This House opposes term limits for elected Heads of State

As requested, I have waited as long as I possibly can. There are 7 hours left, but I should probably get this in before I go to sleep, so as not to forfeit accidentally.OrangeMayhem's Arguments1. Experienced hands steady the shipI am not going to outright deny that experience is helpful. My point will be that there are also drawbacks to experience, however. Experience would normally help, when facing a recurring issue, that has happened before. The individual with experience, has learned that the one way they have tried seems to have for the most part worked. But experience doesn't always mean that the issue dealt with was resolved soundly. It might mean that the individual has learned how to re-act in the situation, and keep a calm and steady demeanor when dealing with said issue. The drawback with this is, that doing things the same way, isn't always beneficial. I say beneficial, meaning that there is possibly a better way to achieve the same good. Even those experienced, had do physically try something new, in order to attain such experience. This is accomplished by noticing what isn't working with the previous monarch, and reforming and implementing the individuals own ideas to attain a better solution.Trying something new forces you to grow. We don't ever grow from taking action we've always taken (the growth that enabled us to be able to take it has already occurred). Growth seems to require we take new actionfirst, whether it's adopting a new attitude or a new way of thinking, or literally taking new action. Thrusting yourself into new situations and leaving yourself there alone, so to speak, often forces beneficial change. A spirit of constant self-challenge keeps you humble and open to new ideas that very well may be better than the ones you currently hold dear (this happens to me all the time). (1)Basically, experience often doesn't beget new ideas. There has been multiple beneficial revisions and changes throughout history, that one experienced politician may be unwilling to try. New minds throughout politics, have strongly benefited things like; The Labours Party Clause IV, The great Reform act of 1832, The 10th amendment, etc.Newer politicians will be more open to trying newer things through their own naivety. Experienced politicians will see things as dangerous, or will be more unwilling to reform their own ideas, which is harmful to the development of their nations.2. They are a complete anomaly within a free electoral systemMy opponent's analyzation on the United States split political system, is something I agree with. This, though, is probably why an anomaly in which you described would never make it into a free electoral system,as evidenced by the fact that we haven't had anything other than democratic and republic presidents sine 1857. (2) The United States a whole is too split to probably ever be okay with all of the thoughts and ideals one president could bring to the table. But if they ever were to, how exactly do we know they would able to continue to make the right decisions throughout their years? As society changes, and new political issues are constantly being raised, a presidents thoughts and ideals will need to conform as well. New ways of thinking, and intelligent minds will be eager to approach such issues with more clarity than a single monarch would, after years of being influenced by his static environment. It is unlikely that a large influx of people would vote for a madman who fits your description, though. And if they did, it certainly meets the description of what a democracy really is, meaning that somehow, this may have been a good option. But keeping a good president in office, disallows the chances for a better one to come along.3. When it's time to go, people generally doI don't contest that if a "bad leader" is decided on, they will be forced out of office. This would be true for any democracy preventing dictatorship. But essentially there is no need to go through the political process of booting prime ministers, and electing new ones so often, with a term limit. There is a constant cycle of eager new politicians, ready to try their ideas and use their methods to better their society. Older politicians may be run down, or tethered. The stream of ideas isn't so readily available, as in previous years, most of it has been used or tried. That's in part, probably why the politicians you described would stand down, or get voted out. The point is, while their are other outstanding benefits to term limits, it complicates and confuses to process when situations like the one's you noted actually occur. Reduce the potential for harms altogether, by cycling new candidates. Rockets Arguments1. Term Limits are a fail safe “Without term limits every man in power becomes a ravenous beast of prey”- John AdamsLet me quote my opponent briefly: "It almost appears not to trust the people to like their own President by insisting that a new one be elected at least every 8 years"The issue isn't that we do not trust the people to like the president; the issue is that we can't trust the president for too long of a term. "Term Limits can help break the cycle of corruption in Congress. Case studies show that the longer an individual stays in office, the more likely they are to stop serving the public and begin serving their own interests." (3)While the above may not be true for every single person in power, such things cannot be trusted. A term limit is a fail safe to ensure that a politician cannot continue to make legislation with the potential to harm their own state, or fail to properly utilize resources. The purpose of a democracy, is to involve the people of the united states. Preventing any possibility of too much power, is essential in any case of trying to prevent this.If you have ever read the book "Animal Farm" by George Orwell, the book makes an important point pertaining to the above. Whilst someone may have the intention of good, power and greed can easily over take someone. In the political saddle this can be very dangerous as you hold the well being over the people in your state or country. (4)Preventing such tyranny in any form, is better in general.2. Consequential reasoningTerm Limits will force politicians to think about the impact of their legislation because they will be returning to their communities shortly to live under the laws they enacted. (3)This isn't as impacting as it is pre-election, but how can someone truly know the needs of their citizens, if they haven't themselves been living it?After sitting in the golden chair for too long, it can be easy to lose sight of these aspects of living. New political candidates are more eager and willing to commit change, as per living in the era their predecessors have put them in. These presidents want to make a difference based on what they've lived, seen, and faced with in their own lives. Cycling new individuals like this constantly is important. ConclusionThe important thing about term limits, is that it cycles in new ideas. It is more form fitting to a democracy as well. The longer length of a term, the more chance there is of narrow minded individuals, running a static presidency. New ideas and are pertinent to a strong political system, and over coming new challenges as well as old ones. Preventing the overwhelm of power is all too important in a working democracy.I feel I have made a strong case for Term Limits being superior to the lack of one, for all of the reasons above. I look forward to the responding arguments from my opponent, and wish him luck throughout the remainder of this debate!1. http://www.psychologytoday.com...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...3. http://ourgeneration.org...4. http://www.sparknotes.com...