The Instigator
Lightkeeper
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
JBlake
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

The XXII Amendment to the Constitution of the USA is unreasonable and should be repealed.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 4 votes the winner is...
JBlake
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/2/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,394 times Debate No: 5608
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (55)
Votes (4)

 

Lightkeeper

Pro

Broadly speaking, the 22nd Amendment creates a prohibition against a President serving more than two terms in Office.

My contention is simple. Given that the President of the USA is an elected figure (albeit not through direct elections), there is no reasonable justification in limiting him or her to two terms in Office. Since there is no valid logical or moral reason for this prohibition, it should be abolished. Whether this involves a complete repeal of the XXII Amendment or an amendment to it is not relevant.

I take no issue with the remainder of the XXII Amendment. That is not to say I condone the remainder of it. I simply wish to limit the scope of the present debate to the above.
JBlake

Con

I would like to begin by stating that I have the utmost respect for my opponent's ability and look forward to a lively debate. I would further like to thank him for providing a most interesting topic for discussion.

My opponent believes there is no "logical or moral reason for this prohibition, it should be abolished".

Morality is irrelevent in this question so I will disregard this term, leaving me to refute my opponent's claim that there is no logical reason to limit the number of terms for a U.S. President. Furthermore, I will stick to arguing the merit of term limits instead of using semantics based around the word 'logical'.

There are a number of benefits for restricting the number of terms to which a President can be elected.

1. A strong executive that knows how to properly wield his power and influence could manipulate his/her way to effectively become president for life. A term limit makes this impossible.

2. A long-serving executive becomes accustomed to his position and influence resulting in his being too far removed from the public will.

3. Term limits ensure a "Rotation of Office". This rotation ensures that a relatively few political elite will perpetually rule a nation.

4. Term limits gaurd the executive from "perpetual campaigning". Once elected to a second term, a president no longer needs to consider from where his next campaign contribution is coming.

Conclusion:
For the reasons listed above, the Twenty-second Amendment should not be repealed, nor should the concept of 'term limits' be reconsidered.
Debate Round No. 1
Lightkeeper

Pro

I thank my opponent for taking this debate.
I must say I am glad that my opponent has elected to argue this topic on its merits rather than on semantic grounds. However, I believe it is fairly clear that my choice of the word "logical" referred to a specific meaning of it, namely "reasonable".

In his reply, my opponent raised 4 general points pointing to alleged benefits of retaining term limits.

1. "A strong executive that knows how to properly wield his power and influence could manipulate his/her way to effectively become president for life. A term limit makes this impossible."
I would like my opponent to provide a specific (even if hypothetical) example of a situation such as this. That is, an example of how a president can manipulate his power to win a "next term" (as opposed to staying in power for life). I must admit I am not doing this to be difficult. Rather, since I do not live in the USA, I would find such an example enlightening. Whilst it would undoubtedly assist my opponent's argument (as I am effectively putting him to his proof), it would also assist me in rebutting the above point.
At this stage, I will merely comment by saying that my opponent's point appears to suggest that the American People, with their constitutional freedom of speech, with their freedom of press and very wide powers of inquiry and transparency at all levels, are susceptible to having wool pulled over their eyes by a power-hungry leader. I will address this point in more depth following my opponent's reply.

2. "A long-serving executive becomes accustomed to his position and influence resulting in his being too far removed from the public will."
This point is valid but only at 4-year intervals. Given that Presidential Elections are held every 4 years, each election gives the electors (and their electors-the Nation) an opportunity to review the Candidate's performance in the previous term. If he is indeed out of touch with the will of the public, the public would arguably not vote for him for the next term. My opponent's point would also be much more valid for an authocratic system than for a democracy. In practice, prudent democratic leaders pay much attention to their ratings throughout their time in office. Of course, this may not apply to a Lame Duck President as he has absolutely no incentive to have much regard for the will of the public. Some events from recent years may serve as an example.

3. " Term limits ensure a "Rotation of Office". This rotation ensures that a relatively few political elite will perpetually rule a nation."
I understand my opponent intends to say that the rotation ensures that that a relatively few political elite do NOT perpetually rule a nation.
Parties nominating candidates have their motives: they want them to win. This process ensures that the candidates chosen are those who reflect the party's policy the best. A former president who has since lost the approval of the nation and who does not meet his or her party's expectations by way of policy is a candidate who is unlikely to win the election. His or her party is therefore unlikely to nominate such a candidate.
Furthermore, if one is to look at other systems around the world, it is extremely rare that an executive leader is elected for a second time after being out of the office. The phenomenon of a "rotating elite" simply is not great enough a risk to amount to a reason for constitutional term limits.

