The Instigator
kasmic
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Blade-of-Truth
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

The XXII amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be repealed.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 5 votes the winner is...
Blade-of-Truth
Voting Style: Judge Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/15/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,747 times Debate No: 76578
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (46)
Votes (5)

 

kasmic

Pro

R: The XXII amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be repealed.

Text of XXII Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org...

For clarity there is a difference between term limits, which limit the number of terms a person may serve as president and term lengths which are 4 years. This debate is about term limits... not term lengths.

Rematch!!!!

Blade of truth and I re-doing this debate. http://www.debate.org...

Judge voting:

Whiteflame
Bladerunner060
BSH1
Tejretics
DameOn

4Rounds/72hrs/6,000

1st round acceptance

No new arguments in last round comment.

Good luck my friend.
Blade-of-Truth

Con

I accept the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
kasmic

Pro

Resolved: The XXII Amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be repealed.

“We the People”

This Democratic Republic was established “of the people, by the people, for the people.”(1)At the time this government was established, it was a radical change from the governments that preceded it. We the people of the U.S. are to have a voice. We are to be able to elect our own representatives. Our Congress and our president are subject to our approval given via voting. Contrary to the tyrannical governments of history, the United States, “we the people,” are intended to have the sovereignty and power to govern ourselves.

Sovereignty and the power of voting

As indicated above, one fundamental way that we exercise our sovereignty is through voting. The only way a President is ever re-elected is if he is able to win and maintain the peoples support. This shows definitively that if a President is able to consistently gain the support of the people, resulting in his re-election, then the people through their sovereignty have determined the President should stay in this office. Clearly this would be a demonstration of the desires of the people.

The function and impact of the XXII amendment

Imagine yourself a hiring manager and you are looking for an employee. In front of you a stack of resumes’. Are you going to look through and remove from consideration any and all candidates that have experience? Of course not!? If anything, experience is a positive impact on who may be chosen. Before even allowing the American people to exercise their sovereignty and consider who the best person for the office might be, the XXII Amendment of the United States Constitution does just that. It removes from consideration those with the most experience. This is not only foolish, but harmful. It seems self-evident that experience is valuable to the office of the president.

James Madison in Federalist paper 53 said "[A] few of the members of Congress will possess superior talents; will by frequent re-elections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members of Congress, and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt they be to fall into the snares that may be laid before them,"(3) though he was speaking of congress, the same rings true for Presidents. In an office as important as the presidents, experience is more important than fresh perspectives, if only to be able to work effectively.

This amendment sets term limits for the office of the president. Setting a term limit mitigates the natural function of elections. The people should have the power to determine if a politician has served enough terms as President. If the people feel this is the case, they could simply vote that politician out of office. Thus the impact of this amendment is to limit the sovereignty and choice of the people. This is in direct conflict with our founding principles. I contend that the people should retain the sovereignty to decide when a politician is not suitable for the office of the President. This should be done through voting. To undermine this freedom and sovereignty of the people is to allow tyranny. After all,
"The people are the best judges who ought to represent them. To dictate and control them, to tell them whom they shall not elect, is to abridge their natural rights.” 2 Elliot's Debates 292-293. (3)

Impact of Repeal

The repeal of the XXII amendment would keep experienced candidates in consideration, allow our Democratic Republic to function as intended via elections, and most importantly, allow Americans to retain freedom and sovereignty by electing whomever they desire.

Overview

I have demonstrated that it is right for the people of the United States to be sovereign. Any other option is tyranny. The XXII Amendment threatens that sovereignty. To add insult to injury, this amendment keeps experience out of office. We clearly see that if this amendment is repealed all issues listed are resolved. If my opponent is unable to refute the significant harm this amendment poses, I will win this debate.

The XXII Amendment is in conflict with core principles and harms our society. Therefore, the XXII Amendment should be repealed.

