The XXII amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be repealed.

Pro is challenging the status quo, meaning that the burden falls on Pro to show why we should change the current Constitution by repealing the 22nd Amendment. For Pro to win, he must overcome any and all challenges presented here in this debate. ArgumentsI. The 22nd Amendment Exists for our own Protection. According to DDO's 'Big Issues' summary, "term limits ensure a wider range of perspectives in government and prevent power from being consolidated in one person, which could easily happen due to the popularity or privilege of a particular individual." [1] What this essentially means is two things: 1) Term limits ensure that elected public officials cannot remain in power indefinitely. 2) Term limits offer an automatic check on consolidation of power.When Colonial America was getting started we were constantly abused by an English King who forced such high taxes on basic goods that we were unable to even afford them. After our Declaration of Independence, we made sure to never suffer the fate that we fought so hard to escape from. A fate of tyranny, suffering, destitution, and famine, all because of one man's corrupt and greedy ways. Part of our effort to never allow such a thing to happen again came in the form of our 22nd Amendment. One that ensures that we never allow a single individual to grow so powerful that they'd actually be able to negatively affect our ability to live. By repealing such protections, we run the risk of facing the same hardships that our ancestors fought so hard to break free from. There's no good reason to believe that it won't ever happen again, especially with the fact that history truly does repeat itself. [2] We must remember that it was put in place to protect us, and with a staggering 81% support for the amendment here on DDO, I believe it's clear that we still wish to avoid such a fate. II. Article V. of the U.S. Constitution I would like to bring to the audiences attention Article V of the Constitution - which describes the process whereby the Constitution may be altered. [3] What this means is that even our amendments aren't set in stone, and such a fact creates an opportunity for me to raise a counter-plan to Pros position. You see, Pro wishes to repeal the amendment, yet fails to realize that he's totally bypassing the opportunity to simply "amend" the amendment. Thus, my counter-plan would be to allow us first to amend the amendment before actually taking the extreme route of totally repealing it. We have every right to amend the amendment to allow a truly great president to remain in office for a third term. So, why should we automatically jump to a position of repealing the amendment altogether when we can simply amend it should the need truly arise?To be fair, 39% of democrats want Obama to run for a 3rd term. [4] However, after crunching the numbers, democrats only make up 41% of our population [5], and only 39% of them actually want him to have a 3rd term. So: 320,090,857 people * .41 = 131,237,251 * .39 = 51,182,528.51,182,528 / 320,090,857 = rounds up to 16% of the population. So, in reality, less than 16% of the population actually want Obama to serve another term. In the event that a president comes along who truly has a majority support from the public for a 3rd term, then there is no reason why we can't simply amend the amendment, rather than repealing it fully. Thus, I firmly believe that my counter-plan is a better alternative than Pros position. In Conlusion, I have presented both a counter-argument and a counter-plan. I believe the former shows the potential harms of Pro's position, and the latter reflects a more reasonable solution. Thank you.Sources [1] http://www.debate.org...[2] http://historum.com...[3] http://www.archives.gov...[4] https://today.yougov.com...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...