Resolved: The XXII Amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be repealed.

Kasmic addressed my argument that term limits open up a greater chance of corruption to the President of the United States (POTUS henceforth) by conceding that it is possible, but arguing that it is very unlikely. He argues this because (a) there are already checks and balances put forth to prevent corruption. He doesn"t tell us what these are, and how they prevent the POTUS from becoming corrupt, so I can only assume what he meant by the given link. The given link describes how the other branches check the power of the POTUS. Kasmic posits that interbranch checks are adequate enough to stop corruption of a long-serving President. Yet the effects of a long-serving POTUS inherently makes their checking ability less effective. For example, a long-serving POTUS would appoint many of the members of the Supreme Court. Thus their ability to check the President as an individual branch is negated because the court will inherently vote in the POTUS"s favor (the POTUS will nominate judges who will vote in his/her favor.) The the Supreme Court also has the ability to rule any of Congress"s laws unconstitutional. Thus a President in control of the Supreme Court would have control of Congress as well. Having worked with Congress for longer lengths of time results in the President being able to have stronger connections with Congressmen, and thus a greater ability to influence their vote into his/her favor. Thus hindering the Congress"s ability to act on its checks to the POTUS. So as we can see, the effects of a long-serving President inherently negate the effectiveness of a checks and balances system, thus increasing chances of corruption. Kasmic furthermore argues that (b) a POTUS cannot abuse power because it is virtually impossible for them to have a private conversation due to recording devices. This doesn"t make sense, as there is technology that detects if there are any recording devices, or bugs in the room you are in. Which you can browse here [1]. If these devices are available to the public, you can be sure that the Secret Service has them, and even better versions that they use to make sure rooms aren"t bugged. Regardless, the POTUS has high level security that would eliminate anything entering the rooms, thus not allowing concealed recording devices to even enter. Even if it does, they can detect it easily through bug detecting devices. The evidence Kasmic brings up is based on Mitt Romney at a dinner table. Kasmic has no evidence that a President, in the modern age, has been bugged in a top-secret discussion, thus his assertion is unwarranted, as well as debunked. As I said earlier, the crux of Kasmic"s rebuttal to the argument is trying to prove that corruption is unlikely to happen. He does this by arguing that (a) it is unlikely that a President would want to seek a third term. This isn"t true, as Bill Clinton [2], Eisenhower [3], Reagan [4], Grant [5], Cleveland [6], and Wilson [7] all *wanted* to run for third terms. He also argues that (b) it is unlikely for the POTUS would attempt to abuse power. I extend all of my argumentation from R2 regarding how the position of POTUS inherently leads to corruption, which Kasmic completely dropped, to negate this point (the research on power over time, a POTUS testifying, and more opportunities for shortcuts.) Kasmic also argues that " it isn't likely that a President would be re-elected. I extend over all of my argumentation from R2 to negate this point; regarding how a sitting POTUS is significantly more likely to get re-elected. So, in conclusion, abolishing term limits makes corruption in the office of the POTUS substantially more likely. Given how much damage a corrupt President could do (see R2 regarding how much power the POTUS has), especially given how abolishing term limits not only eliminates the vital check it individually provides, but it also inherently hinders the effectiveness of the other checks. Thus, the retainment of term limits is paramount. Moving on to my other contentions, my response to Kasmic"s rebuttal of my second contention is simple, as his rebuttal is merely that Presidents are unlikely to run for a third term. Thus I extend my evidence of many Presidents wanting to run for a third term, as well as the fact that being allowed to seek a third term would incentivize Presidents to take it. Kasmic attacks my final contention, that a long-serving President would be able to appoint the majority of judges on the Supreme Court, thus corrupting the Judicial branch, by arguing that Congress is already able to check this power by having the ability to approve or block nominees. Yet, this is unlikely to happen given the amount public disapproval associated with blocking nominations [8]. Furthermore, as I argued earlier, the longer the POTUS serves, the more connections and influence he gets with Congress, thus making a vote in his favor more likely. (Kasmic"s second point is wrong because it's not logical to believe that any POTUS could appoint 15 judges and not have approval ratings plummet, as well as everyone thinking he"s an absolute dumba$$.) Regardless, I'll move on to Kasmic"s last contention, sovereignty. This argument is negated right officials he bat by weighing analysis, the amount of impact this argument has is little because the people still have sovereignty, they are still able to elect who represents them. The impact of abolishing term limits ultimately outweighs this slightly increased sovereignty, that the majority of people don't even want in the first place. Peace and love Sources in comments