Sources:

(1)
http://www.britannica.com...
(2) http://usgovinfo.about.com...
(3)
https://www.law.cornell.edu...

Blade-of-Truth

Con

I thank kasmic for having this rematch with me, and will focus solely on building my own case in this round.

Arguments

I. Concentration of Power & Incumbency Advantages

One of the greatest harms that can arise from repealing the 22nd Amendment is the concentration of power. As it is now, the President has no comparable counter-balance. In Congress and the Senate, the legislators are balanced by the opposition in their respective chambers. Even Supreme Court Justices discuss issues with eight other judges. The President is the only one who serves alone. Due to such a position, the president wields a unique degree of influence and power, especially when attempting to run for another term in office. For instance, they can hand out political favors such as grants and subsidies to swing states, as well as strengthen their ties with corporate interests which fund their campaign efforts. All of which culminates into a clear disadvantage for any capable new challengers going against an incumbent.

A good example of this can be seen during the era of Nixon. At one point during Nixon's 1972 re-election campaign the Associated Milk Producers Incorporated, or AMPI, pledged $2 million to the campaign. In return, Nixon raised the federal subsidy for milk. While this was illegal at the time, it reveals the potential for corruption in incumbents as they strive for another term in office.

What's even more detrimental is that unfortunately these days we have Super PACs that involve corporate influences thanks to Citizens United. With the increased risk for unsavory political dealings from such rulings, it's evidently more important now than ever that we keep the amendment as is to ensure that such "favors" are never possible. While short-term "promises" will always be a threat, with the 22nd Amendment in place we can ensure that no long-term backhanded dealings will be taking place due to the guarantee that a new President will take office in eight years.


II. Governing Expertise

An additional harm in repealing the amendment can be found in the case of Cuba. According to the Jamaica Observer newspaper, Cuba's President Raul Castro has proposed term limits for office holders "in the party, the State and the Government". He has done so because, as he put it, "We (in Cuba) are faced with the consequences of not having a reserve of well-trained replacements with sufficient experience and maturity to undertake the new and complex leadership responsibilities". [1]


Thus, an additional harm can be found in the increased potential for a smaller pool of experienced and mature candidates under Pro's plan.

Under our current system, the US is assured a new leader every eight years. If such an assurance was taken away, it will be *less likely* that we'll have the leaders necessary to adequately perform the leadership tasks effectively, as evidenced by the current situation in Cuba.


III. Slippery Slope

If it wasn't for the 22nd Amendment, we might have had two previous presidents serve a 3rd term: Reagan and Clinton, both of whom are the only two presidents who've had approval ratings increase in their second term since WWII. But is it a bad thing that we missed that chance?

I don't believe so. Ethical and legal problems plagued the second terms of Reagan and Clinton, and then that of President Bush and now Obama. Based on the historical evidence and trend, it reasonably follows that a third-term president would likely be more arrogant and insular, leading to even worse ethical and legal problems.

IV. The quest for legacy

A benefit of having term limits has come in the surprising form of legacy-questing. What I mean by this is that there has been some magnificent things accomplished due to presidents being unburdened by the stresses of another re-election while motivated by legacy and reputation. For instance: Reagan's signing of the INF Treaty with the Soviet Union which concluded with a total of 2,692 nuclear missiles being eliminated [2], Eisenhower's second-term efforts of waging peace which included his own reversal from a "lame duck" to the "New Eisenhower" [3], and even Clinton's military actions in Kosovo and middle east peace efforts.

There is an intrinsic benefit birthed from the amendment in that it can serve as a motivator for 2nd term Presidents to accomplish something great before their time is up. Currently, the President has a set exit date and thus develops the drive to accomplish something before that time comes.

