The XXII amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be repealed.

I. Concentration of Power & Incumbency AdvantagesPro mistakes "checks and balances" as "counter-balance" but the two are completely different. Senators and Congressmen have their voices balanced by opposition in their respective chambers; the President has no comparable counterbalance. The role of the individual in such ‘head of executive’ functions is of such importance that pure democracy must be tempered by the fear of ‘elective dictatorship’. America’s beginnings are based on a rejection of monarchy and of cronyism: the 22nd Amendment stops this from coming about by other means.Additionally, in my Nixon example there was no mention of Watergate on my part. I solely presented his incumbent advantage of granting subsidies for the AMPI, which in return pledged $2 million to his re-election campaign. No challenger had the ability to do so. I also don't believe Pro's point regarding politicians not being able to have private conversations acts as a check on incumbent advantages, his example cited Mitt Romney's 47% tape that essentially ruined his chances of the Presidency, however, Romney was not an incumbent at the time, thus Pro's example does not negate my point regarding the incumbent advantage. Lastly, Pro concedes that there are indeed incumbency advantages, but then says the impact is tied to the assumption that incumbents will continue to run for office. What Pro fails to realize is that my impact doesn't solely rely on presidents running for a 3rd term (or more), as I've already shown how such an advantage can even have an impact with presidents running merely for a 2nd term such as with Nixon. He then sums up my arguments in a false frame by placing unnecessary "if" conditions that I never argued. There are no "if's" about it, the concentration of power and incumbent advantage is a real issue right now, repealing the amendment would only serve to strengthen the possibility and magnitude of such things, which would lead to even more harm. II. Governing Expertise Pro argues that my argument relies on the assumption that a president will not only run for a 3rd term, but win. However, Pro's arguments rely on the same thing. For instance, Pro has repeatedly stated that we'll miss out on the most experienced person for the job unless this amendment is repealed, but what good is their experience if they don't win? Thus, Pro essentially defeats his own arguments while attempting to defeat mine as we both have arguments based on them winning. In regards to Cuba vs. America, if we have a president who monopolizes the executive branch we run the risk of having an increased potential for a smaller pool of experienced candidates. Under Pro's plan, there is no guarantee that they'll be necessarily prepared for the *chance* that an incumbent will lose his 3rd, 4th, or 5th term run, whereas now we have the guarantee that the president will leave office in 8 years, thus allowing challengers to fully prepare themselves for their own run with no risk of incumbent advantage. As it stands now, the younger generations can look ahead and say, "Hey, he's got to leave eventually, so let's build ourselves up to the best of our abilities and aim for the whitehouse." Under Pro's plan, that hope and motivation takes a hit as there'd be no guarantee that the president would leave office considering the public would now have the option to vote him/her in for a 3rd, 4th, or 5th term. III. Slippery SlopeThere are no bare assertions being made here. History shows that presidents in their 2nd term are more prone to ethical and legal issues. Thus it's reasonable to assume that such issues would be even more so in a 3rd term. As for "proof", Clinton had his sex scandals and Reagan had his Iran-Contra affair. They were also my examples because they were the only two that would have had public support for a 3rd term if they chose to challenge the amendment, the point is that without the amendment in place, those two could have won a 3rd term and thus created even more issues in that term due to growing even more insular and arrogant with power. IV. The quest for legacyThis contention is not independent of the amendment as Pro claims. The motivation and sense of urgency behind the quest for legacy is birthed by the fact that they won't have another chance to accomplish something great as President. In Pro's case, they are merely building a portfolio for re-election, under my case, they are building a legacy that doesn't rely on any re-election but rather relies on the legacy they wish to leave for the history books. V. There is no current obligation to do soPro failed to address the fact that our system of morality, as a nation, is tied to Utilitarianism. In his case of slavery, the whole reason it became an issue was because the majority stopped supporting it. With murder, there was ever an instance in American history where that's been supported by the majority. So, ultimately, Pro is committing a false comparison fallacy within his response. The fact remains that over 75% of Americans support the Amendment, thus leaving no legal or moral obligation to repeal it. Since the term "should" implies such an obligation, Pro needed to prove that there is one, and failed to do so. Pro additionally never showed how this amendment violates our "natural rights", and dropped my point that voting is a legal right, not a natural one. Ultimately,The only thing that would challenge our sovereignty as free voters would be to repeal an amendment that currently has majority support of the people. The people of America spoke, and through their legislators decided to return to the precedent set by Washington. The amendment never mitigated the function of elections since one of those functions is to "produce a government that is in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the electorate." Nor does experience trump every other aspect of a good president such as the ability to perform. Thus, we should not repeal the 22nd Amendment.