That There Should be Term Limits

Thank you for your argument... Jack.I will lay out a brief constructive case in this round.Note that since term limits are very specific to democracy, the debate should operate under the assumption that the principles of democratic-republican government are sound. Also, I will be pretending that all politicians are male for the sake of convenient pronoun usage. C1) Democratic ValuesThe basic premise of a democratic-republican society is that the rule of the people should be the government's driving force. The people, empowered with their right to vote, choose government representatives based on their capability to best serve the interests of the people with their leadership-- if a representative fails to do an adequate job of serving the people, then, naturally, the people will replace him by electing someone else next term [1]. Theoretically, the only way any politician could ever be re-elected is if he was able to please the people more effectively than any of his competitors. With that in mind, it becomes evident that if someone is able to consistently serve the best interests of the people in this fashion so as to keep getting re-elected, then keeping him in his position of leadership is obviously of net benefit to the people and to society as a whole. Why, then, should we forcibly remove him from office by implementing a term limit mechanism? There doesn't seem to be any rational justification.C2) Politician ExperienceIt is a well-known fact that having on-the-job occupational experience is a plus for professionals looking for employment: "After reviewing numerous studies, California State University concluded that work experience began becoming more crucial in hiring in 1980. By 1993, 93 percent of interns in work-study programs were offered jobs by their employers, according to a Northwestern University study that was part of California State's review. A 2013 report by High Fliers Research concluded that college graduates without work experience have "little chance" of getting a job. High Fliers Research managing director Martin Birchall told The Huffington Post that work experience is "now just as important" as a college degree." [2]. Having such experience is valued so highly by companies because it allows for an employee to operate more efficiently and demonstrate greater performance than otherwise, since they would have more knowledge of what to expect as well as more well-developed technical skills. If this is what is expected of society's professionals, then why should the same high standard not be held for politicians? If anything, we should hold a much higher standard for politicians, since they play such an integral role in the survival of society; experience helps them govern more effectively, just as it helps any professional do their job better. With term limits, politicians are basically "fired" just as the on-the-job experience is beginning to pay off, which is absurdly counter-productive-- it is the logical equivalent of only allowing surgeries to be done by medical students undergoing residency-training. By allowing politicians to run for as long as they have the favor of the people, we allow for good politicians to get even better as they gain more experience, thus leading to an optimally functional government. CONCLUSIONTerm limits can only be a detriment to society. They violate democratic ideals by stopping people from re-electing the representatives they want to re-elect, often resulting in a utilitarian loss as well, since repeatedly re-elected politicians would most likely be the most competent ones. Furthermore, term limits prevent politicians from acquiring on-the-job experience, which a necessity in virtually every profession-- especially ones as difficult and important as that of a legislator.The resolution is negated.Back to you, sir.[1] https://web.stanford.edu... (Sec. I)[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...