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

In a democratic institution, our duty is to restore as much power to the people as possible, and this is especially true when considering voting. For this reason, I negate my opponent's proposal. Some quick definitions: Term limits- a restriction on the number of times a public figure may be re-elected. Firstly, to my opponent's case: ----------Rebuttal-------------- a)"Congressmen become adapted to the Washington culture, and are no longer able to represent those who live in their states or districts." Firstly this statement ignores the fact that many congressmen take trips back to their electorates during non-sitting times. Secondly, even if politicians did not return to visit their electorates, they could still represent them properly using advisors, letters from constituents and polls. Finally, even if this were true, the people would vote out these congressmen; what my opponent's proposal will do is to abandon the congressmen who do know their electorate, who represent their people well, to retire. b)"Being a congressman has become a career for many politicians, and with that, those congressmen's entire purpose becomes being reelected rather than representing their constituents." Firstly, as I said in a), many congressmen do attempt to represent their people. Secondly, even if this weren't the case, a congressman looking to be re-elected does functionally the same as one representing their people; both pick the most popular decisions. c)"Despite Congress having an approval rate of 17%, around 90% of congressmen are reelected each cycle… because Incumbents have many advantages, including name recognition, free media exposure, money from federal spending and various other things." Firstly, they have no real advantage; the statistics my opponent quoted are simply due to many areas being ‘safe' democrat or republican. When a politician is popular at one period of time, it's likely he will be at the next also. Secondly, the other candidates likewise have advantages; they have no track record to be attacked on. Finally, these advantages would remain under my opponent's model; the incumbent's successor would gain resources and publicity as the new member. d)"The people these congressmen represent want term limits, if they will not self-impose term limits, they are not representing their constituents. As of last week, 78% of Americans polled believed that there should be term limits on Congress. Since this is well over a super-majority, the will of the people ought to be followed." This populist argument doesn't really make sense; in our democracy, politicians make their own choices based on what they think, and are later evaluated on it. The support of the move in society has even less effect on this debate. -----------Own Case------------- Finally, to my own case: 1)The rights of the people will be violated by my opponent's model. We believe that the people, the constituents my opponent talked so long about, deserve the right to elect whoever they want, for however long they want. We think this is not only inherent in a democratic system, but that it is the best way of achieving election of good candidates, as these people know their area. My opponent's model stops the people from choosing to elect a particularly popular candidate for over twelve years, which violates their right to choose. 2) Good candidates will be eliminated under my opponent's system. Any candidate who has been consecutively elected for twelve years is likely to be one that knows their area very well, is capable of making tough decisions and represents their area comprehensively. These are exactly the virtues we want in a politician, but, under my opponent's model, these long-standing members will be forced into retirement. My opponent's model will stop some of our best politicians from representing their people. As my opponent's model will eliminate the best politicians and violates the people's right to choose