CreateDebate


Debate Info

28
36
yes why not no its already bad with two
Debate Score:64
Arguments:75
Total Votes:64
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 yes why not (28)
 
 no its already bad with two (36)

Debate Creator

11wolf(679) pic



should people be able to be elected for president more than two terms

Should people be able to please when you put an argument to explain your reasoning

yes why not

Side Score: 28
VS.

no its already bad with two

Side Score: 36
1 point

We should have a monarch.

Side: yes why not
1 point

He would become a tyrant.

Side: no its already bad with two
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

Why do you say that?

Side: yes why not
1 point

But the whole justification of some one being a monarch is that they are royalty and there is no one in America with royal blood so it would not be a legitimate Monarchy.

And that would just be copying us Brits.

Side: no its already bad with two
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

One does not have to have royal blood to be a monarch.

Side: yes why not
1 point

Actually I can see three terms as being pretty reasonable, but four terms is the borderline!

Side: yes why not

I think that a President should be elected for more than two terms.

Side: yes why not
1 point

I don't think it's bad with two, but it's a good amount of time.

Side: no its already bad with two

I don't think it's necessarily bad with two, but I think we should keep it to two terms.

I would endorse extending the length of each term to 5 or even 6 years though. The issue with the current term length is that pretty much any plan that is going to effect meaningful change in a nation of this size (not to mention how slow our government is in general due to the huge web of red tape) will take time to implement. A plan that takes time to payoff is extremely difficult to implement because of that. If a president starts one out during his or her first term and the payoff isn't here or at least obviously visible by the time elections come around, he or she isn't likely to be re-elected- and of course the next president will can the program that has since become unpopular. With 5 or 6 years per term to work with, a lot of plans that wouldn't be workable in 4 years become possibilities.

Of course, if we're to extend the duration of the presidency in any way, we'll need to also make the impeachment process easier to implement, but that isn't a bad thing either. I could even get behind changing the presidency to one term only, with a duration of 6-10 years or so, so long as the impeachment process is made a more viable method to remove an undesirable president. For example, reneging on promises made during the campaign process should be sufficient grounds to start the process, even if it's not enough in and of itself to complete it.

Side: no its already bad with two
1 point

Fuck that! One term is enough... with two they spend most of their first just trying to get the second. I say term only but it could be a little longer... 5, maybe 6 years.

Side: no its already bad with two
1 point

The President can only be elected two terms SIMPLY BECAUSE one of our presidents was elected FOUR friggin' times. Why would we lift that limitation? Especially with today's horrible politicians?

Side: no its already bad with two