V. There is no current obligation to do so

A key term in the resolution is "should" which indicates a morally or legally bound obligation or duty. [4] However, at this point in time no such obligation exists. In order for the Amendment to be repealed we would need two-thirds of both houses of Congress to deem it necessary or two-thirds of the State Legislators to call on Congress to hold a constitutional convention. Such a necessity does not exist at this current point in time though. In fact, according to most polls the majority is *in favor* of term limits. This can be seen not only on DDO itself, with 81% in support of term limits, [5] but additionally in any Google search result.


So why does the support percentage matter?

It matters because America has its moral roots founded on Utilitarianism i.e., the greatest good for the greatest number, which is evident in our current society with our usage of the ideal of majority rule. Considering the fact that the majority does not seek to repeal the amendment, we can safely conclude that there is no moral or legal obligation to do so.

Thus, the XXII amendment of the U.S. Constitution should not be repealed.
Debate Round No. 2
kasmic

Pro

Rebuttals:

I. Concentration of Power & Incumbency Advantages


Con claims “As it is now, the President has no comparable counter-balance.” As laid out in the U.S. Constitution there are many checks and balances in place to “counter-balance” the power of the President. (1) In fact, while my opponent cites Nixon as an example of what happens when a President abuses power, He is also referencing perhaps one of the best instances of a Presidents power being checked and balanced. Watergate ruined Nixon’s political career. Had he not resigned he very likely would have been impeached and removed from office. In addition to checks and balances, it is harder than ever for those in position of power to hide abuses in our day. Virtually every person has a video/voice recording device. A politician running for office can’t hardly have a private conversation without being recorded let alone abuse power. (2)

Con claims incumbency advantages. The issue with this contention is that while there are some incumbency advantages, the impact is tied to the assumption that Presidential Incumbents will continue to run for office. History shows us a different trend. Before the XXII Amendment and accounting for
the first 175 years of this country, only one President ever served more than 2 terms. Con also claims that Super Pacs effect incumbency as well. As Presidential Candidates are likely to be backed by one of the two major parties, it is implied that both sides will have super pacs that support them.

Thus we cons argument summed up as if a President chooses to run a third term (which only happened once in 175 years), and if said person decides to hand out political favors, and if they strengthen corporate interest, and if they successfully get re-elected, then concentration of power and incumbency might be a potential problem. I don’t know about you but that is a lot of if’s. This argument is buried in assumptions making the supposed harm highly unlikely. Not very convincing.

II. Governing Expertise

Again this argument makes the assumption that a president who has served two terms will continue to not just run, but win. Our nation is entirely different from Cuba for two reason, sheer size and level of education. Term limits for president can be done away with and people will still be able to have gain leadership and similar experience serving in other roles of government. We have at least 50 State Governors, 435 members of Congress, and past politicians that are gaining experience.

It also seems foolish to argue that governing expertise goes down unless we eliminate those with experience from serving.


III. Slippery Slope

This argument comes down to a handful of bare assertions. My opponent uses another if scenario that if Clinton or Reagan had ran for and been elected for a third term perhaps it would be likely to be plagued with ethical and legal problems. My opponent has not provided any real evidence that shows this to be likely if at all plausible.

IV. The quest for legacy

Con argues there is an “intrinsic” benefit to the amendment in question because “it can serve as a motivator for 2nd term Presidents to accomplish something great before their time is up.” This is true with or without the amendment. In the hypothetical scenario that a President is coming up on the end of his/her second term this quest for legacy will be present regardless of the plan. If a President is running again, they will want to be able to point back and say “see, look what I accomplished.” If they are not running they will say the same thing. All Presidents, regardless of their plans to continue serving or not, include leaving a legacy. Whether serving 4 years 8 years or 40 years there is an intrinsic desire to build a legacy. This contention is entirely independent of the XXII Amendment.

V. There is no current obligation to do so

Con claims that because a majority is in favor of term limits there is no obligation to repeal this amendment. To this I have a few questions? If a majority were in favor of slavery would there be a moral or legally bound obligation to address it? If a majority were in favor of murder would there be a moral or legally bound obligation to address it? My point is that a majority support does not constitute moral, legal, or what should be. The fact remains that this amendment is a violation of our natural rights and attacks the sovereignty of the people. That sovereignty must be protected even from the majority. Who am I to tell Blade who he may not vote for? Who is DDO to tell Blade who he should not vote for?

