The XXII amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be repealed.

I thank kasmic for having this rematch with me, and will focus solely on building my own case in this round. ArgumentsI. Concentration of Power & Incumbency AdvantagesOne of the greatest harms that can arise from repealing the 22nd Amendment is the concentration of power. As it is now, the President has no comparable counter-balance. In Congress and the Senate, the legislators are balanced by the opposition in their respective chambers. Even Supreme Court Justices discuss issues with eight other judges. The President is the only one who serves alone. Due to such a position, the president wields a unique degree of influence and power, especially when attempting to run for another term in office. For instance, they can hand out political favors such as grants and subsidies to swing states, as well as strengthen their ties with corporate interests which fund their campaign efforts. All of which culminates into a clear disadvantage for any capable new challengers going against an incumbent.A good example of this can be seen during the era of Nixon. At one point during Nixon's 1972 re-election campaign the Associated Milk Producers Incorporated, or AMPI, pledged $2 million to the campaign. In return, Nixon raised the federal subsidy for milk. While this was illegal at the time, it reveals the potential for corruption in incumbents as they strive for another term in office. What's even more detrimental is that unfortunately these days we have Super PACs that involve corporate influences thanks to Citizens United. With the increased risk for unsavory political dealings from such rulings, it's evidently more important now than ever that we keep the amendment as is to ensure that such "favors" are never possible. While short-term "promises" will always be a threat, with the 22nd Amendment in place we can ensure that no long-term backhanded dealings will be taking place due to the guarantee that a new President will take office in eight years. II. Governing ExpertiseAn additional harm in repealing the amendment can be found in the case of Cuba. According to the Jamaica Observer newspaper, Cuba's President Raul Castro has proposed term limits for office holders "in the party, the State and the Government". He has done so because, as he put it, "We (in Cuba) are faced with the consequences of not having a reserve of well-trained replacements with sufficient experience and maturity to undertake the new and complex leadership responsibilities". [1] Thus, an additional harm can be found in the increased potential for a smaller pool of experienced and mature candidates under Pro's plan. Under our current system, the US is assured a new leader every eight years. If such an assurance was taken away, it will be *less likely* that we'll have the leaders necessary to adequately perform the leadership tasks effectively, as evidenced by the current situation in Cuba. III. Slippery SlopeIf it wasn't for the 22nd Amendment, we might have had two previous presidents serve a 3rd term: Reagan and Clinton, both of whom are the only two presidents who've had approval ratings increase in their second term since WWII. But is it a bad thing that we missed that chance? I don't believe so. Ethical and legal problems plagued the second terms of Reagan and Clinton, and then that of President Bush and now Obama. Based on the historical evidence and trend, it reasonably follows that a third-term president would likely be more arrogant and insular, leading to even worse ethical and legal problems. IV. The quest for legacyA benefit of having term limits has come in the surprising form of legacy-questing. What I mean by this is that there has been some magnificent things accomplished due to presidents being unburdened by the stresses of another re-election while motivated by legacy and reputation. For instance: Reagan's signing of the INF Treaty with the Soviet Union which concluded with a total of 2,692 nuclear missiles being eliminated [2], Eisenhower's second-term efforts of waging peace which included his own reversal from a "lame duck" to the "New Eisenhower" [3], and even Clinton's military actions in Kosovo and middle east peace efforts. There is an intrinsic benefit birthed from the amendment in that it can serve as a motivator for 2nd term Presidents to accomplish something great before their time is up. Currently, the President has a set exit date and thus develops the drive to accomplish something before that time comes.V. There is no current obligation to do soA key term in the resolution is "should" which indicates a morally or legally bound obligation or duty. [4] However, at this point in time no such obligation exists. In order for the Amendment to be repealed we would need two-thirds of both houses of Congress to deem it necessary or two-thirds of the State Legislators to call on Congress to hold a constitutional convention. Such a necessity does not exist at this current point in time though. In fact, according to most polls the majority is *in favor* of term limits. This can be seen not only on DDO itself, with 81% in support of term limits, [5] but additionally in any Google search result.So why does the support percentage matter? It matters because America has its moral roots founded on Utilitarianism i.e., the greatest good for the greatest number, which is evident in our current society with our usage of the ideal of majority rule. Considering the fact that the majority does not seek to repeal the amendment, we can safely conclude that there is no moral or legal obligation to do so.Thus, the XXII amendment of the U.S. Constitution should not be repealed. Sources[1] http://www.jamaicaobserver.com...[2] http://www.state.gov...[3] http://www.presidentprofiles.com...[4] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[5] http://www.debate.org...