Term Limits

Thanks for the prompt reply. Here I go. I do not see how limiting the people's voice helps democracy. That is the premise you argue. I argue that getting rid of term limits will increase the voice of the people, allowing the people to choose who they want to lead them. If they want the same person over and over, there must be a good reason. FDR was elected again because he was well liked by the people, and did a very good job as President. One thing that shows that he did a good job is that he brought us out of the Depression, with the New Deal. The mere fact that he was able to do this shows he was a good President. Also, You say that elected officials stay in office until retirement. However, that will not happen with the President, due to the amount of attention paid to Presidential election. If the President did a bad job, then he/she will not be elected again. I don't want to paste the entire paragraph, so I'll just put the first sentence up, so you know where I am. So you argue that it was a bad thing that Roosevelt was elected for 4 terms. Even though you say yourself he did a very good job. You argue that because Roosevelt's 4th term was used to secure Truman's term, it was a bad thing that Roosevelt could get 4 terms. However, there are 2 things wrong with this. 1. The people do not just vote for the President. They also vote for the VP. Therefore, the people will have wanted Truman in some way, or they would not have voted him in. 2. This situation could just as easily apply to a term limit. Example: A President is 70 years old. He is running for his second term. His party knows he will not live through his second term, but he is loved by the people, and is almost guaranteed a spot. The party wants the VP to get in next, so they run the ticket as the old President, and the VP whom the party wants in. Same situation. Therefore, this point is irrelevant. Also, you talk about Grant running for a third term. You refute yourself in your paragraph. You say it yourself. His candidacy would have hurt the country, so he was talked out of it. The people would not have voted him in, so he didn't bother. People aren't going to vote a bad President back in office, unless there is a very good reason, which then means that the President can't have been too bad. I don't see the point of this argument. So what if there wasn't an Election to begin with? However, in todays world, the average citizen is much more informed about his country than before, due to advances in technology. So this point you argue is null. You argue that because there are no term limits on senators and congressmen, it decreases democracy. There are multiple ways to attack this. 1. These elections are no where near as publicized than Presidential elections, so the average citizen will know much less about their senator than their President. 2. Even if my previous point doesn't stand, this one does. There must be a reason that these people get re-elected. They must be doing a good job, or else they wouldn't get elected back in. Kennedy and Kerry have not done bad jobs. You haven't shown any evidence to say that. 3. Because the Presidential election is much more publicized, this point doesn't matter since the offices you talk about are relatively small and not nearly as publicized than the Presidential election. Again, there are a few ways to attack this. 1. This shouldn't matter. If this is what the people want, who are we to stop them? 2. What is wrong with the same people in office, if they are doing a good job. If something works, don't fix it. Ok, so my opponent still hasn't really given any arguments for his side, so I'm done. Thank you