The Instigator
glammmy8
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
sophie.v
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

the president should serve more than two terms

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 649 times Debate No: 32460
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

glammmy8

Con

If a president serves for more than two years, they would gain too much power and influence from special interest groups and others. There are some bad presidents who are elected and if they are in longer, things would be worse than it already is. We will be placing ourselves in a dictatorship and tyranny. Nothing in life is constant. The only constant thing is change. If a president is in power for too long he would want the country to shape into his own image. He will start to change the country into an empire and himself into a emperor. Repetition is not good all the time. There is an old saying that "absolute power corrupts absolutely" Besides too much of everything is bad.
sophie.v

Pro

I'd first like to thank the instigator for bringing this debate to the table.

My observations are as follows: that 1) "the president" implies the post of the U.S. president, as by U.S. law a president can serve no more than 2 four-year terms. That 2) "should" describes a president"s capability to be re-elected. And finally, 3) "more than two terms" describes serving more than two consecutive terms in office, for either a sum total of or greater than 12 years in the White House.
As Pro in this debate, it is my duty to affirm the resolution, proving through my case that allowing a president in office for over 2 terms would not render detriment to the country.
I have taken the liberty of breaking down my opponent"s case:
1. If a president serves for more than two years, they would gain too much power and influence from special interest groups and others.
Here my opponent makes the blatant assumption that the condition of being in office for over two years automatically assigns this president "too much power and influence from special interest groups and others", as if at one given time, a politician becomes in that instant corrupt. This is simply not true. There is no evidence stating that affiliation to special interest groups and other forms of corruption increase the longer that a politician remains in power; the two are independent of the other, not a function of each other. Granted, this scenario is entirely possible, nothing suggests that it is probable.

2. There are some bad presidents who are elected and if they are in longer, things would be worse than it already is. We will be placing ourselves in a dictatorship and tyranny.
The lack of depth of this argument invalidates itself; that presidents who are presumably "bad" (which is, note, a subjective term in this context) will seize power. However, the parameters of the resolution are as to whether a president should be able to stay in power, not whether a tyrant is bad. If a president has acted unfavorably in the eyes of his/her citizens, this is what the democratic machine was built to solve. "Bad" presidents would not even make it to a second term, let alone a third, as long as the U.S. retains its democratic status (which is an assumed condition in the debate.)

3. Nothing in life is constant. The only constant thing is change.
Matters of fact, Pro will disregard these.

4. If a president is in power for too long he would want the country to shape into his own image. He will start to change the country into an empire and himself into a emperor.
Again, here we see the assumption that corruption and tyrannical qualities are accumulated with a president"s time in office; the longer they stay, the more power-hungry they become (to, apparently, the point of becoming an "emperor".) However, this is an unsubstantiated claim. Presidents in the United States who served two terms versus one typically are not any more power-seeking than their one-term-serving counterparts. Calvin Coolidge served two terms (the first was his inauguration from VP to president after the president was assassinated) and remained devoted to the ideal of a small laissez-faire government the entire time he was in office. He did not believe that government should play a large role in the lives of citizens or in the marketplace. Secondly, even if the scenario that you described were to occur, again, the democratic process would oust the president through impeachment or no subsequent reelection to another term.

5. Repetition is not good all the time. There is an old saying that "absolute power corrupts absolutely" Besides too much of everything is bad.
Matters of fact, Pro will disregard these.

As Pro, I believe that allowing a president to serve more than 2 consecutive terms would, in itself, not be a harmful resolution. If a person has the capability to run the country well, and the majority is content with their work, why limit their time in office? If they do not, and they are, as you stated, a "bad president", the democratic process will rid itself of them on its own and no further intervention is needed. My opponent seems to fear a complete coup of power, which is, thanks to the structure of our 3-branch political system, impossible. Every possible safeguard to prevent your dystopic scenarios from ever occurring have already been implemented in the American system, see impeachment, checks and balances, and end-of-term elections.
Debate Round No. 1
glammmy8

Con

glammmy8 forfeited this round.
sophie.v

Pro

sophie.v forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
glammmy8

Con

glammmy8 forfeited this round.
sophie.v

Pro

sophie.v forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.