This House opposes term limits for elected Heads of State

Before I begin my rebuttals, I would like to let everyone know that I am from the United States, and my knowledge of political leaders in Europe is limited. So forgive me if I mis-use terms such as "monarchs, and prime ministers". Basically I refer to them as one would a "president" of the united states, or a person in power. OrangeMayhems Arguments"If people want to go for a more comfortable option, which by your own admission delivers the same result, why not let the people get the warm fuzzy feeling of comfort?"But we haven't actually established that keeping the same person in power, actually makes them comfortable. If people don't like the way things are going, or see problems, a new person in power might fit their needs a little more. And let's admit, there are always going to be problems. That why term limits are helpful though. As new presidents bring new ideas and changes to politics, these will dis-appear, while new ones grow. Keeping the same person in office that doesn't know how to prevent such issues, or is unwilling to try means that problems can't always be handled. When I say "unwilling" you have to consider that certain individuals are biased by their beliefs. Usually belonging to a lot of the same beliefs they ran for before going into office. If something good can come from an action that don't believe in, they may never know or try. The political influence of multiple beliefs and parties is a positive influence to any country, and they can get a good idea for different methods of operation.In order to maintain a strong democracy, multiple political parties are required. First, political parties develop policies and programmes. This is the content side of their responsibility. It ensures that there are different choices in the political marketplace – not only in terms of candidates but also in terms of ideas. Once in government, a party can start implementing these ideas. (5) "People standing at the sidelines saying “pah, I could do better” are not always right."This is true in both systems, as your example clearly shows. However, this really isn't an argument against term limits. We never know what we get when we elect a new head of state, it's always a mystery. Whether they will abide by they values they stood by in the election process, is completely up in the air. But risking a bad new leader is just as risky as keeping the same on in power, and with a term limit, and the chance for someone to get repealed (as you stated in your own case), the harms don't have to be all that bad. But the argument of sticking with the old, rather than trying something new doesn't make a lot of sense. If you have an old brick phone that doesn't meet all of your wants, and by a new phone that breaks within the first week, does that mean you have to go back to your brick phone rather than get another new phone that has the potential to fill in the problems your old phone had?If you are content with the old world, try to preserve it, it is very sick and cannot hold out much longer. But if you cannot bear to live in everlasting dissonance between your beliefs and your life, thinking one thing and doing another, get out of it. - Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy."Naivety is a risk and – as previously discussed – people do not like risks."But absence Naivety, means old political bias, which is a trait that people hate more. This has a history of bad results, and too much power with nothing "productive" being done. Naivety also doesn't have to mean that a political action is "reckless". Most political decisions shoulviuly calculated and thought out to begin with. Naivety shows a willingness to try these new things and get them done.But ultimately, there is no way to judge a good political decision vs a bad one, unless a new one is tried. I think Arie W. Kruglanski gives a pretty good definition of this. (6) "Citizens are not stupid ants who live under the ground constantly re-electing a poor choice despite having no consciousness of major political issues."Citizens are definitely not "stupid ants" but can we always trust a political system to work in the way it's supposed to? After years of power and influence, is the same politician always going to support the same ideals? There are reasons that 75% of americans support term limits. (7)The risk of a failing democracy is too high, as seen in Egypt(8), Early America (9), and in Europe(10).Simply counting on the fact that we are a democracy isn't as easy as it sounds. Now I know this is a little exaggerated and uses superfluous examples, but the point is all about the risk involved in the political process being reduced by term limits, and provides a fail safe in case of a democracy usurpin power. "So who are you to decree that the people shouldn’t be allowed to elect someone who they like and are comfortable with because someone better COULD come along?"I think that you are over stepping with the argument of "likability, and comfortableness". I don't think many people are too ingrained into feeling comfortable with their nations leader, as opposed to wanting the best things for their country. So if you are valuing that people should stay with their president because he is a nice guy and hasn't screwed up too bad, the warrant for your argument is missing. How do we know that people are not more interested in better productivity for their country? Even without this argument, your argument still dis-regards the chance of people growing to like the new head of state and growing just as "comfortable" with him/her, as they did with the previous one."So we don’t elect new PMs ‘so often’ and our system is not unstable."While this point was mainly based on hypotheticals, and ultimately this is a minor point, what I am trying to say is that term limits ultimately are a deterrent to bad decisions. If you know you only have a set amount of time to do the best you possibly can for your country, your more likely to make impending decisions that are based around productivity and development. Most of these ideals will come in the first few years of presidency anyway."Did he go mad with power and start making crazy decisions?"This point isn't so much about what has happened, it's that the failsafe reduces the risk of something like this ever happening. Your example of lack of term limits for 200 years, is almost the same as saying. "My neighborhood as been peaceful for the last ten years, so I am going to leave me door unlocked".If you get robbed a day later, you will think yourself a fool for not participating in the failsafe of locking your house."So every politician will eventually stop, and then they may well return home."I think my opponent has mis-understood the philosophical impact of this point.. Returning home, doesn't mean they won't have to undergo the leadership practices of those replacing them. As far as my point goes, the qoute "reaping what you sow" bets suit this principal. Being in power, you are not a victim to the law you facilitate, and the legislation you pass. But it's an interesting concept to think that you may one day soon return to this. Term limits mean they know they are returning to the world they are creating, giving them more incentive to do good. I pass the argument back onto my opponent. 5. http://www.idea.int...6. http://www.jstor.org...7. http://www.usatoday.com...8. http://www.social-europe.eu...9. http://econintersect.com...10. http://www.europesworld.org...