The XXII amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be repealed.

I. Redundant/limits Pro originally stated that "we still have natural term limits in the form of elections". My rebuttal was that without term limits there's no objective standard for when elections should be held due to the fact that elections are held at the end of a term limit. Under Pro's plan, there would be no term limits, so there's no real standard for when elections should be held. Pro closes by saying, "Prior to the XXII Amendment there was a clear indication and obligation by law for when one is to leave office. " Pro is wrong, prior to the 22nd amendment there was no obligation by law. That's why we made the amendment in the first place, so clearly Pro is misinformed. George Washington set the informal precedent for a two-term limit for the Presidency—a tradition that prevailed until Franklin Roosevelt's presidency, after which the 22nd Amendment to the U. S. Constitution was ratified in 1951 formally establishing in law the two-term limit. So without those term limits anymore, are we to just trust that the next president would follow Washington's precedent when we've already had presidents break it like Roosevelt? Pro is literally arguing a point that has already been proved false by history. Ultimately, Pro has no power to guarantee that future presidents would follow Washington's precedent, and history has already proved his sentiments wrong. Hence, this argument stands unproven by Pro and defeated. II. Best Person for JobPro concedes that my CP makes his argument here null, as evidenced when he stated, "In part, his plan does this. .. " There is just no rational way to argue that the amendment makes us miss out on the best person for the job, when it's perfectly possible to amend the amendment should a truly great president emerge and desire a 3rd term. As it stands, my CP makes this argument from Pro completely useless. He also fails to explain *how* my CP would prevent an action from taking place. Without actually providing a reason or the *how*, his claim is nothing more than an unexplained opinion. III. 22nd amendment is for our protectionPro claims that both his plan and my CP mitigate the two points I made, which were:1) Term limits ensure that elected public officials cannot remain in power indefinitely.2) Term limits offer an automatic check on consolidation of power. This is false. If anything, what my CP does is ensures that we can allow the checks made in the two points while also allowing the voters the freedom to vote for a President a 3rd time if they truly desire to. Pro also, and again, fails to explain *how* it mitigates my two points. Without that critical reasoning, his arguments just fall flat. Pro additionally concedes that the amendment was indeed passed to protect us from the potential harms of Washington's precedent being broken by FDR. However, he does claim that my counter-plan would allow FDR to do what he did. This is false. When FDR did what he did, there was no amendment in place to check him. If he attempted to do so again nowadays, there would surely be additional scrutiny placed on him due to the, now, existing legal obligation to not have a 3rd term. Pro is merely making assumptions without actually looking at the difference in times and legal obligations. IV. Counter-planPro claimed, "If such a plan is truly with merit, surely this shows the redundant and unnecessary nature of the restriction. " Once more, he fails to explain *how* it shows the redundant and unnecessary nature. .. The reality is that my CP allows for the amendment to remain in place, while also assuring the people that we absolutely have the freedom to elect a truly great president for a 3rd term, if necessary, which is the only real argument Pro has going for him. Why remove our insurance policy fully when we can keep it in place and still have the best leader possible? Clearly, my CP is the more reasonable plan to follow. In closing, Pro's arguments and rebuttals stand defeated.