The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

The president of the United States should be able to run for more than two terms

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Ariezx has forfeited round #1.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/15/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 432 times Debate No: 97027
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




According to Ben Carson, "We must encourage innovation and ingenuity to improve the state of our nation. Term limits create more opportunities for fresh ideas." Because I agree with this idea, I seek negation of today"s resolution that The president of the United States should be able to run for more than two terms. For the purpose of today"s debate, I offer the following definitions from should: would (used to make a statement less direct or blunt). term: a period of time to which limits have been set. Run: to enter into an election contest. I also want to clarify that the 22nd amendment states "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term." Congress passed the amendment on March 21, 1947. It was ratified by the requisite 36 of the then-48 states on February 27, 1951. The value I wish to uphold in today"s debate is equality. Equality is the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability. According to, "Equality is important because it is the foundation of any fair society where each member has the opportunity to reach his full potential. Equality prevents any section of a society from dominating other sections in processes." In order to know whether or not we have achieved this value, it is necessary to establish a standard by which to judge the resolution. These standards are called criteria and my criterion for today"s debate is justice. Justice is the concept of fairness, what is right, and giving "each man his due." Justice can mean treating equals equally and unequal"s in proportion to their relative differences. In order to achieve equality, we need to establish a society based on justice so that every individual has the same opportunities. Both my criterion and value feed into the resolution, because term limits help us protect the people"s rights and freedom, and stop one person from gaining too much power.

My first contention for today"s debate is abolishing the 22nd amendment and the current term laws, would lead to a dictatorship in America. If the same person keeps on becoming president, they end up gaining too much power, which gives them an opportunity to become a dictator. In the constitution we have checks and balances which were put in place to make sure no one branch would be able to control too much power, and it created a separation of powers. Because of separation of powers, the president shouldn"t be allowed more than two terms. When president Roosevelt got elected for his fourth term as president, the people feared that America would turn into a dictator. As a result the 22nd amendment got passed. According to a survey done by the Huffington post in july 2016, 78% Americans believe that abolishing term laws will lead to dictatorship. In conclusion, the term laws are there to protect our freedom and save us from facing extreme conditions such as dictatorship.

My second contention is abolishing term laws will be unfair for other candidates. In America, we don"t have a direct democracy. For presidential election, a representative represents us in the electoral college. Many times in the past, presidential candidates have won the popular vote but lost the electoral votes. For example, in 2001, president Bush lost the popular vote by 87% but ended up getting the electoral votes and became president. This means that if a president has already served two terms and is running for a third one, he has more power over the representatives in the electoral college, which makes it easier for him to win. Which means it is unfair to the other candidate. Also, elections can be rigged into giving office to the same person. According to the, voting machines in Maryland and Illinois were rigged to support democrats. When the voter tried to submit their vote, the machines wouldn"t let them pick republicans. Things like this could happen to keep on giving the same person office which causes them to gain too much power.

Overall the third term laws were put in place for a reason. Even when America built, our first president, George Washington, didn"t even serve a third term so he could give everyone an equal opportunity. Since then he set a precedent that got followed for hundreds of years. Abolishing the 22nd Amendment would not only cost us a problems, but also may result in the fall of the United States of America. For these reasons, i urge the judges to vote negative for today"s resolution that The president of the United States should be able to run for more than two terms.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by TheBenC 2 years ago
You use the whole checks and balances idea to counter the argument that term limits are correct. Well you are wrong. Currently Republicans control 2/3 of the government and have the ability to control the other third very soon. It would be fairly easy for them to control all 3 branches of government at this point in history. That would let them write their laws, judge their laws and enact their laws. They could make laws that allow the Republican party to be the only party eligible for election and it would pass. Term limits help to prevent this. You are a deep thinker but think a bit deeper. Places where term limits do not exist are horrible places.

I say this as a supporter of Trump.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.