Term Limits Should be abolished

So for simplicities sake and for the judges sake I'm gonna just go in the same order. THE DOUBLE BIND: A) This point still stands because my opponents offense merely proves that it would be harder not that it wouldn't get done. And his evidence merely shows that we've had a general failure overtime that chart doesn't seem to indicate any special drop for new presidents. Also; it makes me respect Bill Clinton again. Oh and also I see no reason why the earlier president would be a "veteran" the new president could be someone with 50 years of intensive government experience, I.E. VP, Congress, State Governor. B) Even if we allow many terms I would say the support for that candidates ideas would have to be pretty strong to fly in the face of hundreds of years of fear of presidents with too much power. So there is an extremely good chance this party/someone with similar ideas would do it again. So let me just explain how this argument functions in the round and why it's a reason to reject my opponent. Basically it's trapping him between 2 choices, A) People like the presidents ideas so his party and someone like him gets elected and at least some comparable version of the plan the first president wanted is carried out and so at the very least minimizing affirmative strength of impact. B) The president is not popular so he just plain wouldn't get elected again so nothing he says matters. Either way the affirmative has close to no impacts as I have shown. At the very least it's enough for my impacts to outweigh his on probability. Now onto the FDR debate. 1) Group all his polls, and throw each and every one of them out. Because: 1)It's easy to praise someone when you didn't know them. Honestly can most of you say you can make an extremely informed decision on FDR's decisions? I am the only one offering a primary source during the times so only they can know what it was actually like. 2)And also a (alleged) majority of the people voted for George Bush, (no offense to all y'all republicans I just seize each chance to attempt to be witty) and in any case public polls are not responsive to my points. 3) The whole point of the bill of rights and the constitution is that there are some things that public opinion should not be able to change, and this is specifically a reason I'm winning the constitutionality abuse portion of this debate also. Onto the Charles Coughlin debate. My opponent says that it's impossible for presidents decision to be liked, everyone likes him, he could of been removed during an election etc. But first off these points DO NOT deny the fact that he IGNORED the constitution, that he violated the rights of congress! In addition he was flat out lying to the people and pretending he was not violating congresses rights be feigning ignorance meaning that the American voters back then couldn't make an informed decision. But on the more important point he ignored all checks and balances within the system, he still took American Military property and gave it away like it was his personal property where it was constitutionally the Senates right. So you can look to the un-responded too logic that it turns the president into a virtual dictator, my opponent basically flat out admitted it. As the quote from Martin Redish described, having this level of power in one man strips us of our individual freedoms. Each time a president gets so much power the person rights of American comes under fire. We risk the very fabric of our society and our future as a democracy when we allow for this unchecked power in one man. How many terms can a man serve before he has enough power to end elections? And So I urge a negative vote based off the contradiction inherent to the affirmative position, because of the blatant constitutional violations unlimited terms encourages, and to protect Americans from having their rights to privacy, habeus corpus, and all that other good stuff in the bill of rights protected.