Conclusion:

My opponent’s contentions assume more than infer. Aside from this none of these
contentions even present harm near as detrimental to our society as the XXII Amendment poses.
I have demonstrated that it is right for the people of the United States to be sovereign. Any other option is tyranny. To add insult to injury, this amendment keeps experience out of office. We clearly see that if this amendment is repealed all issues listed are resolved.

The XXII Amendment is in conflict with core principles and harms our society. Therefore, the XXII Amendment should be repealed.


Sources:

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org...

(2) http://www.motherjones.com...

Blade-of-Truth

Con

In this round, I will focus solely on rebutting Pro's arguments from R2, and will then utilize the final round for addressing his counter-arguments to my own R2.

I. "We the People"

Pro is correct in that our government was a radical change from those that preceded it. One of those key differences was made a reality during the end of President Washington's second term. At that point in time, our President made the decision to step down from the Presidency to preserve the very fact that America was different from the tyrannical monarchy that we had recently won our freedom from. He set a precedent which every following president held until FDR in 1940. The very reason the Amendment won the support of the majority in both congress and the states in the first place was due to the desire to return to the precedent set by Washington. Through the power of choice, the majority voted to return to that precedent. Even to this day the majority supports this precedent. In addition to this fact, we now even have a majority pushing for term limits on both Congress and Senate members [1].

It is for this reason that I believe Pro has no grounds to say that "we the people" are having our sovereignty or freedom of choice challenged. We can easily see that the majority not only stands by this precedent, but also seeks to expand it even further into the Houses of Congress and the Senate. We the people indeed have the power to govern ourselves, and we indeed have the power for our voices to be heard. Both of which are proven by our legislators response to FDR breaking the precedent when the majority passed and ratified the amendment.

Lastly, we indeed have the ability to elect our own representatives. Not once since the Amendment first passed has that ability been impeded. Unless Pro can show that we have had a president since then that has A) sought a third term, B) had the majority support of the people for a third term, and C) had those efforts blocked by the Amendment thus impeding our ability... then there is no grounds for him to claim that "we the people" don't have the ability to elect our own representatives. The reality is that we've never had a president seek a third term since the amendment passed regardless of 2nd term popularity, nor have we (the people) ever suffered a net loss by such a president being unable to do so because of the 22nd Amendment. Our sovereignty was never challenged by this amendment, nor is it being challenged now - the truth is that the majority supported the decision/made the choice to set term limits, and still, as a majority, support such limits today.

II. Sovereignty and the power of voting

While Pro is correct that voting for a president who is able to garner support is a demonstration of the desires of the people, he overlooks the fact that the passing of the amendment was also a demonstration of the desires of the people. In fact, it's one of the most strict processes in which such a demonstration can take place. In a presidential election, the president merely needs to win 51% of the votes. In passing and ratifying an amendment, it requires 66% and then 75% support. Both the congress and the states in charge of voting for these amendments are doing so in the place of their constituents, the people. So, when we are discussing demonstrations of the desires of the people, which would hold more value - That which requires only 51% of support, or that which requires 75% support? I believe the amendment passing both the congress and the states is not only a clear demonstration of the desires of the people, but additionally one that required even more support by the people than that of our own president. It clearly reflects the will of the people, the will of the majority, and through our sovereignty we chose, and still choose, with the support of the majority, to keep that amendment within our Constitution.

