Term Limits

RebuttalI did in fact read it. Democracy is indeed a self-correcting system, but the leader is not self-correcting. As you age and go through the stress of leading the country, you ability to lead will decrease. Each term will be more successful than the next one. It is a process. Yes. The leader isn't self correcting. And at the point where the leader's ability proves someone else better, they don't vote for them. It is that simple, a term limit is not needed. Unless you are assuming the people are not capable of thought or that ignorant, if they feel a leader is worsening, they do not vote for him. Term limits provide no usefulness here. Democracy does.Okay, I acknowledge that the term "dictatorship" was a little extreme. My point is, however, that term limits will limit the power and control of the leader. Too much power and control could transform into a dictatorship. It couldn't transform into a dictatorship. They are voted in, and could be just as easily voted out. I fail to see how a leader serving a term more than eight years is in any way dictatorial. Too much power? What do you mean by this? All president's/prime ministers have the same authority and roles, and in a matter of years, someone else can take role. It is ludicrous to say that people cannot have who they want because in a democracy it might possibly somehow turn it into a dictatorship. Unless they are going to pass an enabling act, as Hitler did in 1933, then it isn't going to be a dictatorship.One of the first steps to pleasing everyone is electing a new leader. With each leader, there will be support and opposition. The opposition has a voice too, so they will be pleased when a new leader arrives. Debate and opposition, in the political world, is healthy. It puts very important issues into the spotlight and helps raise important questions. And term limits does this how? I mean, if there are important issues, the public do not care at all about healthy debate. When there is a problem, they really don't care if there is 'variety', 'change', 'democracy'. They want solutions, and will choose the person they believe is best fit for those solutions, and term limits stop them from doing this. As for important issues, it does not take a change in leader for people to realise if inflation is high.You must simply compromise, give up some of what you want, and in return get some of what you do in fact want. Find the common ground. That is how you please everyone. It is simple politics. It is how the government is meant to work. You cannot have an eternal leader with one set of views and ignore the voices of the minority. You must bring new ideas to the table. You must contribute in new ways. Term limits ensure that. They allow new leaders to be brought to the system, who will bring new ideas and values to the government. That is how it is supposed to be. Proof? That is how it is supposed to be? Where is your proof? It is a very big statement to define how politics is. We simply cannot please everyone, but compromise pleases no one. Imagine if Margaret Thatcher had compromised with the trade unionists. Rather than them almost ruin the country, they would partly ruin the country. Compromise simply cannot be done effectively. No matter your policies, people will be hurt. You don't need an eternal leader. You need a leader who most people are happy with. Who the general public as one body are pleased with. And don't give the "bringing new ideas to the table", rubbish. That happens anyway. It happens with manifestos. New ideas are being brought out all the time without a need for a whole new leader to change it. Unless of course, you mean the leader does things differently. In which case, he surely would have made sure the public knew what he was going to do? If not, that is undemocratic. If so, you do not need term limits. The people, if the ideas are good, would have picked him. People want stability, and safety. They do not want new, fresh politics at their doorstep, unless it provides said stability. And safety is being able to choose the best leader, not hoping this second will do well.My opponent, who is clearly arguing about democracy, is forgetting one key point: Democracy is not only about the majority. It is also about the minority. In a true democracy, everyone's voice is heard. If a majority votes for a leader, will you simply ignore the minority? In a true democracy, you will not. No true Scotsman fallacy. Sorry, but there are many opinions which there simply cannot be compromised. My previous argument had a whole list. If the country in general is monetarist, how are you supposed to appease the keynesian economists? These are black-and-white systems which must be either fiscal or monetary. All the others I listed were good examples, which you have just left to make this horrible assumption. If the majority votes for the leader, he will do what he intended to do, and what he promised. Because the majority voted him in for that. If that is to ignore the minority, so be it. If not, then it is not. That is democracy, where the people decide in general what to do.Indeed, we have a somewhat different understanding of democracy. My opponent believes that the majority automatically rules and that the minority should be ignored. I believe that in a true democracy, everyone is heard. Everyone can exercise their rights in a democracy. If you have the same leader over and over again, the minority will be absolutely furious. You cannot ignore that. The minority may revolt against the government, and a civil war could commence. This, my friend, is simple logic. No...I believe in where the people get to vote for their leader and policies. However, obviously not everyone will be pelased. Compromise will please nobody and we must find a system which maximises benefit, which is a system where the majority is focused on. Sorry, but life is tough. Voting is a mirror of this. If A wins 20% of the votes, B wins 80%. B wins. Should we appease A? Should we really stop what will make the lives better of 80% of people, so that 20% can be happy? Democracy dictates that whoever wins more votes, wins, and for a reason. So that more people's lives can be made better. In brutal honesty, not everyone will ever be happy. There will always be radical nazis, radical communist, regulationists and laissez-faire capitalists. So we please the one's where most of the people lie, because it is their country.The minority may revolt against the government, and a civil war could commence. This, my friend, is simple logic.-_-The fact that Con had to say he didn't have a lot of time is evidence enough to the voters. I could have been extremely pedantic, and demand sources, because a lot of what he said was balderdash, and expected it to be true. His arguments were packed full with the fallacy of begging the question. He had no proof and almost every one of his arguments were assertions, not arguments. There was no further discussion of issues which would arise, other than a civil war, which is frankly absurd, and his claims about a true democracy including the pleasing of the minority were balderdash. From the country turning into a dictatorship, to trying to say that people's freedoms should be infringed in the sake of "fresh politics", his arguments held no place in logical debate. There are some strong arguments for term limits. As much as I oppose them, the best argument for term limits is that they ensure a president doesn't have too a strong foothold in the country, and doesn't make it impossible for the opposition to do anything, because he has changed so much. The claim about fresh ideas could have been a good argument, if he could actually give an example on one. I don't even have BOP, but right now, all my Margaret Thatcher points are standing, my examples of opposing parties which cannot be compromised are still there, but none of this actually needs to. The only thing I need to take this debate is the existence of rudimentary, fundamental, simple, basic, core democracy. I urge the voters, to vote for this.