Term Limits

RebuttalIntroductionOn January 20, 1941, Franklin D. Roosevelt delivered his third inaugural address, marking the first - and last - time in United States history that a President shall have had more than the traditional two terms. Later, he would assume a fourth term, only to die shortly after. Then onMarch 21, 1947, the twenty-second amendment was passed, setting a limit of how many terms a President can serve (two terms). It was finally ratified on February 27, 1951.Franklin Delano Roosevelt was one of our greatest presidents. This may sound biased, but it is supported by facts. He saved us from the Great Depression. He led us through a global war, in which millions and millions have died. His legacy is great and that is undeniable. FDR was one of the rare cases that did deserve more than two terms. The same cannot be said about the political leaders of today. Allow me to make my case. ArgumentsTwo terms as President - 8 years - are enough. In 8 years, you can inspire recovery from an economic collapse, end wars, start wars, create alliances, destroy alliances, create hope, and create chaos. 8 years is nearly a decade. That is enough. Irrelevant. Theoretically, you are able to do all of this in one day, therefore is one day enough? We aren't debating on the threshold of the the theoretical. Pragmatism is needed in order to prove why we need eight terms and not just adhere to rudimentary democracy. There are a few rare cases - like FDR - that indeed require a third term in order to finish the work they have started. However, you cannot repeal an entire amendment just because of these rare cases. In my personal view - please do not attack me on this - Barack Obama deserves a third term. However, I do not believe that term limits should only be in the United States. I think it should be law in al developed, secure countries. Still irrelevant. There have only ever been two cases when a nuclear missile has been fired upon another country, but it is fallacious to say that because quantitatively it has been horrible, we should not appeal any conventions to ban nuclear missiles. If it is worth doing on a qualitative scale, then it should be done, and you BOP consists of proving qualitatively the removal of term limits isn't worth doing.If a President, Prime Minister, Chancellor, or any other political leader, were allowed to have as many terms as they pleased - and they won all of them - that would resemble dictatorship and it definately would indicate that the person in question is desparate and hungry for power. No, not at all. If they are elected, then it is not a dictatorship. The majority wanted them, therefore, as elementary democracy states, they get them. This is a ludicrous statement. We cannot assume with no evidence that they are doing it for power. What we can infer, is that they want to be leader, and so do the general consensus. Is this not in accordance with general democracy? Term limits, restricting the democratic power that the people have is more dictatorial than a system which advocates the most core understanding of democracy.In times of crisis, like an economic depression or a global war, a political leader - if worthy of the office - may have a few more terms than others. However, these terms should not be unlimited. Even FDR would not have deserved a fifth or sixth term. He would be very desparate. There is not a single argument here. You have stated that the terms should not be unlimited. You have asserted the motion, and the only hint of an argument I detect here is that unlimited terms means they are desperate. This is not only a slippery slope, but a hasty generalisation and a non sequitur.May I ask, how is running for unlimited terms not a sign of desparation? You cannot assert without any evidence. There is a possibility he just loves running the country, or feels indebted to the country, or just adheres to democracy? After all, if a leader is voted over and over again, then they clearly think he is best for the country, so that leader might just be doing what is best for the people.This argument has been a host of logical fallacies, assertions and assumptions. I will now state my cases for why term limits, are an abismal idea.I. The Idea of Basic Democracy Democracy, where the people choose their own leader. Logically, it makes sense. Different countries have different needs, and different leaders have different needs. Therefore their needs should be the similar to benefit the country and its people as a whole, as both parties want to do, but together. For this to happen, the population therefore chooses who fits in with their need the most.That is the basis of democracy. If a country wanted a leader, who they think would benefit them, they elect the leader. If after the first term, they feel like said leader failed, then the leader is out and the next person they feel who is the most beneficial, they elect. If the leader did very well, or the country still feels as he is the best, he is elected, and has another term, and the cycle continues ad nauseum. Term limits, after the first two terms, infringes upon democracy. The voter now, cannot vote for who he truly thinks will benefit the country. The people as a whole, are now forced to pick someone who is their second choice, someone who doesn't necessarily have the same ideas and opinions as him. The leader's are second rate unless they want to switch. Term limits would only cause harm, in times of prosperity, if there was a very good leader. II. Case Study - Margaret ThatcherMargaret Thatcher, is my case study here. Remember, seeing as you are not debating specifically the American term limit, and your resolution is based around the idea of term limits, it isn't I suppose, too ludicrous to set a term limit of 1 term in the U.K? This points out why term limits are so ludicrous.So, 1979 the year of the famous Winter of Discontent. Inflation at 27%, 5% pay rise limit, workers demanding 25% increase in wages, strikes everywhere, starvation, riots, deaths, the people of Britain have had enough. Since 1955, they've had to suffer under the brutal socialist ways of labour. They need a saviour, a liberator, and change.May 1979, Margaret Thatcher is the said liberator. She was elected, the general consensus was happy, and what they wanted she was. Time for the test. So, for the first five years saw successes. Saw triumphs against the IRA, she had set herself as a strong leader, and not to mention triumphs in the Falklands. Oh, and there was the bit about privatising a lot, completely reviving the country, stopping strikers from ruining the country and doing what no Prime Minister in British history had done. This is why I believed hypothetically saying 1 term was enough. She did a ton of work.So the people wanted her again, clearly, but imagine if there was a term limit? At this point, she would simply have to be replaced. That's it. Her legacy, halved. Because what she did do was further her privatisation, look even more powerful, oh, and there was that thing in 1986 referred to as the Big Bang, which only made the U.K. 3rd most successful country in Europe. Clearly, term limits prevents this from happening. But this isn't the end...Because from 1989 onwards, with the introduction of poll tax, and as she was becoming mre stubborn, people did not like her as much. She had done great for the country, but unemployment, inequality and seeming lack of care for people made it that people had realised, they had had enough. Enough had been done, and they wanted to go back to being stable. It was too much. So what they do? She was voted out in 1991.The point is that democracy is already self-regulating, self-fulfilling and self-correcting. The idea of democracy in itself is expunged by not allowing people to vote for who they want to. There is no problem with people really enjoying a leader, and the moment they don't, they have the power to get rid of the leader. Term limits are anti-democratic, and do not serve any practical use.Sources:http://www.independent.co.uk...