U.S presidents should be able to serve more than two terms
I accept this debate. U.S. Presidents should not be able to serve more than two terms because:
Unlimited rule is a characteristic of monarchies, not democracies. When the United States first started, George Washington refused to accept the title of king because he had just finished fighting a monarchy, and later in life also refused a third term for this same reason. When drafting the Constitution, the Anti-Federalists (those opposed to a strong Federal government with central power) were already cautious of allowing a President to have unlimited time in office, and even compared it to a monarchy. Even if my opponent was correct in that we have the right to vote for whoever we want no matter their number of terms, we must still take into account that unlimited terms are a distinct and inherent indication of monarchical rule.
2. Democratic vote
While the 22nd Amendment does restrict the ability to vote for whoever the voter pleases, this is not necessarily a bad thing. America is not a democracy, but a republic. James Madison even showed when writing the Federalist papers that their goal was to create a republic that would protect the rights of all rather than a true democracy where the majority overpowers the minority. In a true democracy, perhaps the voter majority could elect whoever he wishes; in this democracy, however, a voter majority could also vote to abolish the current form of government and establish a monarchy. The point of a republic, however, is to limit the government and its power, and term limits do just that. Thus, my opponent's argument from democracy is negated.
2. http://books.google.com... pg. 37-38
3. http://books.google.com... pg. 99
tishawnna forfeited this round.
Monarchy:1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a form of government in which supreme authority is vested in a single and usually hereditary figure, such as a king, and whose powers can vary from those of an absolute despot to those of a figurehead. 2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a country reigned over by a king, prince, or other monarch
Even with the definition of a monarchy, I still find it difficult to believe that by allowing the Presidents of the United States the right to serve more than two terms it will lead us into a monarchy. The first characteristics of the definition implies that a monarchy is a form of government in which SUPREME AUTHORITY is vested in a SINGLE figure. "We do not have to rely on rigid constitutional standards to hold our Presidents accountable," said Hoyer. "Sufficient power resides in the Congress and the Judiciary to protect our country from tyranny." Though the President is our authoritative figure, as argued above, with Congress in place it would not be by supreme authoritative rule,since Congress ratifies his bills by a two-third vote. "The President of the United States has the power to negotiate treaties and agreements with other nations, but the Senate must ratify them by a two-thirds vote in order to take effect. This isn't the only way the Senate balances the power of the president." So, by definition it would not be a monarchy rule, since the President is not ruling with supreme authority. 2. Second definition being reigned over by a king, prince, or monarch is also not befitting of what will occur when the President is allowed to serve more than two terms. Mostly because the leader of our nation is neither called a king nor a prince.
My opponent's second argument seems to be that U.S.A is not a democracy but rather a republic. However, The United States of America is a democratic republic. Democracy:1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. 2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies. Republic: a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. thus making my argument NOT negated. Allowing a President to serve more than two terms will not be creating a monarchy, it would allowing a President to serve more than two terms. Finally, as quoted by my opponent "...voter majority could also vote to abolish the current form of government and establish a monarchy", to say that someone can vote to do so needs to also be noted that they can vote not to. http://wiki.answers.com...'s_cabinet#ixzz1rgKvJz6d http://www.wnd.com...
1. Unlimited rule
My opponent clearly misunderstands me. Firstly, I never said the US would become a monarchy, just that the idea of an unlimited term is a characteristic of such and was thus an ideal contrary to American political thought. While the Senate does provide a "checks and balances" system, there are many reasons why this would not counter the idea of a President being able to serve more than two terms. The Senate can be and usually is split between two parties, making it weak as a body capable of immediate action -- this is why the President is under the "Executive" branch because the idea is that one man can form and execute a decision faster than a body of many people. Again, my opponent is actually correct that the Senate balances the President but she is incorrect in that it would be sufficient balance against a ruler with unlimited duration.
I would again like to point out that term limits are not the sole measure preventing the US from becoming a monarchy. It is one of the many measures set in place. Removing term limits won’t lead directly to a monarchy. My opponent's rebuttal is based around a "straw man" misrepresentation of my argument -- I was not arguing that term limit removal would lead America to a monarchy, but rather that unlimited terms are an identifiable aspect of monarchies and are thus contrary to American thought.
Good, we both agree the US is not a pure democracy. The US is a democratic republic, which is a form of a republic that contains aspects of a democracy as well. Again, however, the point behind a republic is to fix the issues behind a democracy, and that is to protect the voter minority. While the US is a democratic republic, more importantly, the US is a constitutional republic, which by definition is a republic bound by a Constitution. This is of course a symbol of limited government, and I think my opponent and I can both agree that unlimited terms are contrary to the idea of limited government.
My opponent then goes on to state that "someone can vote to do so needs to also be noted that they can vote not to." This is irrelevant. My point was that if the US was a pure democracy, there would be no limit as to what a voter majority could accomplish. We need not dwell on what they would or would not accomplish, just that a pure democracy could easily turn into something far worse. To reiterate, the US is a democratic republic but is more importantly a constitutional republic in that our government is restricted by the Constitution; unlimited terms are a characteristic of the unlimited government of a monarchy and thus contrary to the idea of limited government.
Lastly, wikianswers is not a reliable source and the link is a dead end.
My opponent states "Congress would not be a sufficient balance against a ruler with unlimited duration". First, I think the fixation on the term unlimited, is what leads me to determine that the sole basis of your argument is about the establishment of a monarchy. To allow the President to serve more than two term is not the same thing as allowing them to have unlimited rule, instead it is NOT limiting them to two terms. To say that Congress will not be a sufficient balance against a ruler that serves more than two terms is ludicrous , which implies to me that Congress is then not sufficient in balancing against a ruler who serves only two terms.