III. The function and impact of the XXII amendment

This argument from Pro boils down to two parts: Experience & Mitigation

In response to the experience point, I believe Pro is overlooking a key aspect of the Presidency: The Ability to perform the duties effectively. While an 80 year old mechanic might have the most experience, does he have the ability to perform the duties required? Can the most experienced pilot be of much use if he lacks the ability to fly the plane due to fatigue or any multitude of reasons? People don't retire because they lack experience, they retire because they lack the ability to perform as they once did. Our nation is constantly evolving. It requires leaders who can be flexible, think critically and strategically, stay abreast of domestic and foreign changes and trends. Thus, I believe that while the amendment *could potentially* restrict those with the most experience, it *certainly* allows for those with the ability to be considered.

In regards to it mitigating the natural function of elections, I think that's a matter of interpretation. One of the functions of elections is to "produce a government that is in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the electorate." [2] Considering that the majority of the electorate passed and ratified the amendment, I don't see how it mitigates the function of elections as it's in accordance with one of those functions itself. Also, voting is a legal right, not a natural right, thus no natural rights are "being abridged" by this amendment as Pro claims.

In closing,

The 22nd Amendment is not in conflict with our core principles nor does it harm our society. It was the desire of the people who passed it back in 47' and still has majority support nearly 70 years later. Only by repealing something that the majority desires would we truly be risking our sovereignty and freedom of choice. As of now, neither are threatened.

Sources

[1] http://www.gallup.com...
[2] http://electionvotingnotes.blogspot.com...
Debate Round No. 3
kasmic

Pro

I. "We the People"

Con contended this point by referencing history. Indeed President Washington did set a precedent. There is no reason to believe that many Presidents would not continue to follow suit if the XXII Amendment were repealed. In fact history shows it likely that they will, as it was followed for hundreds of years without the amendment. Thus this amendment is not necessary for what con desires.

Con claims that “the majority voted to return to that precedent.”

Note that the XXII Amendment was not a return to anything. It was a new addition entirely. Term limits could not be returned to as they had not existed.

Con argues that because the majority seems to support term limits that it cannot be argued that such an amendment is a violation against “We the people(s)” sovereignty. This is a non-sequitur. A majority can in fact vote for and establish what is called the tyranny of the majority.

Con attempts to widen my burden of proof suggesting that I must show a case where a president has desired to seek a third term and the people desired it. This is nonsense, as it was against the law for any such a president to do so. I am not contesting that the XXII amendment is the law. Rather that it should no longer be one.

Aside from this the people have desired many Presidents including Washington to run for more terms. Even in con’s round two he contends that perhaps Clinton or Reagen would have run if the amendment had not been in place and perhaps won. Thus con concedes this possibility. The historical fact that we did have a President who did run for a third term and successfully was reelected shows that the people in that case desired it.
In conclusion, each person in our republic is protected under the Constitution. In fact our government is established in such a way that would prohibit both tyrannical government and tyranny of the majority. The XXII Amendment is the majority dictating to the minority who they may or may not vote for and is thus a violation of the minority’s rights and limits their power and ability to vote for whomever they choose.

II. Sovereignty and the power of voting

I don’t contest that both voting a President in office for a third term, and the passage of the XXII amendment where the desires of the people. I am arguing that the later causes harm. It violates and weakens the people’s ability to exercise their sovereignty. People need the power and sovereignty restored that the tyranny of the majority has removed via this amendment.

III. The function and impact of the XXII amendment

Con seems to misunderstand my argument here stating that “While an 80 year old mechanic might have the most experience, does he have the ability to perform the duties required?” This is obviously not what I am arguing. I have not once suggested that experience makes the best candidate for President. Though I have argued that disqualifying someone from consideration for having experience is ludicrous. As con argues people retire when they lack ability. Should not a Two term President be able to decide if he is ready to retire, should not the people be able to determine if he is fit for the job?

In Conclusion:

Thanks to Blade-of-Truth for this rematch. It has been a great debate.

Why you should vote for me:

1: “We the People” should have the sovereignty restored to us in our voting rights.
2: The XXII Amendment harms that sovereignty
3: Removing someone from consideration due to experience is ludicrous.
4: Removal of the Amendment provides solvency.

