The Instigator
16kadams
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mr.Infidel
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

term limits

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
Mr.Infidel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/20/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,498 times Debate No: 18910
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (3)

 

16kadams

Pro

In an election usually the the person already in office will win again because people have more knowledge of that person. Also if the person already sitting in power wins, it may become a totalitarian regime once they decide to give them self's more power systematically. If you have term limits you'll probably be more likely to get more ideas much faster. Also it may break ties to special interest groups. So if you have the biggest company's behind you you'll never lose. Just bribe the people to keep their mouths shut and support you. The ways dictatorships start is either being rich, or very well armed people behind you, and being rich helps get those arms behind you. So term limits will help reduce the size of government in good ways.

This makes elections more fair also. when its two people who are not well known, the chances are 50% for each, where as the person currently sitting in power has a 90% chance of winning. It also makes taxes lower because if there are people who raise them, you just vote them out (which can be hard as I have said because they have more influence) or wait till their limit ends. It can also reduce power lobby's because if you have 10 senior members ruling everything that's not always good. But with term limits this can only happen for a limited amount of time.
Mr.Infidel

Con

Thank you, 16adams, for challenging me to this debate. I hope this will be excciting and engaging for both of us. I generally debate religious philosophy, but seeing your debates I thought you would be a good opponent.

==Opening Arguments==
  1. In a democracy, the people have a right to elect whom they want to elect.
  2. Term limits limit that right.
  3. Therefore, term limits are non-democratic and should be done away with.
Premise 1 states that in a democracy, the citizens of that nation have that right to elect whom they want. This should be an unproblematic premise for both myself and my opponent. Democracy is defined as a government by the people, for the people, and of the people. Hence, they should have the right to elect whom they want to elect. [1]

Premise 2 states that term limits limit that right. If we are truly a government "by the people, for the people, and of the people", then the people decides who they want. Lets take, for example, Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt was loved by the people and was a successful war time president [2]. Therefore, the people were justified by giving him 4 terms instead of 2. My question to my opponent is this: If people want to have the same president more than 2 times, why should they be denied the president of their choice? I say, let it be.

Therefore, term limits limit democracy and should be done away with.

==Rebuttals==

My opponent claims that term limits make elections "fairer." I disagree. It is generally not the person that is most known, but the person who raises the most money for campaigns [3].

Thanks.


References

[1] http://www.democracyweb.org...;
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
[3] http://communities.washingtontimes.com...;
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Pro

Well you have some facts wrong, America my friend isn't a democracy. We are a constitutional republic. there's a difference. Democracy is simply majority rule, America isn't always like that. George Bush with less then 50% of the vote. Abraham Lincoln won with only 40%. Here is proof that we aren't here's a video clip about the types of government: Now that is settled I can continue.

I do agree we need to vote for who we want, but term limits have a lot more good reasons, I showed many of them, you have only 2. The person who has the most money doesn't always win. If you look at history the person in power at the time will usually win. Also it will give a lot of power to the people who have been preside for 40 years. That is like dictatorship on a lesser scale. I don't think that being a career politician is good. Go in there do your part and leave, don't tell me what to do Washington.

With history on the table, now this means anyone ca serve from anywhere from 2 or 4 years to their life. So we need new ideas, if we don't our government will stay stagnant and have old policy with no new reform. http://news.wustl.edu... here's proof that the longer you serve, the more chance you have to win. So if you served for a long time, I believe this is a type of oligarchy.
Mr.Infidel

Con

Thank you for your arguments. I want to welcome you once again to debate.org and wish you the best of luck.

I have argued the following:
  1. In a democracy, the people have the right to elect whom they want to elect.
  2. Term limits limit that right.
  3. Therefore, term limits are unjust in a democratic society.
I have not given any particular nation for which we were arguing about, but for the most part, it appears my opponent wishes to stick with the USA, so I shall (respectfully) do the same.

My opponent has a few facts wrong. There are many different types of democracy, and in fact, a constitutional republic is one of those different types. Although it is not a pure democracy (there has never been a pure democracy) it is, in fact a type of democracy [1].