If I'm not mistaken my opponent is also saying that by allowing a President to serve more than two terms, we would be going against the idea of a limited government. In actuality by NOT allowing a President the option of serving more than two term we are limiting the government. We are limiting them the right to continue to serve our country, as well as limiting the rights of the citizens of the United States of America. If we as citizens have the right to vote, and want to vote for a president to continue to reign, by not being permitted to do so because of the twenty second amendment is a limitation. Let us also remember that before the twenty-second amendment was ratified in 1947, there were nine Presidents that had the option to serve more than two terms, who did not either because they choose not to or because they did not have the necessary votes needed to do so. This example is to show that by having the option to serve more than two terms does not mean A. That it would happen, since the current President would have to have the desire to serve again, along with the citizens , thus choosing to vote him back in office. B. would not be going against "American political thought", because to say that would imply that having a limited term presidency was always the American way, which it clearly was not before 1947. By allowing a President to serve more than two terms, we give him the chance to continue the good works that he is doing. By completing what he started, it lessens the chance that the next person will/may not do as well a job, or stop the progress of said work.
1. Unlimited rule
She writes, "I do not understand your argument..." and this is plainly obvious. She states, "I originally thought your stance was that by allowing the President to serve more than two terms it would be leading to a monarchy." However, as you can see in my very first argument in Round 1, I described unlimited rule as a characteristic of monarchies, and never stated that its removal would lead to a slippery slope resulting in a monarchy. Instead, you made this assumption in Round 1 when you stated: "Thus, the only reason to not allow a President to serve more than two terms, would be to avoid a monarchy." Once again, my point is that unlimited terms are a characteristic of a monarchy and are thus contrary to the idea of limited government. My opponent states that this debate is not about characteristics of unlimited rule or about American political thought - which is the exact opposite of the truth: this entire debate is exactly about unlimited rule and its potential problems; and since we are discussing changes in American politics, we should take American political thought into consideration. Also, I will now offer a definition of unlimited:
unlimited: not limited; unrestricted (http://dictionary.reference.com...)
Term limits are by definition a restriction of an official's duration in office. And thus, because you are removing a restriction, you are removing a limit on his power. Therefore, by removing term limits, you are giving the President the ability to have unlimited rule. I have already proven how the Senate is not balanced against a President with unlimited duration, and I have already repeated myself to the point where I am annoying myself.
2. Limited government
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. As I said in the last round, "unlimited terms are a characteristic of the unlimited government of a monarchy and thus contrary to the idea of limited government." My opponent attempts to refute this by saying we are actually opposed to limited government currently because we are "limiting them the right to serve our country." The idea of limited government, by definition, is to restrict, the government's influence on its people. My opponent then tries to support her claim with an example, but her example does not provide a single example of a President serving more than two terms: before FDR, both Presidents and citizens clearly did not want it, and immediately after FDR we passed the amendment restricting it. My opponent's evidence is therefore irrelevant.
I will wrap up the argument with a syllogism explaining my core argument:
1. Monarchies are contrary to limited government
2. Unlimited terms are a characteristic of monarchies
3. Therefore, unlimited terms are contrary to limited government
I look forward to the last round.
By allowing a President the option to run for office and serve more than two times, there is no hidden agenda to change anything else in our political structure. We will still have many candidates running for office, numerous campaign to choose from to support, and finally the vote to choose. There are only benefits to come of this process, and since we both agree that a monarchy is not a factor in this debate, there is no disadvantages.
My opponent states that I am "beating a dead horse." All I have done is stick to one solid argument, which you have not properly refuted, as you continue to go off on wild tangents.
Now for my rebuttal; I have stressed multiple times that my point has nothing to do with an actual drift into monarchy. My point is rather that unlimited terms are a characteristic of a monarchy and are thus contrary to the idea of limited government. It seems as if my opponent glanced at my rebuttal, saw the word "monarchy" written a few times, and assumed I was discussing an actual transition into monarchy. I said unlimited terms are a characteristic of a monarchy (not that it IS a monarchy), and that they areinconsistent to the concept of limited government. I am really becoming annoyed with your repeated use of the straw man fallacy misrepresenting my argument as a slippery slope into a monarchy.
This is where I am inclined to believe you are a naïve idealist. It is not that I am "…not giving enough credit to the American people and our voting system." In fact, I believe you are placing too much faith in the "American people and our voting system." This again brings us back to the concept of a republic: a pure democracy allows a voter majority to triumph over a voter minority, whereas a republic safeguards the voter minority and facilitates the voting process. Moreover, we are a constitutional republic, meaning we have a Constitution set in place to restrict the Government from expanding too far -- which includes unlimited terms in office.
Yet again, you are missing my point entirely. The United States has term limits in place because unlimited rule, which in this case is synonymous with the possibility of unlimited rule due to the historical context of the 22nd amendment, is a characteristic of monarchy, which is exactly what American political thinkers have avoided since the Revolutionary War. We actually wrote an entire founding Declaration against a monarchy on this very idea. Whether or not the president will remain in office for the rest of his life is entirely irrelevant; the purpose of the 22nd amendment is to forbid the possibility.
My opponent states: "by allowing a President the option to run for office and serve more than two times, there is no hidden agenda to change anything else in our political structure." We are arguing about term limits, and nothing else in the political structure. Once again, we are arguing about a potential change in the amount of terms a President can serve. Any argument based on further political change is irrelevant.
And as for your last point, I never said that "a monarchy is not a factor in this debate." Please read my syllogism one more time… monarchies are of course a factor in this debate!
Overall, my opponent did not satisfy her Burden of Proof that we should overturn a Constitutional amendment that seeks to protect limited government, and since she did clearly did not defeat the points of my syllogism, I feel I have won this debate.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|