4. "Term limits gaurd the executive from "perpetual campaigning". Once elected to a second term, a president no longer needs to consider from where his next campaign contribution is coming."
I take this point to mean that "perpetual campaigning" results, in my opponent's contention, in a President who focuses on winning the next term rather than on the task at hand (running the Country).
Firstly, let us consider the system as it is at present. We have presidents who spend the first term focusing on winning the second term. Is my opponent therefore suggesting that presidents tend to under-perform in their first term?
Secondly, do second-term presidents really commit themselves to running the nation? Or rather, as unaccountable Lame Ducks, do they have the freedom to do whatever they feel is right with little regard for the will of the People?
Finally, is "perpetual campaigning" such a bad thing? A president in such position is a president who has to watch his every step, costantly review his policies, pay close attention to his ratings, look at the wishes of the People and make promises for his next term in accordance with those wishes. I submit that such a president is the truest possible advocate for the people, the truest follower of the nation's will. I submit that (other than the threat of a firing squad), there cannot be a more powerful incentive for a president to do his job in the best possible way.

My final point is that in a Democracy, the nation should be free to elect any leader they want. It is THEIR leader. If this happens to be somebody who has been in office for the last 4, 8 or 12 years, so be it. The People are entitled to decide, they are entitled to have the best leader they can get.
JBlake

Con

For the sake of simplicity I will answer my opponent in the order he presented his rebuttals.

1. I will provide both a factual example and a hypothetical one.

a) Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) was ultimately elected to four concurrent terms. This would be considered tremendously positive to those who did support him, and of those there were plenty. Conversely, FDR's election would be extremely unfortunate for those in opposition to him. His New Deal was very unpopular among those leaning conservative and especially among the business community (due to its policy of big government). This is somewhat masked by what seems to be landslide victories for him in each election due to the odd institution known as the Electoral College. Here is how each election breaks down:
Election of 1932 - FDR carried all but 6 states, but received only 57% of the popular vote.
Election of 1936 - FDR carried all but 2 states, and recieved an astounding 61% of the popular vote.
>>Nothing is wrong so far, he obtained his election with no obvious string pulling. It was the 1940 election that he was able to manipulate the system to get himself nominated again within his own party. He moved the nominating convention to Chicago (he had considerable sway over the electioneering machine in place there). Such actions were especially vulnerable at this time when the people did not vote on their party nominees, it was largely decided with back room deals.
Election of 1940 - FDR carried all but 10 states, but recieved only 55% of the popular vote.
Election of 1944 - FDR carried all but 12 states, receiving only 53% of the popular vote.

Despite his claims to not seek a third and fourth term, it is widely known that he had made certain behind the scenes that his party would 'demand' it of him. He effectively served as 'President for Life' since he served for thirteen years and died in office.
For the most part this is less possible today because of the nominating process of our primary elections. Therefore I will present a hypothetical scenario.

b) As it stands now, an incumbent president generally has control over his party, or at least considerable sway. In almost all cases, if an incumbent desires another term he is nominated for it. This currently does not apply to a third term since this is not legal. If it became acceptible to serve for more, given an incumbent's power, this would become commonplace. I will outline some possible scenarios below based on current laws and regulations.
--- The executive controls patronage (office appointments). He could build up a network of supporters through this at the lower level, ensuring widespread support.
--- For the same reason, a president could build up support among the higher ranks of his party by appointing them to high office (cabinet positions), ensuring the party's support of his re-election. This is a factor as to how it works now with a second term.
--- Crises can and have been manipulated and/or invented in order to create a 'surge' in an incumbent's popularity during an election season. I won't accuse the Iraq War as being an example of this since it is an argument for another day, but imagine someone so inclined to use such a war.

In both of these scenarios a huge portion of the electorate would be left out. At any given time, a president is lucky to be elected by 60% (as FDR above). Usually it doesn't reach 50%. That means that the other half of that number do not support this person for president. Imagine G.W. Bush having the ability to serve as many times as he would like. He actually lost the popular vote in his first 'victorious' run for the white house.

