Term Limits

I take responsibility for my actions in not following your rules, and will lose conduct points. It, in ll honesty, is not going to change the result.Rebuttal This argument is valid. In fact, I never specified the term limit would have to be two terms. I am simply arguing that unlimited terms are simply undemocratic. I'm guessing you may not have actually read this. Whether it is two terms or a hundred, fundamental democracy dictates a cyclical, self-correcting system where only the leaders who are the best for democracy are picked. The amount of terms, does not matter.All leaders, no matter how great, have alternatives. In the United States, a President's alternative would be a member of his cabinet or colleages from the same party. Futile assertion. It does not change the fact that they are alternatives, the number two, not the most effective leader for the country. Secondly, let us not forget the fact that this is a futile assertion. Margaret Thatcher's actions for example shocked and split her cabinet. She was the only person it would seem, who even dreamt of taking such radical actions. As I have found one example, your claim is disproven unless you can prove someone in her cabinet would have. But what she did, meant that if for example a one single term limit was place, she could not have continued it. Once again, a futile assertion. A dictatorship was based upon the idea that a leader is not elected. In no way is a leader being 'elected' a futile assertion. Frankly it is a horrible argument. The people of a nation want a leader who they believe will be best, but they cannot do so in the long run because it looks dictatorial? If it is not a dictatorship, however dictatorial it looks is absolutely useless. It is still democracy, therefore not a dictatorship and for the people.And the issue with pleasing the minority is the biggest load of rubbish I have seen for a while now. It is absolutely impossible to please everyone. As someone who apparently has intelligence, "well beyond that of the average human", I would think you should no this. You will never be able to please both the keynesians and the monetarists fully. You will never be able to please the regulationist and the laissez-faire economist. Never the radical left, and the radical right. Never the militant atheist, and the pious theist. Never the progressivist, and the conservative. Never the socialist, never the capitalist. Never the liberal conservative, and never the conservative liberal. The whole point of voting is to see which of the above the people are more. What most of the people want. If you cannot please all, you must please the most. You must maximise on happiness, stability and steadiness. It is impossible to please all, so democracy on a rudimentary level dictates that whatever the most people vote for is what is done. Happiness doesn't stack over time. If you impose a term limit, so what 60% want is gone to please 20%, during the term of the latter leader, only 20% will be pleased. Is this democratic? Is it truly democratic to let the 20% be favoured over the 80%? Not according to basic, core, fundamental democracy. Unless we have a different understanding of democracy, then in no way can you refute what is simple logic. Term limits stop the majority from choosing who they want. They only please the minority who wanted the latter leader. Democracy is about pleasing the most people and finding what the general consensus dictates. Therefore it is ridiculous to state that pleasing the minority is more democratic, stopping what the people want is more democratic, and that allowing people to vote whoever they want, as many times as possible is undemocratic. How one can call themselves a democrat with that notion mesmerizes me. I do not quite understand my opponent's arguments. First of all, all leaders have alternatives. Refuted. Secondly, term limits do not automatically mean two terms. Refuted. Thirdly, term limits are no anti-democratic at all. Refuted.There is no need for expansion of my arguments. An interesting point for the floor to note is that term limits mean those in the cabinet also suffer the same fate as the public, as they have to vote for a new leader, even if they think one leader will do the best for the party, and the best shot at winning. Term limits ruin a party's chance at winning, and ruin the democracy within the cabinet, which is a micro-chosm of the real world. So in both cases, they do not promote democracy.I urge the floor, to vote for the side which isn't arguing based on assertions, generalisations, fallacies, opinion and ignorance. Thank you.