We should get rid of term limits on our President.
Debate Rounds (4)
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.
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.
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.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by NiqashMotawadi3 2 years ago
|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||3|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.