Term Limits should continue

First of all, I would like to point out that my opponent has not used any sources. By default this makes his arguments null and void. Now I would like to point some things out 1) My opponent's spelling of Roosevelt, Rushmore, and only. Source: my spell check "Last I checked, there are inly 4 heads on Mt. Rushmoore, and can't think of a president who would be added with those great men." 2) I don't see how the number, or selection of heads on Rushmore means anything, they were selected by a sculptor that had little or no experience in politics. http://en.wikipedia.org... "Plus, it is very easy to rig an election with the technology that is avalilable to us today." 3) My opponent has not given any evidence of this, nor has he given any sources or examples of this technology. This means that this argument is null and void. "In '04, all of the voting machines were owned by the Republicans," 4) There is no evidence given that George Bush, or any other candidate rigged the 2004 election. This makes my opponents argument, again: null and void. http://en.wikipedia.org... "You also say that the President doesn't have the legal ability to rig an election but, with the right connections and incentives anybody can be persuaded to anything." 5) Since my opponent has not presented any examples, evidence, or sources of these "connections" this argument is also: Null and void "There is also the other point of the Term Limits, to limit power of one political power. With this in place, it allows both parties an equal chance at power in thw White House." 6) What my opponent fails to realize is that term limits only apply to the presidency. The House of Representatives and The Senate have no term limits. I don't see how term limits level out the playing field, considering that there will almost be the same number of candidates from each party. http://en.wikipedia.org... "Another fact, since 3/4ths of the politicians in congress voted for the amendment, and they obviously know more about the political world than us, there has to have been a good reason for it." 7) It wouldn't be the first time congress has passed an unconstitutional or non-useful law. http://www.earlyamerica.com... "And almost always, when one man is given to much power he is corrupted by it. Though in some very exceptional people it is false, in most it is true. Without this, then it would only be a few steps away from having a president for life." 8) Again, my opponent has not given any examples, or sources, making his argument invalid. 9) Term limits keep a stranglehold on liberty. It keeps people from voting for who they want. This is supported by my opponents definition of term limits. 10) Even if a corrupt president remains in office, The Legislative branch can either override his veto or impeach (charge with treason) him. And I would like to point out that the Legislative and Judicial branches are doing fine without term limits. (the judicial branch even holds their position for life) http://www.law.cornell.edu... http://www.law.cornell.edu... 11) Elimination of term limits does not mean there can't be any safeguards to protect from a constitutional monarchy. For example, you can make it so someone can only have two consecutive terms, but after someone else has one or two full terms in between, they can be reelected. http://en.wikipedia.org... 12) All of my opponent's arguments have been disproved. In fact, since he is not supposed to make new arguments, I have eliminated more arguments than necessary. 13) My opponent has lost unless he can prove his original argument (that a corrupt lifelong presidency would be created) I restate my argument: Term limits keep people from voting for who they want. It would be fine if there was a limit of consecutive terms instead of total terms. This would keep people from The only president that ever passed the two term mark is usually among the top three presidents of all time (Franklin Roosevelt.) I have already given my sources for this (see con 1)