The XXII Amendment to the Constitution of the USA is unreasonable and should be repealed.

I will start with his last point. For my opponent to suggest that the USA is not a democracy (because, as he says it is a "federal republic") is, to say the least, bizarre. It would appear that he is confusing concepts. Republic (res publica - latin for "public thing") is "a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch" - . http://en.wikipedia.org.... This is to be contrasted with a monarchy such as the UK or Australia. "Federal" simply means that there are two levels of government, state and federal. This is to be contrasted with a centralised government such as that in the UK. There are other federations such as, for example, Australia (a democratic federal constitutional monarchy). Democracy, on the other hand, is "a form of government in which the supreme power is held completely by the people under a free electoral system". The very fact that Congress consists of elected representatives (as do State legislatures) makes the USA a democracy. Wikipedia puts it as follows: "The United States is the world's oldest surviving federation. It is a constitutional republic, in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law. It is fundamentally structured as a representative DEMOCRACY, though U. S. citizens residing in the territories are excluded from voting for federal officials. " (emphasis added)(. http://en.wikipedia.org...). The Democracy Index puts the USA as the 16th most democratic country in the world, out of 167 listed (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). The USA is in fact a world leader when it comes to the principles of democracy, fair representation and individual rights. Whether we agree that the USA is a "democracy" or not, it is a country ruled by the people, with elected representatives passing its laws. The President is the Head of State and is in charge of the country's Executive. Unlike in many other countries, he is an elected figure. My opponent suggests that my "only reason" against term limits is that the USA is a democracy and the people should be free to elect any leader they want. With respect, in a democratic system, giving the people free choice to elect who they want as President is at all times is THE ONLY REASON EVER NEEDED. There are other arguments against term limits. For example, it can be suggested that a president who has spent some time in office is experienced in running the country. This should not be underestimated. If ever experience matters, should it not matter the most when it comes to the most important job in the entire nation? However, my opponent is correct. My main contention is indeed that in a country where the head of state is an elected figure, a constitutional prohibition disallowing the people from electing someone whom they know and trust and who has proven himself over 8 years is simply unsustainable. It is unfair and undemocratic as it deprives the people of the USA from excercising their free choice. TWO WRONGS <> RIGHT My opponent's main objection to unlimited terms is that they would potentially expose the office to abuse by a manipulative president. In raising this objection he points to a number of imperfections in how the system currently operates. My response is that two wrongs do not make a right. Those imperfections need to be dealt with even if term limits are never disposed of. Presidents should not be able to use federal funds to fund their election campaigns. The funds are there to run the nation and no to ensure another term for the administration. My opponent says that "Because of the electoral college, a successfull candidate needs only garner enough support to win a slight majority in any given state". That is not correct. The blame here should not lie with the College. Rather, it should lie with the State-based election system. Having said that, the system preserves a degree of sovereignty for the states. In effect, the voters of each state decide on who will be President. My opponent suggests that this leads to an unfair result as it may lead to a President with less than 50% of popular support. He may well be right. If so, this is something that might need to be changed. My opponent contends that an incumbent is effectively the leader of his party. That may be so. The party will usually nominate the current president as its next candidate. However, let us not forget that ultimately it is the people of each state that decide on WHICH PARTY wins. If the incumbent's party's policies cannot compete with those of the opposing party then the incumbent will not win in that state. It is true that some people are inherently loyal to one party ("party lines" - point 2) or the other. However, that is their choice. That is what democracy is about. Given my concession above, I will not deal with the hypothetical scenario of a President manipulating his party. Suffice it to say that even with term limits the 2nd term President can manipulate his party to vote for his chosen successor; one who will follow his chosen agenda. My opponent suggests that a candidate during his election campaign does not attempt to demonstrate that his policies are intended to satisfy the voter's needs. Ladies and gentlemen, I suggest you watch a debate and make up your own minds about this point. LAME DUCK My opponent says that a lame duck president does not need to worry about his next campaign. However, apart from depleting federal fudns (addressed by myself above) he has not addressed any netagives of this. Let the incumbent worry about the next campaign! Keep him on his toes! If he can perform, he will get the next term. BOTTOM LINE The USA is a country where many of those in power (including judges) are elected officials (I will refrain from saying "democracy"). The people should be free to decide. If the people want to keep their much loved President (when they do have one of those), it is their choice. There should not be arbitrary limits to this. My opponent has maintained that this cannot be done because the system is faulty. I respond by saying the system should be fixed. It should be fixed in any event. I never once suggested that the road to achieving a better democracy would be easy. I never said that it would only require one constitutional amendment. The problems my opponent has outlined, while real, are not impossible to address. They should be addressed. For example, whilst back in the days when the Constitution was established, the logistics of a popular election would be a nightmare, it would not be so with the technology available today. NOTA BUENE My opponent has failed to address the fact that there is a host of countries without term limits who do just fine. In fact, I cannot think of a democractic nation without term limits where the head of state has remained in power substantially beyond their welcome. The nation always decides. My opponent said in point 2: "A long-serving executive becomes accustomed to his position and influence resulting in his being too far removed from the public will. " At the same time he suggested in R3 that a president (in any term) has no incentive at all to follow the public will. This is something of a contradiction. CONCLUSION What I have put forward would not be easy to achieve. It would take time and effort. One positive side is that it would involve ironing out some existant problems that my opponent has brought up. I firmly contend that once we say that we are to elect our head of state, we should have the power to keep him as long as we want. Term limits must go.