Term Lengths and Limitations

Thank you for your quick response. Here's the summary of what I got from my opponent's rebuttal. CON Con's main contention is that with a democratic government this could not work. He says that the people will always have control and change things as they will. He says that because he's held "accountable" by the people an elected official will never have enough power to do anything. He also says that if this long-term serving executive died a "heir" would not be chosen unless by the will of the people. REBUTTAL There are several kinks with CON's position. First off, he claims that nothing will ever happen unless the people want it too. I contend that in the beginning the people will have the power. However, wonder if they like him TOO much? Democracy is a very slow form of government that is very hard on the lower classes. Thinking that he will make it easier for them, isn't it likely that they'll want to give this executive more and more power. They want their lives to get better and they want them better now! How do they do this? Well they got to give the "president" more power. They'll amend the Constitution to give the president more power and the other branches less powerful. If he's a good president, then he won't try and abuse it. However, people have loyalties. He's always going to favor his family, his people, his state, and his region. It's in human nature. It'll start like that and it won't be that bad. Then he dies. The people are sad, and they want another person just like him. Who better to choose than a family member or close acquaintence? This will go on through the generations and eventually you get a dynasty. Second, people have the power. This means they can also lose the power. If they trust one person too much and decide "Oh, will give him more power. That way he can do things more effectively and help us better and quicker." People have the power in a democracy, but they can easily lose it as well. Third, my opponent seems to think that the will of the people is the ultimate protection. Sadly, it's the will of the army and upper class that matter most. They have much more power than the lower class. As of now the army and extremely powerful people are mostly on the people's side, but what happens when they split? Like what if the army chooses to support a president over the people because they believe that the president is right and the people wrong? Then you got a problem, and a king/dictator. Fourth, why are laws put in place in the first place? Most laws are unnecesary for the majority of people. Do most people have to be told not to kill, steal, rape, do drugs, or marry young children? No. Many of those laws are put in place for the stupid people. For things like what I listed the "stupid" people are probably a minority. What happens when the lines become less black and white though? Wonder if even though there's a law against a president serving a certain amount of time, they like him a lot, and want him to do more. They'll totally back this president, but wonder if this president isn't a good person? Wonder if he's just biding his time? If a president makes certain things legal that were previously not, he can then do them without being ridiculed. He'll keep doing it and doing it until he doesn't need the people anymore, he just wants the power. Example: An example of a time when this could happen is in STAR WARS. Now I know your thinking I'm crazy, but stay with me. In the series Palpatine gains the support of the majority of the senate through many events. The war is terrible and the people want it to end faster. The problem with a democracy is that it takes time to decide things. They give Palpatine more power so that he can end the war. He then uses his emergency power to get more power by taking out the jedi. He uses the jedi as a ploy to get more power over the clones and more power for his own personal protection. They then win the war and everyone loves him. The Senate supports him and he has an unstoppable army completely loyal to him. Rule after rule, change after change, he takes total control of what was once a totally democratic society. The war= large war Palpatine= executive figure Jedi= political party, one who hasn't done much wrong but can be blamed for problems and used to make the executive look better Clones=loyal, good-wishing soldiers < > Every so often, a clever, and selfish leader appears. What sense does it make for "stupid" people to be allowed to follow him and let him have too much power? < > So I'm almost done with my second term of presidency. I guess that means I can kill some people I don't like and invade a bunch of countries illegally right? << However, he does not offer any evidence to suggest such a course is the only, or even the most likely, outcome.>> So you concede that it's a possible outcome. That's why we must stop it. For the average person "such a course [as murdering someone] is [not] the only, or even the most likely outcome." Yet we still make murder against the law. CONCLUSION My opponent bases his argument off of the fact the people will never do anything wrong. This is unrealistic and impractical. Humans are not perfect, and thus make mistakes. I await your response. *Sarcasm* CONCLUSION My