In other words, the XXII Amendment is harmful to society and repeal is the way to stop that harm.

Vote for soveriegty of the people,

Vote Pro!
Blade-of-Truth

Con

I. Concentration of Power & Incumbency Advantages

Pro mistakes "checks and balances" as "counter-balance" but the two are completely different. Senators and Congressmen have their voices balanced by opposition in their respective chambers; the President has no comparable counterbalance. The role of the individual in such ‘head of executive’ functions is of such importance that pure democracy must be tempered by the fear of ‘elective dictatorship’. America’s beginnings are based on a rejection of monarchy and of cronyism: the 22nd Amendment stops this from coming about by other means.

Additionally, in my Nixon example there was no mention of Watergate on my part. I solely presented his incumbent advantage of granting subsidies for the AMPI, which in return pledged $2 million to his re-election campaign. No challenger had the ability to do so. I also don't believe Pro's point regarding politicians not being able to have private conversations acts as a check on incumbent advantages, his example cited Mitt Romney's 47% tape that essentially ruined his chances of the Presidency, however, Romney was not an incumbent at the time, thus Pro's example does not negate my point regarding the incumbent advantage.

Lastly, Pro concedes that there are indeed incumbency advantages, but then says the impact is tied to the assumption that incumbents will continue to run for office. What Pro fails to realize is that my impact doesn't solely rely on presidents running for a 3rd term (or more), as I've already shown how such an advantage can even have an impact with presidents running merely for a 2nd term such as with Nixon. He then sums up my arguments in a false frame by placing unnecessary "if" conditions that I never argued. There are no "if's" about it, the concentration of power and incumbent advantage is a real issue right now, repealing the amendment would only serve to strengthen the possibility and magnitude of such things, which would lead to even more harm.

II. Governing Expertise

Pro argues that my argument relies on the assumption that a president will not only run for a 3rd term, but win. However, Pro's arguments rely on the same thing. For instance, Pro has repeatedly stated that we'll miss out on the most experienced person for the job unless this amendment is repealed, but what good is their experience if they don't win? Thus, Pro essentially defeats his own arguments while attempting to defeat mine as we both have arguments based on them winning.

In regards to Cuba vs. America, if we have a president who monopolizes the executive branch we run the risk of having an increased potential for a smaller pool of experienced candidates. Under Pro's plan, there is no guarantee that they'll be necessarily prepared for the *chance* that an incumbent will lose his 3rd, 4th, or 5th term run, whereas now we have the guarantee that the president will leave office in 8 years, thus allowing challengers to fully prepare themselves for their own run with no risk of incumbent advantage. As it stands now, the younger generations can look ahead and say, "Hey, he's got to leave eventually, so let's build ourselves up to the best of our abilities and aim for the whitehouse." Under Pro's plan, that hope and motivation takes a hit as there'd be no guarantee that the president would leave office considering the public would now have the option to vote him/her in for a 3rd, 4th, or 5th term.

III. Slippery Slope

There are no bare assertions being made here. History shows that presidents in their 2nd term are more prone to ethical and legal issues. Thus it's reasonable to assume that such issues would be even more so in a 3rd term. As for "proof", Clinton had his sex scandals and Reagan had his Iran-Contra affair. They were also my examples because they were the only two that would have had public support for a 3rd term if they chose to challenge the amendment, the point is that without the amendment in place, those two could have won a 3rd term and thus created even more issues in that term due to growing even more insular and arrogant with power.

IV. The quest for legacy

This contention is not independent of the amendment as Pro claims. The motivation and sense of urgency behind the quest for legacy is birthed by the fact that they won't have another chance to accomplish something great as President. In Pro's case, they are merely building a portfolio for re-election, under my case, they are building a legacy that doesn't rely on any re-election but rather relies on the legacy they wish to leave for the history books.