Because of the electoral college, a successfull candidate needs only garner enough support to win a slight majority in any given state to recieve All of its electoral votes. Some states split their votes, but the same principle applies to the electoral district in these cases.

2. In reality, a huge proportion of voters do not pay close attention to policy and issue, but vote strictly along party lines. They will generally vote for whoever tops the ticket to the party they belong to despite their record. Therefore a candidate is guarunteed a certain proportion of votes regardless of their performance. Unfortunately, money goes very far in deciding elections. Couple this with some other tricks to get elected and my opponent's argument is moot. The fact is, people get reelected despite their performance, there are plenty of examples through history.

The point here is that someone serving too long becomes out of touch with the very people he is supposed to be representing. He has been above them, and away from them for so long that he does not understand them. This applies to all positions without term limits. This is a valid argument and has been one of the basic principles of almost all forms of republicanism.

I will address lame duck status below.

3. I thank my opponent for not jumping on a typographical error on my part, and he correctly interpreted my meaning.
In theory, what my opponent states is correct, and it would be nice if this were reflected in reality. The fact is that a president who desires nomination from his party for another term will typically get it. Here is a complete list of incumbents who were denied re-nominated by their party since 1900:

There it is, the complete list since the year 1900 to present. Here is a list in the same time frame of men re-nominated despite performance, and despite notable opposition within his party:

William Howard Taft - opposition within party, he did not turn out 'progressive' enough.
Herbert Hoover - his presidency is accepted as among the worst.
Harry S Truman - was expected by most, even within his party, that he stood no chance at re-election. He also held one of the lowest approval ratings. Much of the party wanted to nominate Eisenhower.
Jimmy Carter - accepted as among the worst presidencies.
George W. Bush -

4. I am not contending that presidents tend to under perform in their first term. It would take extensive research to find this out, and it is not related to the problem of perpetual campaigning. The main problem with this concept is not that it creates a president always ensuring he is looking out for the public will, because the public will rarely decides election. The problem is that the incumbent is seeking to keep his large campaign donors happy. This creates an executive that is in debt to lobbyists and campaign financers. He is more accountable to them than to the public will, this is reality.

This is where the lame duck status fits into the picture. A president who attains such status does not have the need to worry about the next campaign, he does not need to worry about from where the next contribution is coming.

5. I must remind my opponent that America is not a Democracy, but a Federal Republic. Furthermore, as the corrent system stands, the people do not elect their president. They elect representatives to the electoral college who represent them.

Final point:
My opponent has offered only one reason why the term limit to the presidency should be removed:
"My final point is that in a Democracy, the nation should be free to elect any leader they want"
The first part of this statement is moot, since the U.S. is not a democracy. As for the second, a good mix of money and demagoguery could ensure a perpetual election of a 'bad' president. A rotating office is the best way to ensure that the president is more in touch with the public will; to prevent manipulation of the system for re-election; and to limit the amount of 'perpetual campaigning'.
Debate Round No. 2
Lightkeeper

Pro

I thank my opponent for clarifying some points in this debate.

I will start with his last point.

For my opponent to suggest that the USA is not a democracy (because, as he says it is a "federal republic") is, to say the least, bizarre. It would appear that he is confusing concepts. Republic (res publica - latin for "public thing") is "a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch" - http://en.wikipedia.org.... This is to be contrasted with a monarchy such as the UK or Australia. "Federal" simply means that there are two levels of government, state and federal. This is to be contrasted with a centralised government such as that in the UK. There are other federations such as, for example, Australia (a democratic federal constitutional monarchy). Democracy, on the other hand, is "a form of government in which the supreme power is held completely by the people under a free electoral system". The very fact that Congress consists of elected representatives (as do State legislatures) makes the USA a democracy. Wikipedia puts it as follows:
"The United States is the world's oldest surviving federation. It is a constitutional republic, in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law. It is fundamentally structured as a representative DEMOCRACY, though U.S. citizens residing in the territories are excluded from voting for federal officials." (emphasis added)(http://en.wikipedia.org...).

The Democracy Index puts the USA as the 16th most democratic country in the world, out of 167 listed (http://en.wikipedia.org...). The USA is in fact a world leader when it comes to the principles of democracy, fair representation and individual rights.

