The U.S. ought to impose term limits on Congress

What this debate has come down to is which method is better at choosing the best politicians. On my opponent's side, he proposes a blanket rule; he wants all representatives who have served for twelve years to be removed from office. On the other hand, I believe that in a democratic society we should endeavor to let the people choose, as they know who can represent them best. My opponent's historical analysis never really helped his case; we are here to debate whether to have term limits now, not where they came from and how they got here. So with this key clash in mind, there were a few big issues in this debate. They were: -The rights of the people to elect who they wish to. -The quality of long-standing politicians -The advantages of incumbency ---------Issue One--------- So firstly, to the rights of the people. We said from the start that all districts are different and that the people should choose who to vote for and for how long as they know their area and their candidate best. My opponent's only rebuttal to this point was that due to primaries, "our current system forces all but the rare few cases to be an election between two individuals". However in round 2, I argued that primaries are normally done on the basis of who is more likely to be elected and, even if they were not, individuals can still run. My opponent did not respond to this rebuttal, and so we can see that the people do have a right to choose their representatives and that this is violated by my opponent's model. ---------Issue Two--------- Secondly, to the quality of long-standing politicians. From first speaker in my second argument, I stated that, as in my introduction, politicians elected again and again by the people are of a very high standard; that is why they've been elected. My opponent's first response was that my argument assumed there was only one right candidate, which it didn't; it was about the reduction in talent we would see. He never responded to this analysis in his final round. The only real response was my opponent claiming that the advantages of incumbency negated this point. ---------Issue Three--------- Finally to the advantages of incumbency my opponent referred to. There were four parts to this argument: a)The ‘Washington culture' and the influence of lobbyists that long-standing representatives participate in-but politicians can return to their electorates (that's why we have long breaks) and discuss issues there. Furthermore, the most likely people to be influenced by lobbyists are young politicians who have less commitment. b)The obsession with re-election-as in a), most politicians actually do care for their electorate, especially if they are long-standing. c)The statistical record of long-standing representatives and the importance of primaries-I argued and my opponent subsequently agreed that this statistical analysis was overly influenced by safe seats. Furthermore, as I said in my first argument, primaries are based on who is most likely to win an election; thus incumbents have no real advantage. d)The supposed support for term limits-My opponent never stated any source here. But, as I said in Round 2, we must decide for ourselves in a debate about a policy's merits instead of folding to the people. e) Finally, incumbents really have a disadvantage; they are judged on their track record, whereas opponents cannot be. The central clash of this debate is this: Who best chooses representatives? My opponent has argued for a blanket rule because of the 'advantages of incumbency'; but these advantages don't stand up. On the other hand, on the Con side of this debate, I have argued that the people are the best at choosing their own representatives and that my opponent's model would also cause a great reduction of talent. For all of these reasons, I am proud to stand against term limits.