term limits

However, most of my opponent's round three argument is a meaningless ramble. Here, I will just counter excerpts from my opponent's argument. "YOU JUST SAID YOU DONT WANT OBAMA TO BE SENATOR FOR 70YEARS YES IT IS A BAD THING. "I'm not the sole voter in America. Very few of the people I want in office ever go into office, and term limits aren't going to fix that. Also, the replacer could be even worse than Obama (an Obama 2.0 if you will). "it takes no training or expirenence, and you dont need to be a policy expert to be a representive by defitinion, all it takes is a majority vote. "Almost every job fits into a tiered system where people with more experience hold more responsibility and authority. But with term limits, there is no one with experience to take those positions. All the legislators are freshman so no one has any job experience. No business would boot all employees after 10 years- this just amounts to preventing the accumulation of experience. Congress shouldn’t operate like that either. "It takes most new legislators about four years to learn the intricacies of the legislative process, the social organization of the House and Senate, the details of government, broader issues, and how to balance everything with the needs of their districts and the expectations of their party,” he said. “By the time they gain this knowledge, they only have a relatively short time to utilize their knowledge before their term limit expires. In addition, the absence of experienced legislators precludes learning from more experienced peers. ”"[1]"the majority of the the public prefer term limits rather than no term limits, banning term limits wont happen unless the country throws the consitution and the public's wishes down the drain and turns into martial law authoritarian totalitarian hypocrities. the majority of the public want choice in is congress. "This is the really bad epitome of my opponent's ramble. My opponent is commiting an Ad Populum fallacy - meaning he's calling on the wants of the majority for public policy. However, the majority isn't always right. Two cases would be the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany (both were popularly supported). "banning Term limits violate the congressional qualifications area of the Constitution. have you read the constituion? "Yes. There is no provision for term limits in the constitution. Amendment 22 wouldn't have been ratified if that weren't true. "there is the us consitution, then each state has their own consitution. the us consitution is supreme law. they are saying that an amendment in the arkansas consitution didnt comply with the us constitution because it established additional qualifications for congressional office. "What they are saying is that Arkansas cannot impose term limits on its congressional politicians because it violates the constitution. The only qualifications listed in the constitution are age, citizenship, and inhabitancy. There is nothing else, including therm limits, in the constitution regarding this. "Term limits is and always has been a bad idea. The reason it's a bad idea is because it limits the choices of people the public has to vote for. " this statement is contradictory. "Not really. If the public likes a certain politicians, but that politicians is no longer allowed to run, the term limits have effectively limited the choices of the people because they took out a popular politician. If the people like a politician, let him stay. "when a congressman has no term limits, he's not going to listen to the people becacuse he's never going out unless recalled. "Sorry, but thi is just really dumb. Representatives have elections every two years, and senators every six years. They are constantly concerned about getting reelected, which they wouldn't be (and therefore ambivalent to the people) if term limits existed. Overall, term limits will make an already delicate political situation first. They should not be implemented. Sources[1]: . http://newsok.com...