Term limits are completely against what democracy stands for

'POOR CONDUCT' My apologies if I offended you, however I was under the impression that this was a debate, not a chat over some tea. I may have been sarcastic, however I would hardly consider that poor conduct. Now if I were to insult you, call you a moron, or use other derogatory terms, then I would be illustrating very poor conduct. However anything I said was to illustrate a point, which goes along with the goal of a debate anyway. By the way, the time you are using to point out flaws in myself is time you could be using to actually defeat my argument. In a live debate, you would be wasting that valuable time which could cost you in the long run.'MONOPOLY' "This conclusion is based on the idea fact that if Obama were to be up for election against Romney right now, he'd lose."It was an example I used to provide some evidence for my already stated point, I can bring up more if you'd like. Bush could also be another supporting example, if you believe polls at least. "This obviously disregards the fact that when it comes time for Obama to leave, his approval rating might be higher, meaning he'd win a hypothetical third term." However I based my hypothetical match-up on presidential approval polls which show a downward trend in his popularity[1], making it a likely assumption or an educated guess. Assuming that the approval rating would go up for 2016 however, is an unlikely assumption, unless there is something to back it up."Basically my opponent is countering the idea that incumbency provides too much of an advantage with his Obama fact. That is one instance, I would counter with multiple instances that contradict that."It was a supporting example, which you had yet to provide."There are 435 Representatives and 100 Senators, all without term limits[1][2]. While Obama might have lost a hypothetical third term, that does not refute the fact, represented here, that incumbency provides a huge advantage."What it refutes is the assumption that incumbency provides a large enough advantage so that if someone holds an office for a long time, they will always be re-elected, or that they will be re-elected for many many years, even if they are disapproved of or if they have done considerable harm to the nation. By the way, it should be considered that the issue of congress is due to voter apathy. The voter turnout for the 2014 midterms was the lowest it has been since World War Two[2], when you have a minority of americans choosing our leaders, that creates issues like this, however that's another issue entirely. Plus, congressional elections are done in seperate states and districts, national polls like this lump a bunch of random people from different states together."I think it reasonable to conclude that if a challenger with fresh ideas is elected, the people judge his ideas to be good."Yet that does not apply to an incumbent official? This is where my point lies, that if people judge someone's ideas and abilities to be good, then they should be able to hold office. Term limits block someone from running for a position even if the public judge him to be good, which is why I stated that they are anti-democracy, as they block the right of the people to choose who they find to be suitable for leadership."The opinion of the people being the bedrock of what justifies action in a democracy, a challenger with fresh ideas who is elected has had his ideas judged to be good by the standard of democracy. So it's not as if these fresh ideas are going to be bad."What I mean to say is, being fresh does not make them inherently good. Someone with "fresh ideas" may be elected just because they have distance from a former official with old ideas that the public disliked, however that does not make the fresh ideas any better than the old ones. The new options may be bad, however the people can't select the old option because of term limits, even if they think it is good. That my friend, is a large part of what makes term limits anti-democracy, as I have stated.The link which you provided also states that functional fixedness can sometimes be a good thing, which goes along with why incumbent officials should not be universally blocked from seeking more than a certain amount of terms. The older idea might be better than the new idea, and the people like the old idea and want to elect the person who supports it. According to democracy, they have every right to do so. However, term limits block their ability to do this at some point, which again is why they are anti-democracy. It has also been ignored than an incumbent might support the new idea, and the challengers want to return to the old idea. Let's say the old idea is detrimental, however the incumbent cannot be re-elected due to term limits, etc. Term limits can force people to choose from the lesser of evils, while democracy allows all options to be considered, thus they contradict."The key word there is may. An incumbent, with the time he or she has spent in the political world, winning multiple elections, forging alliances, etc, will undoubtedly have political capital. So you've got people who do have political capital versus people who might have political capital. We can see how that match-up might turn out, and we see how it does in the form of the US Congress' re-election rate."Typically the ones who run for a major office do have connections already, and they are the ones who are able to actually step up to the election. So it is very likely that someone who challenges the incumbent will have connections, and depending on the voter turnout, it is likely that whosoever is the best man for the job, or is perceived to be, will be chosen.Even if there are some benefits, they are still against what democracy is. That is what this debate is about, and I believe that regardless of the few benefits that may be present, term limits are still inhibitors to democracy. Thus I believe I should get your vote, because I have shown why that is true.CAREER POLITICIANSIn the past, previous congresses have been plenty active. If this was a matter of terms, why was congress productive before and not now when term limits have never been imposed upon congress? There are a lot of factors involved, to assume it is something that would be solved by term limits is unfounded."My opponent never defined how long these term limits we'd be talking about were"Term limits would cut short any plans a legislator had in store, since there are new things to deal with all the time, among other reasons. So it's regardless of the length.A)If they have their districts/states locked up for re-election, they could go with their ideaB)If someone is truly power-hungry, they will go for whatever position they can get their hands on."Most of our Presidents have violated the Constitution, and all modern Presidents have"However your scenario included things that were already explicitly set up by the constitution or forbade by it. It is already made so that Presidents are elected every 4 years, and the power of the veto is already, absolutely, defined. To change such a system would require a constitutional amendment, which is very difficult and takes time if it even happens. For example, the 22nd amendment which limits the President to two terms was passed by Congress on March 21st 1947, it was not ratified until February 27th of 1951. It takes Congress and the states to change the constitution, why would they both give the executive more power when that threatens their own?"No, but my point is that there's a ton of people in America, and there are bound to be tons of qualified candidates as a result."That's like saying there are tons of people with left hands, so there are bound to be tons of left handed people in the world.[1]http://www.realclearpolitics.com...[2]http://time.com...