Whether we agree that the USA is a "democracy" or not, it is a country ruled by the people, with elected representatives passing its laws. The President is the Head of State and is in charge of the country's Executive. Unlike in many other countries, he is an elected figure.

My opponent suggests that my "only reason" against term limits is that the USA is a democracy and the people should be free to elect any leader they want. With respect, in a democratic system, giving the people free choice to elect who they want as President is at all times is THE ONLY REASON EVER NEEDED.

There are other arguments against term limits. For example, it can be suggested that a president who has spent some time in office is experienced in running the country. This should not be underestimated. If ever experience matters, should it not matter the most when it comes to the most important job in the entire nation?

However, my opponent is correct. My main contention is indeed that in a country where the head of state is an elected figure, a constitutional prohibition disallowing the people from electing someone whom they know and trust and who has proven himself over 8 years is simply unsustainable. It is unfair and undemocratic as it deprives the people of the USA from excercising their free choice.

TWO WRONGS <> RIGHT
My opponent's main objection to unlimited terms is that they would potentially expose the office to abuse by a manipulative president. In raising this objection he points to a number of imperfections in how the system currently operates. My response is that two wrongs do not make a right. Those imperfections need to be dealt with even if term limits are never disposed of.

Presidents should not be able to use federal funds to fund their election campaigns. The funds are there to run the nation and no to ensure another term for the administration.

My opponent says that "Because of the electoral college, a successfull candidate needs only garner enough support to win a slight majority in any given state". That is not correct. The blame here should not lie with the College. Rather, it should lie with the State-based election system. Having said that, the system preserves a degree of sovereignty for the states. In effect, the voters of each state decide on who will be President. My opponent suggests that this leads to an unfair result as it may lead to a President with less than 50% of popular support. He may well be right. If so, this is something that might need to be changed.

My opponent contends that an incumbent is effectively the leader of his party. That may be so. The party will usually nominate the current president as its next candidate. However, let us not forget that ultimately it is the people of each state that decide on WHICH PARTY wins. If the incumbent's party's policies cannot compete with those of the opposing party then the incumbent will not win in that state. It is true that some people are inherently loyal to one party ("party lines" - point 2) or the other. However, that is their choice. That is what democracy is about.

Given my concession above, I will not deal with the hypothetical scenario of a President manipulating his party. Suffice it to say that even with term limits the 2nd term President can manipulate his party to vote for his chosen successor; one who will follow his chosen agenda.

My opponent suggests that a candidate during his election campaign does not attempt to demonstrate that his policies are intended to satisfy the voter's needs. Ladies and gentlemen, I suggest you watch a debate and make up your own minds about this point.

LAME DUCK
My opponent says that a lame duck president does not need to worry about his next campaign. However, apart from depleting federal fudns (addressed by myself above) he has not addressed any netagives of this.
Let the incumbent worry about the next campaign! Keep him on his toes! If he can perform, he will get the next term.

BOTTOM LINE
The USA is a country where many of those in power (including judges) are elected officials (I will refrain from saying "democracy"). The people should be free to decide. If the people want to keep their much loved President (when they do have one of those), it is their choice. There should not be arbitrary limits to this. My opponent has maintained that this cannot be done because the system is faulty. I respond by saying the system should be fixed. It should be fixed in any event. I never once suggested that the road to achieving a better democracy would be easy. I never said that it would only require one constitutional amendment. The problems my opponent has outlined, while real, are not impossible to address. They should be addressed. For example, whilst back in the days when the Constitution was established, the logistics of a popular election would be a nightmare, it would not be so with the technology available today.

NOTA BUENE
My opponent has failed to address the fact that there is a host of countries without term limits who do just fine. In fact, I cannot think of a democractic nation without term limits where the head of state has remained in power substantially beyond their welcome. The nation always decides.

My opponent said in point 2: "A long-serving executive becomes accustomed to his position and influence resulting in his being too far removed from the public will." At the same time he suggested in R3 that a president (in any term) has no incentive at all to follow the public will. This is something of a contradiction.

CONCLUSION
What I have put forward would not be easy to achieve. It would take time and effort. One positive side is that it would involve ironing out some existant problems that my opponent has brought up.

