The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

We should get rid of term limits on our President.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/20/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,240 times Debate No: 40913
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




I believe that if the people want to keep someone they like as president they should be able to keep him for more than 8 years. Look at the last president we had that went over 8 years (FDR), many people would consider him one of the best presidents of all time.


I believe that you are mistaken in a sense. Term limits are but boundaries for every respective candidate. They make sure that the country does not get cursed with a corrupt President or even one that deems to prove that he/she is unfit. Now in your argument you propose that a President should be running more than 8 years even if only 'majority' perceives him as worthy or functional that does not give the majority the right to elect him for more than 8 years. Because that would stand against the idea of Democracy. What you are basically saying a President should keep his post for decades if the people want him? That is not Democracy that is Communism, and if you stand against Democracy that is a whole other debate. Now I am going to provide an example, consider your society a class room with a numerous class mates, around 15 for example. All 14 of your elect this one candidate to run for presidency. But there is no term limits, He stays in his post for 2 weeks and he is doing quite well. But what if there are ones, other class mates that are more qualified than him. Yet they can't get a chance to show what they can do, as there are no limits. Consider another scenario where this elected person is secretly stashing the classroom funds and pretending to be a 'goodie-goodie'. You cannot dismiss him unless he leaves trail but he's too good to be caught. You need term limits to be protected from that.

Also term limits give right for the protesting party to get a chance, because there will be always protesters, people who think he is not good enough. Just because you and your folks/party favor that specific President, that doesn't mean that he is in fact the ideal president.
Debate Round No. 1


By getting rid of term limits I mean that we should not put a limit on the amount of time the president/official can run. So if Barack Obama at the end of this term wanted to run again for a 3rd term he would be able to run. Term limits kick out the good leaders who may deserve to stay in office for excellent work.


But just as I have mentioned above in my former argument, it is not fair for the protesters. What I am trying to say here, just because you and a bunch of folks think a certain leader is a 'great' does not make him in fact a great leader. However if the majority agrees then he should spend his time but only within respect to term limits. Because if we dismiss term limits then what is stopping him from being elected for a third, fourth, fifth and even a sixth period. And if that is to happen, that that dismisses the idea of Democracy. Everyone deserves to take a chance.
Debate Round No. 2


Protesters are rather irrelevant considering there will always be protesters. Politicians that leave office take with them a lot of experience and contacts that are essential to get things done. New leaders would have to develop these from scratch. Also if they got a third, fourth or fifth term it would be democratically elected, it's not like they just stay in office.


I beg to differ, you undermine protesters, when protesters are the ones that make great leaders. They keep them in line when they are acting out of order. Protesters are the reason Presidents think twice before taking rash decisions. Further more, for someone being elected for the 'fifth time' as you claim, that is 40 years. What kind of Democracy is that? I am sure that is only fair for the 51% or maybe 60% of the population. Which is the majority. Yes he has been elected legally but bare in mind, that too much time in the office' will not only gain him experience, and contacts to get the job done but it will as well corrupt his being and thus pushing him to use those 'experience and contacts' not for the well fare of the society but for his own personal gains. You might want to argue and say, if he is bad or he does go bad. We will discard him/her and elect a new President. That would only be sound in theory but in reality, you will not find out about his 'under the table deals' unless it's far too late. He will steal the bread and provide you with the crumbles, practically deluding you with a mere illusion of prosper. Under no such circumstances should we take such risk because it might end up ruining the nation's Economy.

I could give live examples such as President Mubarak, he was democratically elected for 6 periods and look where did that got Egypt. He left such a mess, where the people of Egypt are cleaning. How did he do that you may ask? He extended the term limits. So not only was he jeopardizing the Presidency elections to his favor but he did also toil with the constitution. After all he is a human being, who had grown mad with power. He has been President for far so long in order just to give it up. And if you want to look at it from an Economics perspective. In theory if Supply increases (NUMBER OF ELECTED PERIODS), the Demand decreases (IN THAT CASE HIS SUPPORTING BASE). So Rationally, no one could stay in charge for such a very long time without losing credibility.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3


Politicians who are in the last term of office are more likely to ignore the will of the people since they don't face the wrath of the electorate in the future. Also I'm confused on how it could mess with the economy, sometimes a new president can mess the economy up more than an experienced leader would.

