Resolved: The US federal goverment should pass a term limit ammendment

"Term Limits Prevents Elected Official From Gaining Experience"BTW I will use the same font as you for consistancy. This is false. 8 years is a long time to gain experince, and when you run out of one term limit in the house then run for senate. Then you get 16 years of experience. Then run for governer or president (generally a 8 year limit) so you can get a lot of experience regardless of a temilit of 8 years, the one we agreed upon. Experience in one's profession is a good thing, but even House Members who only serve one term -- two years -- clearly have time to develop significant experience. Despite the protestations of some foes of term limits that Members need a great deal of seasoning before they can make real decisions, no other profession requires two years of on-the-job training. Moreover, the skills developed by years of legislative service surely will find numerous other outlets under term limits; those Members who reach the end of permitted service can still work to improve people's lives in the law, in business, in academies and think-tanks, or even in other branches of government.[1]"Term Limits Shift Power to the Bureaucracy and Lobbyists"This makes no sense, it actually reduces lobbying. The breaking of the cozy connections between long tenured pols and their various special interests and lobbying organizations will force those interests to try to reconnect with a new breed of legislator who is not a career politician, but one who thinks differently, and more often with common sense and integrity, and is less often concerned with reelection. [1]it breaks special interests. I will use a les scrdible source, but it still proves my point:They reduce that power, because if a new person comes in every couple of terms, and doesn't hold with the same people, those people lose their influence. [3]Well that soure is just as credible as us as we are not profesionals it is only as credible as us. "Term limits would force out many good career politicians- my opponent even concedes this. "Yes but getting rid of them is good. The late U.S. Senator Teddy Kennedy served in Congress a mind-numbing 46 years. The only thing that stopped him: death. U.S. Senator Robert Byrd served 51 year. Death finally voted him out. U.S. Senator Strom Thurmond served 46 years until death overtook him. U.S. Senator Ted Stevens racked up 40 years. Daniel Inouye at 46 years and John McCain over 30 years will serve until they too-suffer death as their only way out. What do they all share in common? Career politicians! They enjoy(ed) the 'good old boys club' in Washington, DC, a kind of present day 'royalty' enjoyed by Prince Charles, Queen Elizabeth, et al. [4] If the Founding Fathers made one huge mistake in the U.S. Constitution, 'term limits' for citizen politicians would be that blunder. Many wonder why our government officials fail us on so many levels. They wonder by Washington politicians won't enforce our laws or enact legislation that benefits ordinary citizens instead of people from other countries. Why do our politicians approve outsoucing, insourcing and offshoring of jobs when we suffer 15 million unemployed Americans and 41.8 million Americans subsisting on food stamps? Why do they fail us on multiple levels? Answer: Lifelong and long term politicians formed a 'royalty' club in Washington DC that dances to a 'money and elitist' tune that resembles the monarchies of former empires. Even as they become infirmed enough to stagger or wheel-chair themselves across the Senate floor, or become dottering old goats that cannot and do not offer fresh, new ideas for our challenging times-they cling to power, to their status, to their 'royalty' of being called Senator So and So. Ironically, Americans reelect them out of habit. [4] carreer politicians are bad on average. Also term limits force ideas, no senority to rule the race. incumbants win 80% of the time. Even if they suck. So term limts would let in people with good ideas trump senority every few elections. C1: makes it harder to become a career politician. Spanbauer was only half way through his first term and he is already a career politician. Our elected officials got us into this mess and they dump everything on our citizens and are protected by a law they made to avoid paying their share. We have to vote all of these bums out of office, not just a few. If the president is limited to two terms, why aren't all elected officials? [5]yes they got us into it, how will they get us out? BTW Ron paul is the only good carrer politician in my view. Looking back at history to the Roman Empire governments usually run its course around 200 years. Well the U.S.A. is long past that time. We can no longer have a person get elected and run time and time again on name recognition. The time has come where we stop complaining about our officials and go to the polls and do something about it. [5]basically saying that people who are incumbants win by senoity and name recognition and need to be stopped and allow new people with fresh ideas help. These new people are morin touch with the american people, not washingotn. C2: Limits the amount of special interests and connectionsI still do not see why you argue opposite. Since political exchange is rarely simultaneous or subject to enforceable contracts there is potential for opportunism. Will the representative exert high effort for the interest? Will the interest fulfill its promises of support? Answering these questions in the affirmative requires that there be mutual trust between interest and representative, which can only be created in a long-term relationship. Similarly, log-rolling requires that representatives know and trust one another. Term limits will increase the turnover rate for committee chairs and indeed for the entire legislature--every 12 years the legislature will be composed of entirely new representatives--thereby making trust difficult to build up. Long tenure also allows committee chairs to develop "property rights" in certain areas of legislation (Weingast and Marshall 1988). With term limits, property rights in policy areas will be more difficult to establish and this will make it difficult for politicians to logroll and trade political support. [6]reduces special interestsC3: encourages competition: challenger v. challenger, less incumbent advantage.No need to expand, this is given.C4: if the president has a term limit, why can't congressmen?this is given too.I will add another contention as I have the room. C5: REDUCES POLITICAL LOBBYING This is linked to special intrests (basically the same thing) but I will dwell on this. Term limits would reduce the power of lobbyists and special interest groups. These parties have made long-term investments in politicians. As a result, these are the people who oppose term limits. [7]SO this is linked above, and it reduces lobbyists whom preform politial lobbying.Every time I hear a politician say that something is “politically infeasible,” they are basically saying “we put our re-election ahead of the interests of the nation.” [7]well thats it I am running out of room now. Good luck I await your response :)sources:http://www.termlimitsforcongress.com... [1] http://tenurecorrupts.com... [2] http://answers.yahoo.com... [3] http://www.rense.com... [4] http://www.thenorthwestern.com...- [5] http://www.cato.org... [6] http://leedsonfinance.com... [7]