V. There is no current obligation to do so

Pro failed to address the fact that our system of morality, as a nation, is tied to Utilitarianism. In his case of slavery, the whole reason it became an issue was because the majority stopped supporting it. With murder, there was ever an instance in American history where that's been supported by the majority. So, ultimately, Pro is committing a false comparison fallacy within his response. The fact remains that over 75% of Americans support the Amendment, thus leaving no legal or moral obligation to repeal it. Since the term "should" implies such an obligation, Pro needed to prove that there is one, and failed to do so. Pro additionally never showed how this amendment violates our "natural rights", and dropped my point that voting is a legal right, not a natural one.

Ultimately,

The only thing that would challenge our sovereignty as free voters would be to repeal an amendment that currently has majority support of the people. The people of America spoke, and through their legislators decided to return to the precedent set by Washington. The amendment never mitigated the function of elections since one of those functions is to "produce a government that is in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the electorate." Nor does experience trump every other aspect of a good president such as the ability to perform. Thus, we should not repeal the 22nd Amendment.

Debate Round No. 4
46 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
Thank you kasmic, it was both a true challenge and honor to have this rematch with you.

And a huge thanks to all the judges who voted on this. I'm glad to see that all of you were pleasantly surprised by the increased quality - as I know that was the intention of both kasmic and myself. I appreciate the time and effort you all put into your RFD's!
Posted by kasmic 1 year ago
kasmic
Thanks for reading and voting!

@Blade-of-truth, Congrats on the win!
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
RFD (Pt. 1):

I must say, this debate was radically different from the previous one. I think both sides presented much stronger arguments, so this was an interesting one to read. And the 6,000 character limit was rather relieving, so this turned out to be a short read. The decision, on the other hand, was tougher to make.

== Pro's Case ==

1) "We the People"

Kasmic's first impact is that an obligation for a state to be considered a democracy is to have a government "for the people, by the people, and of the people". If people are truly to be part of decision making, then direct voting is the sole way to fulfill the necessary obligation of a democratic state.

Con's response is that the obligation strives on protecting the decision of the majority. The decision of the people is represented in the decision of the majority, and the *elected* candidates of both the Senate and the House had a majority in support of the XXII amendment. Con defends this as a counter-impact that shows that Pro has no grounds to say that the autonomy and decisions of the people is being challenged. Pro argues that the majority doesn't decide justice in a democracy, since the majority itself can express tyranny. The people must be protected from the tyranny of the majority.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
(Pt. 2)

There were two problems I found with Pro's response: (1) why shouldn't the majority of the people get to decide? This is insufficiently explained, and (2) Pro's *own* objection is a non-sequitur, since Pro has to show a counter-plan. With the argument made in the final round, Pro fails to explain it and destroys their own contention. The explanation is primarily needed in the link of "tyranny of the majority": *how* is this majority "tyranny"?

2) Sovereignty and the power of voting

Pro's impacts are that sovereignty is exercised through voting, and true sovereignty and freedom requires the repelling of the 22nd amendment. Con argues the indirect voting *does* express the will of the people and the majority. It reflects the will of the people, thus showing sovereignty. Pro's response is that it "weakens" the will of the people, with no real justification.

Once more, insufficient justification and explanation pushes the impacts to Con.

3) Function and impact of 22nd amendment

Basically, Pro's impacts are that the 22nd amendment destroys the purpose of elections by not allowing people to vote, and also restrains possible presidents with ability. The lack of *established* links strikes me as well. Con responds saying the primary aspect of the presidency is the ability to perform duties efficiently.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
(Pt. 3)

Con argues that mitigation of the true impacts of elections are subject to different perception and interpretation. Pro says experience wasn't a part of Pro's argument at all, so Con fails to respond to any of the links Pro had. But Pro *drops* Con's response on mitigation of elections.