I firmly contend that once we say that we are to elect our head of state, we should have the power to keep him as long as we want. Term limits must go.

Vote Pro
JBlake

Con

I thank my opponent for a most worthy response which, unfortunately, I must tear down piece by piece. For the sake of brevity I will not mention the issues on which we have agreed.

DEMOCRACY vs. REPUBLIC
My opponent erroneously calls the government of the United States a Democracy. He is correct in identifying the roots of the word 'republic'. However, the term has evolved into the present meaning as a form of government where the people appoint (through voting) other men to represent them and their interests. Here is what James Madison had to say on the subject when he the government in question was being framed:

Federalist #10
He defines a pure democracy to be "a society, consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person."

Federalist #14
"". . . in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy consequently will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region."
(The Federalist Papers)

Now I will direct the audience to the CIA Factbook, which has the U.S. government officially listed as a "Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition"
(https://www.cia.gov...)

A little digging around wikipedia also uncovers the U.S. among a list of governments that are Federal Republics.
(Scroll to the bottom of the list - http://en.wikipedia.org...)

My opponent limits his citations to Wikipedia, which is a shaky foundation at best.. I will not suggest that my opponent was too lazy to find other sources, but rather that there are no other sources that support his flawed claim that the U.S. is a democracy. It can, and has, been said that the U.S. operates under 'democratic principles'. What that means is that all U.S. citizens have the ability to vote for their representatives and thus have a say in their government.

Therefore, my opponent can say things like "The Democracy Index puts the USA as the 16th most democratic country in the world, out of 167 listed" and be wrong in his interpretation of this meaning. What the Democracy Index is saying is that the U.S. is ranked 16th in its use of democratic principles.

TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY
The men who created this nation had an abiding distrust of democracy. They saw it as the 'tyranny of the majority'. Almost all of the so called 'founding fathers' felt that well informed statesmen should lead the nation as representatives of the people. In other words, the people cannot be trusted to make all of their decisions for themselves.

These are essential facts that arerelated to my opponent's claim that the 'bottom line' is that the President is elected by the people, and therefore the people should should be "free to decide" their president. In a democracy where 'Majority Rules' this might be the case, but not in a Republic. A Republic has protections against the tyranny of the majority, and more importantly for this debate, protections against demagagues from becoming dynasties. The protection in this case is term limits.

PERPETUAL CAMPAIGNING and LAME DUCK
My opponent seems to have misunderstood my position, and for this I apologize for not making myself clear. It is not through federally funded campaigns that candidates recieve their funding, but from private sources (in the U.S. we do not have federal funded elections, at least not yet). This means a candidate has to keep his large campaign donors happy, therefore he is subservient to them to a certain extent. As a 'Lame Duck' the president is no longer in need of their funding, and thus no longer needs to cater to their needs.

INCUMBENTS ELECTION
My opponent stated:
"My opponent contends that an incumbent is effectively the leader of his party. That may be so. The party will usually nominate the current president as its next candidate. However, let us not forget that ultimately it is the people of each state that decide on WHICH PARTY wins."

In this case we have around 50% that represent the opposing party who do not want an incumbent. On top of that we have all of the people within the incumbent's own party that does not want him to return. These voters either abstain from voting, vote for someone else, but in most cases (as my opponent conceded) they vote for their party anyway because it is the 'lesser of two evils'. This does not sound like the people are given that much of an option.

My opponent states:
"My opponent said in point 2: "A long-serving executive becomes accustomed to his position and influence resulting in his being too far removed from the public will." At the same time he suggested in R3 that a president (in any term) has no incentive at all to follow the public will. This is something of a contradiction."

There is no contradiction here. These are two unrelated issues concerning the position. Surely my opponent and the reader can concieve of someone who is far removed from the desires and needs of the public, and also has no incentive to follow this will. I'm not entirely sure how this could be considered a contradiction.

CONCLUSION:

The United States has term limits in place in order to protect the people from the tyranny of a long-serving, out-of-touch executive. Without term limits, an executive can more easily manipulate the system to overstay his welcome, or even to effectively serve as 'President for Life'. When the executive in question is a good, well liked, effective, honest one then there is nothing to worry about. But if someone comes along who does not match that criteria, the potential for corruption or destruction of our entire system is not worth the risk. For these reasons we currently operate under a 'rotation of office' policy - that should not be changed.
Debate Round No. 3
55 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lightkeeper 8 years ago
Lightkeeper
jason_hendrix,

That might well be a good argument against democracy. But if you accept democracy as the system to operate within, you accept the will of the people (based on majority) as the supreme power.

