There should be term limits for U.S. Congress members.

I was hoping he'd bring up Roosevelt. Fun fact about long-tenured Franklin Roosevelt: he was, and still is extremely well loved, ranked alongside presidents like Lincoln (. http://www.shmoop.com...). So I guess a lack of term limits served both of our countries well. This resolution is aspirational. We're debating how the US Congress should be, not how it is. The difference is important, so I just want to get that clarified. Who do representatives represent? It is irrelevant to the debate whose interests representatives in the United States currently represent. We're discussing whom they should represent, in the context of whether there should be term limits. This whole debate is a question of political ideology. If congress happens not to fulfill the ideal of representation, as my opponent continually highlights, then he also needs to prove why implementing term limits will solve that problem, as I said in my last round. His position is untenable because according to him, even with term limits, politicians will screw over the people with their rabid "individualism", "self interest", "power to the rich" (though he sort of denied making this point later), and un-beholdeness to the people. These would all be very valid concerns if he could show that his model in any way solves them. It does not. The value I'm pushing in this debate is democracy. The United States congress should be accountable to the people (which is syntactically equivalent to making the congress accountable people, so I'm not sure where pro draws the distinction). There is no room in this system for self interest, minority interest, or individual interest, at the expense of the people's interest. Fun fact: the Washington times doesn't disagree with me at all. It says Obama RAISED more money, but Romney SPENT more money. Here's a cute infographic for those having trouble grasping this concept: . http://elections.nytimes.com...I showed several other approaches to mitigating these problems - pro's response was that they are not "easy". But this is not a debate about what WILL or what COULD happen, this is about what SHOULD happen. And if a tough route is best, that's worth pursuing. Nor do I believe one magic policy would solve all problems, although at least they would mitigate the problem some of the time. Due to this sort of engagement from my opponent, I presume that he accepts that rule by the people is generally a really important thing to respect in this debate, if not the crux of the issue as a whole. Harms to democracyIn the last round I presented several, but most importantly that it undermines the principle of free elections, because there are candidates you would not be free to elect. I further extended that this adds to the very narrative that pro is attempting to present as the great harm of the status quo. Congresspeople would be justified in not acting in the people's interests because they would no longer be accountable to them (as they are no longer electable), and because the law limiting who people can vote for is enacted by congress, effectively establishing precedent for giving congress power over people's votes. In response to these harms, my opponent said literally nothing. That's a surprise because I think they're the most important issues of the entire debate. The worst harm my opponent was able to present that his model actually accounts for is a perception of politicians being more closely aligned to their party than the interests of their people. Sure, that's harmful, but at least elections are not destroyed in the process. Elections are the very cornerstone of all democracy. Their integrity is not something America should dismiss lightly. Added to that, the solution causes the very harm it purports to solve, by justifying the congresspeople in not representing the will of the people and incentivising them to act in their own interest rather than the people's interest. Keeping the bestThe current system isn't what allows mediocre lawmakers to remain in power - the current voters are. Stop electing those guys, start electing guys who do know their stuff, and you're going to get much better representation. If there are an untold number of Americans who could do the job better, why not choose them? And if other aspects of the system get in the way of that - then reform the system! It's about fixing the problems, not pretending term limits solve problems arbitrarily. Every bad idea was once new. Not all new ideas are good. So while electing every 6 years doesn't necessitate a bad official being elected, lacking term limits doesn't ever necessitate that either. My point was that if corruption is as ubiquitous as pro claims, then most ordinary people would be seduced by it, and you wouldn't be able to tell that in advance (since they haven't actually been to the capitol yet). Therefore, in elections, you'd always be taking a big gamble under pro's model. No response was offered by pro to my awesome arguments on long-term policies. Keeping in touchMy opponent has tried to show that if one politician stays in power for longer than a certain period of time, they lose touch with their people. This is despite his own admission that they were never in touch with the people to begin with - in the first round he said that they're only in touch with the rich, and now it's that they're only in touch with their party. It's also despite the fact that term limits give them added incentive to get out of touch with the people. This is why I said the issue is ultimately more general - should a lot of power be invested in a few people for a long time. My opponent disagreed with that statement, but had no analysis or argument as to why. It seems to me that pro's narrative is that politicians should remember where they come from, and will then enact the will of the people. I think it's more likely that they do not forget, and instead exploit the people of their own states. This would be more fitting with the "self centered" - oh wait, sorry, I mean "individualist" - character of politicians pro seems to promote. The "vested interest" under the status quo to abide by the people's will is getting re-elected. My opponent has failed to show any vested interest under his model, since he wants to make most of today's congress unelectable. Why should they care if they get re-elected if they cannot? If they are more forceful, then surely this forcefulness will be put to use serving their interests, not those of others? And herein lies the problem. Pro has made grand vast claims about term limits. He has not shown the causal links for any of them. His claims do not hold up against any scrutiny. He has largely ignored my counter-analysis. The resolution is negated. I look forward to the final round.