The US Federal Government Should Not Pass a Congressional Term Limit Amendment

Contention 1: Popularity for Term Limits My opponent's point here is absurded. If we look at my opponent's first round we can see that he argued that the people people elect their officials who must do the will of the people. The will of the people right now is a support of the Term Limits, which, under the very democracy which we are founded. It is the Congressmen and women to go out and pass a Term Limits Amendments as it is the will of the people. My opponent brings up how Direct Democracy leads to NAZIsm, but this is just Godwin's Law and must be discarded as my opponent is simply picking small data points. I could easily turn around and argue how a majority of Americans wanted Slavery abolitionished, World War II, or a long list of others good and positive things that have come out of the popularity of the American public. My opponent's own case works for me in this case. My opponent brings up the argument of if people want term limits then why do we continue to elected vetern Congressmen. The answer is quite simple and I brought this up in an earlier round where the incumbent has the advantage. No matter what we do, the incumbent will, most of the time, get elected due to massive funding advantage and name recognition. Even if they are a terrible Politician, they can and will still be re-elected. This isn't the people, this is the unfairness that is existance. Contention 2: Congressional MonopolyMy opponent brings up the lobbyist argument, but we can still see that with term limits, this won't be the case as many times when people are seeking re-election then run to the lobbyists to get legislation pushed. This would be a huge thing we have to observe as it would help our politicial system, not destroy it. We have to do remember that my opponent hasn't addressed weak term limits which actually curtails a great deal of his own arguments here as people will be able to run again later on if they please, but with the new amount of people in the political market, there will be a greater amount of politicians out there with different skill levels and then the people can actually observe and analyze their own choices to help aid their nation. This strengthens the political process. Upsets do happen and I haven't declined nor denied this fact. There are many events in US history that this occurs when we see major events in the political or economic scale. Though we still have to extend across my argument here as this is the case for the House, the Senate, which my opponent was attacking, had a lowest at 60% [1980] and highest at 95% [1]. Even though that's the case, we can see in 2008, the House re-election was 90% and the Senate was 85%. 2010 had the House re-election rate of 85% to the Senates 86%. Though like my opponent said, upsets occur, the fact is, even in these times of trouble, the re-election rate is still pretty high. Being a Senior member doesn't mean anything here, we can see that a newer politician can do just as well by being in a committee where they are highly skilled versus one where they are put in a committee where they are not as well skilled nor like. My opponent counter's by having it be random, but we have to see that people should go where people are most skilled at or care most about. My opponent's purposed solution makes things worse as people will be put into areas where they are neither well skill nor care about. This would decrease activity and harm our political process. We still have to observe that many of my opponent's disagreements here can be fixed with weak term limits where they can be re-elected after a set time period, but have to stop after a set term limt. This is an issue that my opponent has yet to address and this is the key issue in this debate as many of Pro's own argumens can be solved by this. My opponent keeps bringing up how people can boot out unwanted politicians, but like how I explained before, the incumbents have an unfair advantage that makes it impossible for them to lose. With that I thank you and please vote Con! Sources1. ( . http://tinyurl.com...)