Presidents should serve 6 year unlimited non-consecutive terms.

I will start by addressing my opponent's arguments then I will point out my arguments that my opponent has yet to address. ___ My opponent said: "1) The senate currently has six year terms. This would sync the presidency with one of the three senate groups so that a third of the senate would *always* be elected at the same time as the president." Um… If there are 3 senate groups that serve 6 years each, then senators are being elected every other year. A president could be elected during one of the years that we don't vote for senators. Thus the president's term would *never* sync up with *any* of the senate groups. As it stands now there are senators that out last the president, so currently a president's terms syncs up with at least one senate group. ___ My opponent said: "2) Six years is too damned long. If you want to make a modification to presidential terms it should be towards cutting the term shorter when people lose all faith in the leadership. Being forced to endure several additional years of bad leadership is not a boon." Currently a president can be in office for 8 years in a row, which is why I am forcing a cut at 6 years in a row. Apparently my opponent thinks that 8 is fine but 6 is too much. The president is only part of the leadership. The people can still vote for senators and house reps. That change can happen in 2 years. ___ My opponent said: "4) What's wrong with people staying in office if they are good at it? You're going to make us dump talent in order to get fresh blood into office? Why not keep the best person for the job. The longest serving president was just over 12 years." What's wrong is that we don't really know if they are good at it until we have a chance to see the long term effects. I hear that heroin feels great when you're on it. By my opponents logic that means you should use more so that you can feel even better. Bad plan. Social Security was great at the time, but now the hangover is starting. We won't really know what the president has done to the country until we can see the long term impact. And as for the longest serving president, that was over 12 years *in a row*. Don't most people do better when they've had a break? I'm suggesting 12 years *with a break*. _____ My opponent said: "5) There are so many better modifications you could make if you're going to modify. Runoff elections, terms limited by official support (at 2 year congress elections vote out the president and call up a new election), shorten the terms to two years, drop the term limits, etc." Okay… Then start another debate on one of those suggestions, but here are some things to consider about those scenarios before you do. The reason that the people (and not congress) elect the president is separation of powers. If congress were to elect, or vote out, the president then congress would have the ability to remove a president elected by the people just because they wanted to. My suggestion does drop the limit on terms. It replaces a limit with a restriction. And as for 2 years, I don't see how every other year being an election year is going to provide any sense of stability or even allow the president a chance to get much done. ____ (1,2,4,5,3. Yes. They are out of order. I saved this one for last. Warning: This will hurt.) My opponent said: "3) Non-consecutive terms is a joke right? You think that you could elect somebody to be president and then have the same individual reelected again 12 years later (6 years of their term, 6 years of next term) and not have them too damned old?" If it were a joke it would not have been in the topic. As to the age issue the oldest president ever elected was Ronald Regan. He was elected when he was 69. So 69 – 12 = 57. Here is a list of presidents that were younger than 57 when elected the first time: Theodore Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton , Ulysses S. Grant, Grover Cleveland, Franklin Pierce, James A. Garfield, James K. Polk, Millard Fillmore, John Tyler, Calvin Coolidge, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Chester A. Arthur, Abraham Lincoln, Jimmy Carter, William McKinley, Martin Van Buren, Rutherford B. Hayes, George W. Bush, Herbert Hoover, Lyndon B. Johnson, Warren G. Harding, Benjamin Harrison, Grover Cleveland, Richard M. Nixon, Woodrow Wilson, and Andrew Johnson. There are 28 of them. Wait a minuet… 28 is more than half of 43 (the number of presidents we've had). That means that *most* presidents would *not* have been "too damn old". But wait there's more… Regan was elected for a second term when he was 73. Which pushes the first time elected up to 61. Now we get to add 6 more presidents. And we are now at 34 of the 43 presidents that would *not* have been "too damn old". Only 9 would have been "too damn old". 34 vs 9. (Remember Kids. Study math;) And I think as you go through this list you will find a number of former presidents that we wish were forced out sooner and others you wish were able to come back again. ____ My opponent has yet to address the following arguments that I have already made: Unlimited terms would: 1. Allow a good president to be elected repeatedly. 2. Discourage presidents from last minute actions that would prevent them from being elected in the future. Non-consecutive terms would: 3. Prevent someone from staying in power for too long. 4. Allow the president to focus on running the country rather than trying to get reelected while running the country. 5. Let the people and business be able to plan ahead more accurately. 6. Allow the people to see the long term results of any actions by a president before voting for them again. 7. Help prevent presidents from starting wars just to stay in office. Here I have broken them out a bit better than I did in the first round. My opponent did a much better job of separating points in the last round, I should return the favor.