== Con's Case ==

4) Concentration of Power

Con's point is that the concentration of power is rested upon the president, and that may result in abuse without proper election. Pro argues there *are* checks and balances to the president's power, but, as Con notes, these only act as checks and balances for *legislative* power of the president, not ability to gain funding via. their position. So, I go for Con on this one.

5) Governing Expertise

I think this is a clean and clear argument. Con uses the example of Cuba: there is a severe lack of administratively responsible candidates, where term limits would be required, against Pro's plan. But Con really fails to sufficiently explain the argument nonetheless. I think Con contradicts himself here, since Con supports *experience* as best for presidency, but here is against experience. Regardless of Pro's rebuttals, the argument is weak anyway, and is not an argument I would have voted on. I tie this argument.

6) Slippery slope

This is a correlation-history argument; basically, all presidents who could've run a third term wouldn't have been that good. Pro argues that Con's argument is only an "if" argument, with no specifics.

But, as Con notes, there aren't any bare assertions here: none of the presidents who would've run sans the 22nd amendment for a 3rd time weren't *good* for a third term. The correlation isn't disputed. I award this to Con.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
(Pt. 4)

7) The quest for legacy

The point of this argument is basically that presidents who know they won't get reelected strive to build a legacy, and that legacy-building efforts are net beneficial. Pro argues that the contention is independent of the 22th amendment, as *all* presidents leave legacies, regardless of whether or not they have plans to get reelected.

But Con argues that the *motivation* that drives the legacy, and the sense of urgency, push forward. But I don't think this strongly supports the impact, while defending the position. All in all, I leave this a tie as well.

8) There is no current obligation to do so

The point of this argument is that the resolution indicates "should," while there is no obligation to abolish the 22nd amendment, especially if there is *majority* support among the populace. I've addressed much of the majority dispute above, and it boils down to that. Since Con wins that, this argument goes to Con.

Conclusion:

I think the debate should be judged on the impacts themselves. The majority of Pro's case was refuted. Pro opened really strong, and it seemed he would win, so, frankly, I was surprised by my own decision, but I think Pro, somewhat, deteriorated towards the end. Con's case had multiple mistakes in itself, but ultimately, Con's impacts outweighed Pro's.

Ergo, I vote Con. This was still a fantastic debate, and I learned a lot from reading it, and both debaters had especially strong impacts.
Posted by kasmic 1 year ago
kasmic
Thanks for reading and voting Bladerunner. Great feedback.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
I've messaged Daemon but also received no response. If Tej is gonna be gone for the next two days then it looks like Bladerunner is the last one left. The site is saying he's online now, so I wouldn't be surprised if his vote comes in soon. Crazy that it has come down to these three judges though - at this point it could really go either way.
Posted by kasmic 1 year ago
kasmic
I messaged him, no response.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Yeah, but have you guys contacted him since?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by daem0n 1 year ago
daem0n
kasmicBlade-of-Truth
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: RFD: http://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/70722/
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
kasmicBlade-of-Truth
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 1 year ago
bladerunner060
kasmicBlade-of-Truth
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: RFD @ http://www.debate.org/forums/politics/topic/70658/
Vote Placed by bsh1 1 year ago
bsh1
kasmicBlade-of-Truth
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. Good debate. The shortened RFD is that voting rights wins it for Pro, but the legacy argument was a stand-out for Con. That was one of just 2 arguments in the debate about which I had no doubt who won. It was Con's strongest point, and, had Con fleshed it out a bit more, my vote could switched very easily. Yet, as it is, the harms to voting rights are far more likely to actually transpire (and thus to accumulate harm enough to outweigh) than are the benefits of legacies. As for feedback, work on avoiding cherry-picked examples, clearly weighing arguments, and exploring a variety of avenues of attack instead of just one or two rebuttals to each contention.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
kasmicBlade-of-Truth
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Given here: http://www.debate.org/forums/politics/topic/70402/. Good job, guys.