessarily means unlimited power and stay. Con showed how his faulty premise is basically a monarchy and how a lack of term limits wouldn't mean that a politician can't be re-elected at some point. Since Con was able to overcome Pro's challenges, but Pro was not able to overcome all of Con's, Con wins arguments. Sources - Tie. Both utilized sources throughout the debate, and neither stood out as having a higher degree of academic integrity than the other. Good debate, clear win for Con.