Term Limits

Ayn Rand said "...so the notion that "Anything society does is right because society chose to do it," is not a moral principle, but a negation of moral principles and the banishment of morality from social issues." Now to point out the absurd statements my opposition made: "Also, I don't have to prove that the will of the people is always right." Well your argument is based on the will of the people know what is best for them always. And you have shown no examples to prove this. However, I have shown plenty of examples where the will of the people was wrong. "I just have to show that we should not have term limits" I am still waiting. You have given no fact but an opinion that people should because they are the will. Did I miss something? Oh yes there was this rule YOU put in: "2. We both have burden of proof. You have to prove that we should have term limits. I have to prove that we should not." I have shown my proof. I ask you where is yours? You have said nothing but what you think should be with a simplistic opinion and nothing backing it up. However I have used many examples showing the importance of term limits. "Even without them, no president had more than 2 terms, before the 22nd Amendment." FDR must have been a figment of my imagination then. He was elected four times. "Bad presidents will not get re-elected because they were bad. A good president will, and if the people want that President again, why should we stop them?" Ahem... I guess you didn't read my past arguments or you wouldn't have made such a simplistic statement. Bad presidents... Here are a few bad ones that somehow got re-elected... Oh My! McKinley, Truman, Nixon, George W. Bush (yes in a historical context he is gonna be a bad one, sorry guys; there are bad republicans just as there are good ones). And good ones get re-elected hmm... I am sure Theodore Roosevelt and Taft would argue differently. Oh wait... those are examples. Do you understand what they are pointing out? I can explain... See examples help in proving a point by showing it in context. Where are yours? Oh right, you don't have any. "and if the people want that President again, why should we stop them?" See my other rounds. But you were supposed to prove we shouldn't See we do have limits. Therefore my side is reality. Your side is just an unjustified opinion. "If we are truly to be a true democracy, we have to listen to the voice of the people." Who said we live in a true democracy? There are all different types. And we don't listen to the voice of the people. If we did our government wouldn't do a lot of what it does. And government is always changing with the world. But I guess it is nice that some people like you apply your imagination to politics. It does provide some entertainment. In conclusion, my opponent just gave an opinion. He believes that if the people want it, then they should get it. It is overly simplistic and juvenile. I have shown through points and examples the many reasons that term limits are good for the United States. He has not argued with any point that I made. His burden of proof was to show term limits are wrong which the US government has set in place. He has done nothing in proving his point and has broken his own rule. Therefore I have won this debate. Thank You