Term limits make it hard for someone to get everything they want done. If we gave a president let's say like 3 or 4 terms he would be able to fix more than he would in 2 terms.

You also made a point of how if only 51% of people voted for that president it wouldn't be fair. How so, wouldn't he have still won the majority, thus pleasing a majority.

Also protesters are again irrelevant and have nothing to do with this argument, but if you must bring them up I will rebut them with the fact that even though Obama had strong opposition on his Healthcare Reform doesn't mean he listened to the protesters, obviously he didn't in fact because he got it passed.


You are dismissing the idea of a President going corrupt for spending too much time in power, because your counter argument the new President MIGHT be worse than a experienced leader. But you are not taking into account that term limits help new ideas, vision and futures to be born. The experienced leader had a chance of 8 years, it's time to pass the torch for someone else. This is what Democracy is. Now I never said that the majority does not count, my argument was that the opposition need to get a chance as well. And if there was no term limits, this President might keep winning one election after the other. And I noticed you always argue in case he is a good leader, what about a case were he is ripping off people and they still can not see it, thanks to the 'media' of course. Like President George Bush for instance, he was one of the worst Presidents in the modern history, yet he still ruled for two periods.

Nowadays people shun his actions and deeds, they had seen what he had been doing. But what if there was no term limits, nothing could have stopped the people from electing him again and again. Term Limits are but boundaries to stop potential Dictators or Presidents with evil intentions to do as they please. Elections will not protect the people from words and false promises, as we all know every President brain washes their supporters with campaigns that does not meet our expectations.

Bottom line is my argument is 8 years of Presidency is more than enough for those Presidents to offer good to their respectable country, It gives the opposition a chance to run for Presidency and finally it protects the President from going mad with power and authority.

Term limits also avoid the occurrence of a Monarchy.

While your rebut is about the people getting a chance to elect the same President over and over.. as they please if they BELIEVE that President is good enough to keep running. In theory that would be very good, but in real life it's much more complicated. Your argument is rather naive and has no relation with the on-going situation out there. As I have noted before, the longer people stay with power, the more they will manipulate and commit fraud to keep that power, Politicians and Presidents are anything but Saints. There is corruption in every Politician, but it varies from one person to the other or from one Government to another.

I have given a very vivid example of a man corrupted with power and that is Mubarak, Former President of Egypt. While my opponent failed to provide me with a vivid example of his theory. My opponent is only arguing what he believes would happen if there was no term limits, while I provided a brief example of the consequences. I am sure there are many other examples out there.

Thank you for your time.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Simoneaumsc2014 3 years ago
If we get rid of the term limit then there's no such thing as the president anymore. Basically if we have no term limit then we have a dictator, and no one wants a dictator.
Posted by StgermainMSC2014 3 years ago
I feel like getting rid of the term limit is a very dangerous thing because if we did that then aren't we really just opening the doof for someone to just become a king/dictator, which is exactly what our ancestors fought against in 1776?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's only argument can be summarized as "Term limits should be removed as the president could be good." Con pointed out that it is necessary, from a heuristically democratic perspective, to move the "torch around to someone else" to ensure new blood in the presidency. I felt that Pro centered his position on the claim that good presidents are rare which I don't agree with. The US has 300 million citizen and so there are many respectful, honorable and intelligent men who could become presidents. Con also pointed out that the term limits are to ensure that presidents with support and subtle corruption do not stay for longer than eight years. This was a strong argument as it is expected to have many cases such as that in the probability space of US presidents. Pro could have undermined his opponent's arguments but instead he wrote short rounds that focused on one or two points.