The XXII Amendment to the Constitution of the USA is unreasonable and should be repealed.

I must say I am glad that my opponent has elected to argue this topic on its merits rather than on semantic grounds. However, I believe it is fairly clear that my choice of the word "logical" referred to a specific meaning of it, namely "reasonable". In his reply, my opponent raised 4 general points pointing to alleged benefits of retaining term limits. 1. "A strong executive that knows how to properly wield his power and influence could manipulate his/her way to effectively become president for life. A term limit makes this impossible. " I would like my opponent to provide a specific (even if hypothetical) example of a situation such as this. That is, an example of how a president can manipulate his power to win a "next term" (as opposed to staying in power for life). I must admit I am not doing this to be difficult. Rather, since I do not live in the USA, I would find such an example enlightening. Whilst it would undoubtedly assist my opponent's argument (as I am effectively putting him to his proof), it would also assist me in rebutting the above point. At this stage, I will merely comment by saying that my opponent's point appears to suggest that the American People, with their constitutional freedom of speech, with their freedom of press and very wide powers of inquiry and transparency at all levels, are susceptible to having wool pulled over their eyes by a power-hungry leader. I will address this point in more depth following my opponent's reply. 2. "A long-serving executive becomes accustomed to his position and influence resulting in his being too far removed from the public will. " This point is valid but only at 4-year intervals. Given that Presidential Elections are held every 4 years, each election gives the electors (and their electors-the Nation) an opportunity to review the Candidate's performance in the previous term. If he is indeed out of touch with the will of the public, the public would arguably not vote for him for the next term. My opponent's point would also be much more valid for an authocratic system than for a democracy. In practice, prudent democratic leaders pay much attention to their ratings throughout their time in office. Of course, this may not apply to a Lame Duck President as he has absolutely no incentive to have much regard for the will of the public. Some events from recent years may serve as an example. 3. " Term limits ensure a "Rotation of Office". This rotation ensures that a relatively few political elite will perpetually rule a nation. " I understand my opponent intends to say that the rotation ensures that that a relatively few political elite do NOT perpetually rule a nation. Parties nominating candidates have their motives: they want them to win. This process ensures that the candidates chosen are those who reflect the party's policy the best. A former president who has since lost the approval of the nation and who does not meet his or her party's expectations by way of policy is a candidate who is unlikely to win the election. His or her party is therefore unlikely to nominate such a candidate. Furthermore, if one is to look at other systems around the world, it is extremely rare that an executive leader is elected for a second time after being out of the office. The phenomenon of a "rotating elite" simply is not great enough a risk to amount to a reason for constitutional term limits. 4. "Term limits gaurd the executive from "perpetual campaigning". Once elected to a second term, a president no longer needs to consider from where his next campaign contribution is coming. " I take this point to mean that "perpetual campaigning" results, in my opponent's contention, in a President who focuses on winning the next term rather than on the task at hand (running the Country). Firstly, let us consider the system as it is at present. We have presidents who spend the first term focusing on winning the second term. Is my opponent therefore suggesting that presidents tend to under-perform in their first term? Secondly, do second-term presidents really commit themselves to running the nation? Or rather, as unaccountable Lame Ducks, do they have the freedom to do whatever they feel is right with little regard for the will of the People? Finally, is "perpetual campaigning" such a bad thing? A president in such position is a president who has to watch his every step, costantly review his policies, pay close attention to his ratings, look at the wishes of the People and make promises for his next term in accordance with those wishes. I submit that such a president is the truest possible advocate for the people, the truest follower of the nation's will. I submit that (other than the threat of a firing squad), there cannot be a more powerful incentive for a president to do his job in the best possible way. My final point is that in a Democracy, the nation should be free to elect any leader they want. It is THEIR leader. If this happens to be somebody who has been in office for the last 4, 8 or 12 years, so be it. The People are entitled to decide, they are entitled to have the best leader they can get.