Personally I think democracy might not be the best system. But that's neither here or there for this debate :P
Posted by jason_hendirx 8 years ago
jason_hendirx
You also have to take into account the fact that voters are incredibly emotionalistic. You know why FDR got 4 terms? He'd promise job-creation schemes right before elections only to abandon them right after them. But people don't care, 'cause he's FDR! So yeah, 2 term limit.
Posted by Lightkeeper 8 years ago
Lightkeeper
OK so you say that the longer a person or party is in power the more likely there is to be a military coup. I follow what you're saying. The statement "more likely" implies that there is some statistical value in your statement. Do you have any such statistics? Can you point to a single incident (since the date of the passage of the Amendment) of a democratic country with strong constitutional protective measures fallilng victim to a military coup at the hands of its democratically elected leader? Are you suggesting that if we keep re-electing Mr Smithers as president because we love him so much, one day when he realises that we might vote for Homer at the next election Smithers will turn the army against the nation? Please, one single example of the above would greatly assist. After all you are making a fairly strong assertion about likelihoods and otherwise.
Posted by holyyakker 8 years ago
holyyakker
Because all of those 'safeguards' could easily be overturned by a strong majority. You mention the military coup of Zimbabwe but neglect to realize that the longer one person or party is in continual power the more likely there is to be a military coup. The safe guard of term limits ensures that additional safe guards remain strong.
Posted by Lightkeeper 8 years ago
Lightkeeper
How is that simplistic? Please point to any flaw in the following logic:

If:
1. Constitutional safeguards are put in place to prevent abuse of office and ensure a democratic choice of the Head of State;
AND
2. The Head of State, the adminsitration and all those involved abide by those safeguards,
THEN
the Head of State will not remain in power unless that is the democratic will of the people.

Secondly, I did ask for an example of a democracy where a head of state has outstayed his welcome. You pointed to Zimbabwe. A military coup! Do you really think term limits would have helped Zimbabwe? Do you have a more levelled example?
Posted by holyyakker 8 years ago
holyyakker
I feel it is very simplistic to say that if a President were to abide by the Constitution then term limits wouldn't be needed. As your opponent pointed out, the longer a person is in power the greater their influence extends. In Senate and Congressional races the incumbent always has a distinct advantage, they are recognized, they are memorable, and they are not an unknown factor. People tend to vote for people they have voted for in the past, regardless of how well that person has done in office.

In Congress it is not as worrisome because power of one Senator or Congressman is limited, and the overall power of any Congressman is also limited by the relative strength of their party as a whole. With the President, however, there is a vast amount of power vested in one person. Allowing the same person to perpetually hold that office could conceivably damage the security of our freedoms.
Posted by Lightkeeper 8 years ago
Lightkeeper
Basically, if a president (and others) is to abide by the constitution then term limits are not needed if there are constitutional safeguards against abuse. If the president is to breach the consitution and stage a military coup then no constitutional term limit clause is ever going to help in the first place. Sorry for typing in this section but I am responding to a comment posted by holyakker.
Posted by Lightkeeper 8 years ago
Lightkeeper
holyyakker:
If the president wanted (and could) use the military to stage a coup in the USA then no term limit provisions and no Constitution could stop him anyway. Zimbabwe is a very bad example.
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Thank you for your response, holyyakker. I wanted to mention that scenario in specific and other similar ones, but felt it was unfair since my opponent wouldn't have a chance to reply to them. He waited until R3 to bring up that point altogether, so maybe I shouldn't have had mercy.
Posted by holyyakker 8 years ago
holyyakker
Just a note on how someone could become President for Life. Look at what's happening in Zimbabwe (pardon my spelling). The party in power through manipulation of the electorate and control of the army have effectively squashed democratic rights. The longer you let a single person stay in power the greater the chance of this happening.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by foresight 8 years ago
foresight
LightkeeperJBlakeTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by holyyakker 8 years ago
holyyakker
LightkeeperJBlakeTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by alanas224 8 years ago
alanas224
LightkeeperJBlakeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
LightkeeperJBlakeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06