Term Limits

Counter-Rebuttals"I'm guessing you may not have actually read this. Whether it is two terms or a hundred, fundamental democracy dictates a cyclical, self-correcting system where only the leaders who are the best for democracy are picked. The amount of terms, does not matter."I did in fact read it. Democracy is indeed a self-correcting system, but the leader is not self-correcting. As you age and go through the stress of leading the country, you ability to lead will decrease. Each term will be more successful than the next one. It is a process. "Once again, a futile assertion. A dictatorship was based upon the idea that a leader is not elected. In no way is a leader being 'elected' a futile assertion. Frankly it is a horrible argument. The people of a nation want a leader who they believe will be best, but they cannot do so in the long run because it looks dictatorial? If it is not a dictatorship, however dictatorial it looks is absolutely useless. It is still democracy, therefore not a dictatorship and for the people." Okay, I acknowledge that the term "dictatorship" was a little extreme. My point is, however, that term limits will limit the power and control of the leader. Too much power and control could transform into a dictatorship. "And the issue with pleasing the minority is the biggest load of rubbish I have seen for a while now. It is absolutely impossible to please everyone."One of the first steps to pleasing everyone is electing a new leader. With each leader, there will be support and opposition. The opposition has a voice too, so they will be pleased when a new leader arrives. Debate and opposition, in the political world, is healthy. It puts very important issues into the spotlight and helps raise important questions. "You will never be able to please both the keynesians and the monetarists fully. You will never be able to please the regulationist and the laissez-faire economist. Never the radical left, and the radical right. Never the militant atheist, and the pious theist. Never the progressivist, and the conservative. Never the socialist, never the capitalist. Never the liberal conservative, and never the conservative liberal."You must simply compromise, give up some of what you want, and in return get some of what you do in fact want. Find the common ground. That is how you please everyone. It is simple politics. It is how the government is meant to work. You cannot have an eternal leader with one set of views and ignore the voices of the minority. You must bring new ideas to the table. You must contribute in new ways. Term limits ensure that. They allow new leaders to be brought to the system, who will bring new ideas and values to the government. That is how it is supposed to be. "If you impose a term limit, so what 60% want is gone to please 20%, during the term of the latter leader, only 20% will be pleased. Is this democratic? Is it truly democratic to let the 20% be favoured over the 80%? Not according to basic, core, fundamental democracy."My opponent, who is clearly arguing about democracy, is forgetting one key point: Democracy is not only about the majority. It is also about the minority. In a true democracy, everyone's voice is heard. If a majority votes for a leader, will you simply ignore the minority? In a true democracy, you will not. "Unless we have a different understanding of democracy, then in no way can you refute what is simple logic. Term limits stop the majority from choosing who they want. They only please the minority who wanted the latter leader. Democracy is about pleasing the most people and finding what the general consensus dictates."Indeed, we have a somewhat different understanding of democracy. My opponent believes that the majority automatically rules and that the minority should be ignored. I believe that in a true democracy, everyone is heard. Everyone can exercise their rights in a democracy. If you have the same leader over and over again, the minority will be absolutely furious. You cannot ignore that. The minority may revolt against the government, and a civil war could commence. This, my friend, is simple logic. I urge the voters to review this debate carefully. Do not read it only once and vote quickly thereafter. Actually think about both arguments. I concede the "reliable sources" points, but my opponent has conceded the "conduct" points. The rest are to be decided by the voters, who, I hope, will make the right choice. The right choice will be for the side that argues logically, not with many facts and statistics. Fancy numbers and equations are not comparable to plain, simple logic, which I believe I used.