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

I'll defend my own case first and then discuss his. 1)The people's right to choose candidates. My opponent said, "the problem is that our current system forces all but the rare few cases to be an election between two individuals. " This is not necessarily the case; independents can run if they feel unrepresented. However, even if my opponent was correct, using elections of candidates within the party's own system allows the party's ideology to be better represented. If voters feel unrepresented by major parties, they can support an independent or simply abstain from voting at all. Moreover, my opponent's model does nothing to give the people their choice; under his system, the people are not allowed to return to office their favored candidate. My opponent's example did not suit this debate, as the politicians discussed wouldn't have been affected by my opponent's model, as he has not been incumbent for twelve years. For these reasons, even if what my opponent has said is true, even if long-standing politicians have lost touch with the public-we should let the people decide whether or not to elect them. 2)The quality of long-standing politicians. If a politician has been elected for twelve years running, then they are likely to be a very good one. My opponent's first response was, "This assumes that there is only one right candidate for a state or district", which my argument didn't; it considered the reduction of talent that would happen under my opponent's model. His second response referred to the advantages of incumbency, which I'll consider in his case. Now, to my opponent's case: a)My opponent claimed that congressmen have become strongly influenced by the Washington culture, which I refuted on the basis that congressmen take regular visits back to their constituencies and can keep in touch with their electorate in this way. My opponent has now attempted to discuss the influence of lobbyists, but, simply, we believe that, if a congressman were to lose touch with his/her electorate, the people would simply vote them out. Furthermore, we would argue that the influence of lobbyists is greater on younger politicians than long-standing representatives of over twelve years, who clearly have real commitment to their community. b)My opponent said, "A vote for what their constituents want is definitely representing. But there is much more to being reelected than voting the way your constituents want, a politician can vote differently from their constituents and still win reelection. " This point is similar to a), but I would add that politicians have a real incentive to represent their people in that, if they do not do so well, they may have swings against them. c)A big part of this debate, one that was discussed briefly in point two of my argumentation, were the supposed advantages of incumbency that my opponent discussed. This had two parts; a statistical discussion, which we agreed was influenced by safe seats, and a theoretical discussion of these advantages. My opponent claimed that incumbents are given an advantage because they almost automatically given the primary vote. This is not necessarily true; in some seats in which incumbents are replaced. Secondly, incumbents are not elected, as, largely, candidates are selected on the basis of their popularity within the electorate; the people's choice is indeed reflected during choosing of candidates. Thirdly, though, even if incumbents are given a slight advantage in terms of pre-selection, in an actual election, under the status quo, the election is entirely fair. d)My opponent claims that many people support term limits, and that, for this reason, we should install them. Firstly, he never stated any source for this. Secondly, even if this were true, in the setting of a debate, we must decide for ourselves whether or not a policy is a good thing, not fold to public opinion. For these reasons I am proud to stand against term