DDO Beginners tournament: Term limits are good for democracy

I will address Pro’s arguments in three points.I. Term Limits limits Democracy.Pro’s first three point can be placed under one overarching point. I see not any need for splitting arguments unnecessarily. Pro has already conceded one point. Term limits limit the will of the people. He does not believe, though, that sheer majority can decide policy. The fact of the matter still remains, however, that Nazism and Fascism are ideologies that remain to this day. [1][2] These ideologies use the democratic systems to gain power, as well as to keep it, and are very much alive today. Pro deems that even if a majority of the population deems something “good” for their country to follow, like Nazi Germany [3], as long as it contradicts his own ideology, it is not “good” and is thus “bad” for democracy. Notice how subjective this point of view is. Giving everyone “fundamental human rights” is itself an ideology.Pro claims that democracy gives everyone equal rights. This is true, but for a country to work, the majority ideology must be implemented. Otherwise, a “lame duck” situation would be created. That is, two competing ideologies, like Republican and Democrat, will gain office in almost alternating terms, and negate each others policies. [4][5] Pro claims that voters choose “the path which seems best suited for the country...” This is in contradiction to the rebuttal presented by Pro in his earlier point. Notice that by this logic, the Germans who elected Hitler were being democratic.[3] Another way of viewing this sentence and its accompanying point is given in the title of the point. This is indeed a lame duck situation. Not only will no progress be made if two competing ideologies have about the same amount of supporters, as in the Republican-Democrat divide, it will in fact harm (Aka. Be bad for democracy) the fiscal and social situation. In Pro’s point 2-3, he articulates the main reason why I think term limits are not bad for democracy. Simply put, you can destroy a man, but not an idea. The Democrats were trashed worse in the past than the Republicans were in this most recent U.S. elections. [5] They are, though, still around and going strong. This shows that not only do bad ideologies not suffer from term limits, they actually thrive simply because of “new faces,” so to speak. II. A HoS without IdeologyMy point exactly. A HoS who merely mirrors the will of the people, expressed by means of voting, needs have no ideology. Limiting such a HoS, which could be an android, with term limits simply forcing the making of another individual who would be fitted to the same task or changing the system. I am sure that such an individual will not be voted out. Why would it? As such, term limits would actually not be beneficial for the country, but would, in practice, be negatively impactful.III. No ImpactAs shown in my previous arguments, term limits limit democracy, as such, it cannot be a limit in favor of democracy. You cannot limit something in favor of what you are limiting. As I showed, Pro does not benefit from rejecting the idea that democracy benefits from majority rule. Not only is democracy based on majority rule, hence elections, but pointing a country in a direction “best suited” should be decided by the majority, not some arbitrary term limits or ideology.Notice that even if there is term limits, a country can still be run on an ideology. This means that there is no practical impact for term limits in regards to implementing an ideology. To give a hypothetical situation, let us suppose that there are 10,000 people in a country. Let us suppose that 9000 people support ideology A, which the 1000 remaining people oppose with ideology B. Let us suppose that A and B are irreconcilable. What then? The ideology that has the greater amount of supporters always wins. Assuming no change of ideologies on the part of the population, term limits or no, the country will still go in the direction of ideology A. According to ideology B, this direction is bad.According to Pro, B would have a right to be a “noisy minority” [6] and impose their ideology onto those that hold to ideology A. Notice the very strong parallels of this hypothetical situation and that of the end of the Weimar Republic? [3]ConclusionIn conclusion, all I can say is that Pro’s objection to a lack of term limits is based on a contradiction. Opposing an ideology accepted by the majority on the grounds of differentiating between “good” and “bad” simply does not work because it is too relative. What is “good” to someone may be “bad” to another. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...3. See Pro’s source 1.4. http://www.infoplease.com...5. http://www.infoplease.com...6. A noisy minority is the direct opposite of a silent majority, which according to dictionary.com, is “any group of people who are not outspoken and who are considered to constitute a majority.”