CreateDebate


Debate Info

6
7
Affirmative! Negatory!
Debate Score:13
Arguments:9
Total Votes:13
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Affirmative! (5)
 
 Negatory! (4)

Debate Creator

DaWolfman(3321) pic



Should the limit of 2 terms for a US President be repealed?

Affirmative!

Side Score: 6
VS.

Negatory!

Side Score: 7
2 points

The two-term limit is undemocratic. If Americans want to vote for a President again after two terms, and that President is willing to serve, why should their wishes automatically be denied? There is no logical basis for this limitation beyond that. The effect of this scheming is damaging: it denies Americans the chance to vote for a candidate they might want to support. This amendment limits voter choice.

If we get a serving president that knows what he/she is doing we need to keep them in office, as in todays age that is a rarity.

Side: Affirmative!

The two term limit only became law after WW2 and FDR, but FDR was the only one before that to serve more than 2 terms. This is because presidents would only run two terms out of respect of George Washington who only ran two terms and refused a third. So if a candidate is willing enough to run we should trust the judgement of the american people. If the american people decide to elect a president a third time they must be doing something very well because public opnion today is ever changing.

Side: Affirmative!

It is now 2015 and I would like to see Obama serve a third term.

Side: Affirmative!
3 points

I think the reason for the 2 term limit is so that a single person cannot amass power enough to corrupt the democratic process. It seems to work well, no reason to get rid of it.

Side: Negatory!
1 point

Term limits can already be accomplished even without constitutional amendments. There is thing called democracy where the people have the power to vote in or out they choose.

Side: Affirmative!
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
1 point

True, but I believe that the fear was once enough power by an individual was amassed they would be able to ignore election results, or rig elections, like the recent Afghan an Iranian elections.

Side: Negatory!
2 points

Eight years is already enough time for a person to radically change the entire country. What nobody has mentioned yet is that the lasting impression of a president tends to exceed the amount of time that they spent in office.

Look at FDR, he was in office for four terms and that was long enough for him to completely transform the country and leave us with certain policies that we would not be able to get rid of even if we have tried, which kind of defeats the purpose of a democratic republic.

Side: Negatory!
1 point

The Presidency is different from almost any other kind of office in the US. Senators and Congressmen don’t have term limits because their voices are balanced by opposition in their respective chambers; the President has no comparable counterbalance. The nearest analogy would be with state governors - many of which have term limits, too. This is because the role of the individual in such ‘head of executive’ functions is of such importance that pure democracy - unlimited terms - must be tempered by the fear of ‘elective dictatorship’ - a strong President using the undoubted advantages of incumbency to win election after election. America’s beginnings are based in a rejection of monarchy and of cronyism: the 22nd Amendment stops this from coming about by other means.

Side: Negatory!