In the words of my opponent, "I do agree we need to vote for who we want", and if that person is someone who has served more than twice, then so be it. My opponent argues that there is a fear of a dictatorship, however, I believe this is a scare tactic. The constitution and the balances of power (Judicial, Executive, and Legislative) [2] balance the power to prevent this type of dictatorship from happening. The good thing about a democracy, is that if we do elect someone we do not like, we have the power to remove the person from office.

Thanks.


____________

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
[2] http://bensguide.gpo.gov...;
Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Pro

You say that term limits the right to elect who thy want, it kinda does that, but it does other things too. It creates career politicians who are actually quite annoying. Once they get into the cycle of the election and win their gonna be there for a long time. This is called Oligarchy. Oligarchy's last for long times, but are terrible ways to do things. It limits freedoms and makes larger government. This doesn't always work as planned. You will argue that with elections we will get some of them out. That's the key word, some. More like a few, statistic show that the incumbent wins more the newcomers so having limits helps let new ideas arise and make real change. So having te3rm limits in that perspective helps us move forward.

Yes a republic is a type of democracy, but highly modified. The majority of the time is majority rules, but we have a system that can sometimes let the minority win. It also lets us have a constitution. In democracy is unstable because there usually isn't a constitution in place, aka no rights. Also our constitution has an amendment saying we need term limits fr the reasons i have stated, they want the people to have power, and wanted to minimize the government's influence on day to day lives. Here are the differences between the 2: http://www.garymcleod.org... This site says what i have said, but in more detail.

O.K. I see you think that the 3 body's of government will keep the dictatorship from happening. The leader won't necessarily become a dictator, but he may give himself a lot more power then the other branches over time. WE are seeing this happening today through regulation and the executive branch today is controlling a few large businesses. And once again, FDR could have served for as long as he wanted, other then the fact he had polio. which killed him. And he passed many laws making the executive branch more power full (not necessarily more power full then congress). So I don't fear dictatorship as much as a powerful executive branch abusing its powers.

And you still say that we can elect another member if we don't like him, I will repeat once more, statistics prove that is really hard if he is already in office!

Here is a good example of my sentence above. Bill Richardson was the Governor of NM, my Governor, his approval rating was low, but still won his second term. So even if we hate him, we can only hope we can de-elect him.
Mr.Infidel

Con

Thank you for a fun debate. I will restate my opening argument:
  1. In a democratic society, the people have the right to elect whom they want to elect.
  2. Term limits limit that right.
  3. Therefore, in a democratic society term limits are unjust.

My opponent kept arguing that the incubinent keeps winning, so what? If the person is good and the people want him, why can't the people elect the incubinent more than 2x.

| CONCLUSION |

My opponent has not answered the question that I raised in round 1. If people want to have the same president more than 2 times, why should they be denied the president of their choice?

Thank you.

Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
I have more still, do u want more it all proves my point.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
I did answer the question because i hate career politicians! I've proven u wrong yet you jut repeat!
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
sadly
Posted by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
Do you know anything about Marxism?
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
yeah thats what it means government run health care AKA SOCIALIZED medicine.
Posted by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
Yeah...It depends really. When I say I'm against national health care, I refer to the fact I'm against Obama care.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
and ur anti national health care and that's a big socialist idea heres how to tell go to political compas, look it u, it will tell u
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
wing
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
you seem more well almost moderate and yu profile proves this, because u 48% agree with me and im super right ing
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
16kadamsMr.InfidelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: MI picked apart his argument and constructed his own. Well done.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
16kadamsMr.InfidelTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros case lacked a coherent message in why Presidents should be limited to 2 terms. He spent the debate coming up with more reasons without properly substantiating any of them, and left Cons main argument that people should be able to choose who they want to represent them unanswered. Pro loses sources for failing to provide them for many of his factual arguments.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
16kadamsMr.InfidelTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's reasons for term limits are to prevent congressmen from becoming oiligarchs. Con proved otherwise but instead of offering other reasons he only argued about how term limits limit people's right to vote for who they want. But if you look at the presidency there are term limits and everyone seems fine with it..... I feel that no side had more convincing arguments, but Con did use more sources