Presidential Term Limits (US)

Thanks PatriotPerson for instigating this debate.Contentions:C1: Redundant/limits: The XXII Amendment’s function is largely redundant. Natural “Term limits” exist in a Democratic Republic like the U.S. They are called elections. Setting a term limit mitigates the natural function of elections. The people should have the power to determine if a politician has served enough terms as President. If the people feel this is the case. They could simple vote that politician out of office. This leaves the only unique function of this amendment to limit the choice of the people. I contend that the people should retain the sovereignty to decide when a politician is not suitable for the office of President through voting.C2: The Best Person for the job:The Constitution of the United States lays the duties of the executive branch of government on a single person, the President of the United States of America. Being President of the United States requires incredible skill and poise. Because of the high level of competence required of the office it is obvious that the people of the United States would want the best most qualified person available to fill this position. When Americans weigh who to vote into this office it is often discussed who is “qualified.” Not surprising, often when people will not vote for a particular candidate, the reason given is lack of experience. It is not hard to understand why. A President who has experience is likely to be able to manage the tasks required better than one who has little or no experience. Imagine yourself a hiring manager and you are looking for an employee. In front of you a stack of resumes’. Are you going to look through and remove from consideration any and all candidates that have experience? Of course not!? If anything, experience is a positive impact on who may be chosen. Before even allowing the American people to consider who the best person for the office may be, the XXII Amendment of the United States Constitution does just that. It removes from consideration those with the most experience. This is clearly foolish.Conclusion of Contentions: The repeal of the XXII amendment would keep experienced candidates in consideration, allow our Democratic Republic to function as intended via elections, and allow Americans to decide for themselves. Therefore, the XXII Amendment should be repealed.Rebuttals: Pro says “Con must argue that it is illogical to have a term limit and that the 22nd Amendment should be repealed.” I have shown clearly the harm term limits pose to the people’s sovereignty and have shown term limits illogical as it removes people solely for being experienced. Pro has argued that there exists a consensus amongst US citizens. He confesses that his source is not directly related to the resolution saying “Though this poll is asking about Congress and Senate members, this same agreement can be seen for any federal individual. Most US citizens don't want a politician's service to be limitless, so why wouldn't they feel the same for the president?” Arguing “why wouldn’t they feel the same for the president” is not conclusive evidence in support of the resolution.Pro says “People would get tired of a person being in office for too long, and "being tired of a leader" is not a constitutional reason to impeach someone.” It is however a reason to not vote for them… term limits are not necessary to address the concern raised here by pro. It also is worth noting in our history that the XXII Amendment was adopted in 1951. Only one President during the first 175 years ever served more than 2 terms. Summary of rebuttals:Pro has offered support for the resolution with two arguments. 1: Consensus: This is negated as the consensus demonstrated is not referencing the office of president. 2: Fatigue: this is negated as people can vote for a different president, term limits are not needed to prevent unwanted reelections. Conclusion of Round Two:Pro’s case is negated. I have present two contentions. Thus far the resolution is negated.