Term limits are completely against what democracy stands for

POOR CONDUCTMy opponent has demonstrated very poor conduct. He has been unnecessarily rude and sarcastic. The following are some examples I've picked out:"You are telling me that the government isn't passing legislation, and is instead constantly focusing on being elected? How curious, yet if I check around, there were over 8 bills made into law on the day of December 19 2014 alone. 8 bills in one, single, day. I'm confused, I thought they were busy slandering eachother constantly?"I understand the point of this statement (which I will get to eventually), but I think we can all see that the point is not serviced by the sarcasm. Without actually being necessary to the point, the sarcasm is just an example of poor conduct, which I respectfully request the voters dock him points for."Well that's a very interesting scenario of the President you got there, however none of that would ever happen..."Ditto"By the way, 300 million people does not mean 300 million politically educated people."DittoMONOPOLY"So basically, what I mean to say is, if a national leader is making choices considered to be poor or hazardous, even without term limits, they are likely to lose that office."This conclusion is based on the idea fact that if Obama were to be up for election against Romney right now, he'd lose. This obviously disregards the fact that when it comes time for Obama to leave, his approval rating might be higher, meaning he'd win a hypothetical third term. This point isn't really central to the debate, however. What is central is the above quoted idea. Basically my opponent is countering the idea that incumbency provides too much of an advantage with his Obama fact. That is one instance, I would counter with multiple instances that contradict that. [3]There are 435 Representatives and 100 Senators, all without term limits[1][2]. While Obama might have lost a hypothetical third term, that does not refute the fact, represented here, that incumbency provides a huge advantage."Fresh ideas are not necessarily good ideas, what matters in democracy and overall is not if ideas are fresh, but whether they are good and beneficial."I think it reasonable to conclude that if a challenger with fresh ideas is elected, the people judge his ideas to be good. The opinion of the people being the bedrock of what justifies action in a democracy, a challenger with fresh ideas who is elected has had his ideas judged to be good by the standard of democracy. So it's not as if these fresh ideas are going to be bad. A stale idea is not necessarily a bad one, I agree. However, it is more likely to be detrimental, because as the world changes, we need people with ideas that have changed with it. People who have inhabited the world of politics for decades can often lose sight of the change in the world, and what it requires. This is defined in psychology as functional fixedness[4], where one gets stuck in a certain viewpoint, and loses problem solving efficiency as a result. I think we can all see how this is more likely to be a problem for career legislators as opposed to citizen legislators (that's just a term for politicians with term limits). Being in the same environment, with just about all the same people, can reduce creativity and induce functional fixedness."..a challenger may have also held other positions, campaigned in other elections, and established connections that may even more than match that of the incumbent."The key word there is may. An incumbent, with the time he or she has spent in the political world, winning multiple elections, forging alliances, etc, will undoubtedly have political capital. So you've got people who do have political capital versus people who might have political capital. We can see how that match-up might turn out, and we see how it does in the form of the US Congress' re-election rate."To deny the people the right to elect a leader if they so believe him fit for office, and to deny a just leader the right to hold office if the public so sees him fit, is truly anti-democratic."I agree. However, I have also provided some reasons why term limits are good, such as the breaking up of political monopoly, introduction of fresh ideas, and more I will reaffirm later in this round. My role in this debate is to negate my opponent's statement, that term limits are completely undemocratic. That means he must be right about everything. Clearly, he is right about some things, but not all, meaning I should get your vote.CAREER POLITICIANS"How curious, yet if I check around, there were over 8 bills made into law on the day of December 19 2014 alone."Picking one day out of a whole year can provide unrepresentative results. While the 113th Congress may have had that productive day, they were not very productive in general. They were the second least productive Congress in history, second only to the 112th Congress. This fits in with the idea I posited in my first round of argumentation: Congress is busy slandering each other and scoring political points to do anything meaningful for the country. Why? Because they're worried about their careers as politicians. And we should be worried about their careers as politicians, as case studies have shown that the longer a congressmen is in office, the more likely he/she is to act in a corrupt manner[5]."Legislating is a very complicated process, you can't expect yourself to get everything done in a few terms. It takes a long time to work towards a goal, which is one reason why term limits would only cause problems."My opponent never defined how long these term limits we'd be talking about were. To now bring up time as an issue is unfair to me. What if they had a 4 term limit? 8 years sounds like a decent amount of time to get something done. What if it was 2 term limits? 4 years? A little more questionable. But the time of term limits wasn't defined, so we can't really debate these points."On the negative side, in a final term of office, the representatives would not be concerned with public approval. This means there would be no reason for them to hold back on doing things the public would not approve of, and they would attempt to do so."A) These supposed rogue representatives would be held in check by their colleagues who are not as liberated as they.B) It's unlikely power-hungry people are going to run for a position they can only hold for a few years."Well that's a very interesting scenario of the President you got there, however none of that would ever happen. It's all unconstitutional.."Most of our Presidents have violated the Constitution, and all modern Presidents have[6]. You've got Obama's executive action on immigration, which goes beyond prosecutorial discretion and essentially into lawmaking[7]. You've got Abraham Lincoln and other wartime Presidents suspending free speech and horbeas corpus rights. You've got things like the new deal from FDR, which took an unconstitutional amount of control in the private sector[6]. All of these men were elected multiple times. FDR was elected four times."By the way, 300 million people does not mean 300 million politically educated people."No, but my point is that there's a ton of people in America, and there are bound to be tons of qualified candidates as a result.Sources:[1] http://www.house.gov...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.politifact.com...[4] http://psychology.about.com...[5] http://ourgeneration.org...[6] http://www.wsj.com...[7] http://www.washingtonpost.com...