The XXII amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be repealed.

RebuttalsI. Redundant/limitsPro argues that we already have natural term limits in the form of elections. What Pro fails to realize is that without term limits, there's no objective standard for when the elections could be held. Do we just wait until a majority wants him/her out? The reason why this is harmful is because it creates a dynamic where it's the executive branch vs. the people. Under Pro's plan he could do anything in his power to stay in office, as there'd be no obligation for him to leave by law. Under the current system, he has an obligation to leave office regardless of support, and if we truly wish to keep him in power, we can do so via my counter-plan. Pro then states, "I contend that the people should retain the sovereignty to decide when a politician is not suitable for the office of President through voting." Pro fails to realize that we already have that power with our ability to amend the amendment as well as our impeachment process, should he or she truly deserve another term or need to be removed immediately. Thus, this argument from Pro is defeated. II. The best person for the jobPro is essentially arguing that if we keep term limits, we could be losing the most experienced and qualified person for the job. He concludes this by saying, "Before even allowing the American people to consider who the best person for the office may be, the XXII Amendment of the United States Constitution does just that. It removes from consideration those with the most experience. This is clearly foolish." Again, my counter-plan covers this with the fact that we can amend the amendment to keep the best person for the job in power - if and only if, he or she is truly the best person for the job in the eyes of American citizens. Thus, this argument from Pro also stands defeated. III. The 22nd Amendment exists for our own ProtectionPro states that, "Several checks exists outside of this amendment that restrict indefinite power." This does nothing to counter my two points that: 1) Term limits ensure that elected public officials cannot remain in power indefinitely.2) Term limits offer an automatic check on consolidation of power.Pro has dropped these arguments. Pro then argues how the amendment was passed in 1951, so it's got nothing to do with our efforts to preserve democracy vs. ending up with the system we fought against. This is horribly inaccurate on Pro's part. It came due to FDR running for a 3rd and 4th term, which broke Pres. Washington's precedent of only serving two terms. Washington’s voluntary decision to decline a third term was seen by many people as a safeguard against the type of tyrannical power yielded by the British crown during the Colonial era. We passed the amendment because of that precedent being broken, we feared of what might happen, and thus created that amendment. So, in truth, our history plays a majority role in this amendment, and with it we can securely know that we'll never have to fear the tyranny that could come with indefinite term limits. It's an insurance plan that protects us, and is one that can be amended at any time, should such action be necessary. IV. Counter-planPro states, "While amending is not the same as repealing my opponents reasoning in support of amending is an endorsement of my entire argument." I am, in no way, endorsing the repealing of the 22nd amendment. Pro wants to remove the amendment altogether from our constitution - I am merely presenting a counter-plan in which we amend the amendment should we truly desire for a president to remain for another term. Pro then concedes that, "We do have the right to allow a truly great president to remain in office for a third term." Which is exactly what my counter-plan states. I think Pro believes this amendment hinders that right, but my counter-plan proves that it doesn't. In conclusionI have countered each and every point raised by Pro, his arguments and rebuttals stand defeated. I now return the floor to Pro. Thank you.