Return to CreateDebate.comhunter8e • Join this debate community

Hunter 8E


Debate Info

14
17
Yes, they should be allowed No, they shouldn't be allowed
Debate Score:31
Arguments:24
Total Votes:43
Ended:06/02/18
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, they should be allowed (13)
 
 No, they shouldn't be allowed (9)

Debate Creator

ryan712(226) pic



This debate has ended. You can no longer add arguments or vote in this debate.

Topic #6: Should Presidents be allowed to serve longer than two terms?

Yes, they should be allowed

Side Score: 14
VS.

No, they shouldn't be allowed

Side Score: 17
Winning Side!
0 points

Opening Statement: We believe presidents should be allowed to serve longer than two terms in office since they will be shown more respect, and they will have more time to enhance the nation.

Side: Yes, they should be allowed
AliQazzaz Disputed
2 points

Over time, presidents running for 2 terms start making illegal decisions because of the power & money they are given as a president. As an example, when Obama was president of America, he made an illegal decision to start DACA. It was even stated by Obama that he did not have the right to do it.

Supporting Evidence: Obama Making illegal choices (www.debate.org)
Side: No, they shouldn't be allowed
2 points

The 22nd amendment prevents American people and the Constitution from being abused by a president for life. The term restriction for the presidency results in a safer nation overall.

Side: No, they shouldn't be allowed
EmmaSoph132(6) Disputed
-1 points

Your link didn't take me to your source. You have nothing currently backing up your argument.

Side: Yes, they should be allowed
Hardik24(2) Disputed
2 points

Running a nation is stressful, exhausting and even dangerous. No one who has served for two terms should want to return for a third. In fact, the desire for a third term is a signal of greed for power (1).

Supporting Evidence: Running a nation for long leads to problems (www.mlive.com)
Side: No, they shouldn't be allowed
0 points

Presidents should be allowed to stay longer than two terms, since if the American public wants the president to stay, then the president should stay. A true democracy is choosing a leader that the people want. Why limit a leader to only two terms if the leader is doing great economically and politically? Also, this is potentially preventing the American public from getting the president they want. For example, On November 7, 1944, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected to an unprecedented fourth term in office, since the American public really liked the way he controlled the country. The people who say that presidents would show signs of corruption in the election after serving for 2 terms should know that presidents were allowed to serve more than two terms before Harry Truman, and there was no corruption in the elections. People who say that president should not be able to serve for more than 2 terms also say that 8 years is long enough, but what if those 8 years were the best years economically and politically? Lastly and simply, once the current president starts to make mistakes or a better candidate comes around, then the president won't be re-elected, and a new president will be selected. Another example of a long-serving and well-respected leader would be Abdullah II, the king of Jordan. He administered the overhauling of Jordan's military, which enabled Jordan to maintain a strategic distance from the viciousness that tormented its neighbors. Abdullah likewise advanced financial and social change, presenting free-showcase approaches and activities to enhance the nation. He still serves as the leader of Jordan today.

https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/harry-truman

http://www.toptenz.net/10-surprisingly-benevolent-dictators.php

Supporting Evidence: FDR Wins Unprecedented Fourth Term (www.history.com)
Side: Yes, they should be allowed
Hardik24(2) Disputed
2 points

The longer a person remains in a position of power the more likely that person is to show corruption signs and use manipulation and fraud to keep that power. Power to some people like Obama hurts the country in all ways. This country was based on values and we have lost that in the teachings of or rather the lack of teachings of American history in our schools. History repeats itself if not taught to those that do not know.

Supporting Evidence: Why Shouldn't presidents be limited to 2 terms (www.lubbockonline.com)
Side: No, they shouldn't be allowed
1 point

America was specifically made not to have a dictatorship or monarchy like the Great Britain. They did not want to have the country ruled by one single ruler for too many years to the point that the leader has turned the country from a democracy to a dictatorship by using violence & punishments to use their citizens. As an example, North Korea has had each of they're leaders staying in office for usually over 8 years. Their past ruler, Kim Jong Il, was in office for 17 years

https://vittana.org/11-term-limits-for-congress-pros-and-cons

Supporting Evidence: Should we extend the 22nd amendment (www.debate.org)
Side: Yes, they should be allowed
AliQazzaz Clarified
1 point

America was specifically made not to have a dictatorship or monarchy like the Great Britain. They did not want to have the country ruled by one single ruler for too many years to the point that the leader has turned the country from a democracy to a dictatorship by using violence & punishments to use their citizens. As an example, North Korea has had each of they're leaders staying in office for usually over 8 years. Their past ruler, Kim Jong Il, was in office for 17 years. Of course there were many cases in which this has happened, but Almost all dictatorships do lead to a president using punishments and power to control his country

https://vittana.org/11-term-limits-for-congress-pros-and-cons

Supporting Evidence: Supporting Evidence: Should we extend the 22nd amendment (www.debate.org)
Side: Yes, they should be allowed
0 points

Argument #2: Franklin D. Roosevelt got the US through many hardships and decisions to became one of the most known and influential presidents. He was elected for 4 terms because he was able to run the government through World War II and the Great Depression. If a president is able to serve more than 2 terms in office, they will be able to do more because they have more time to fully put laws and bills into act to help the people to their best ability.

Supporting Evidence: FDR wins 4th term (www.history.com)
Side: Yes, they should be allowed
1 point

Also, if a president chooses to serve more than 2 terms, they would have already gotten familiar with the American public and would know what to implement next to make the citizens happy. For example, as Emma said, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was very well respected due to his achievements, and because of how loved he was by the American public. However, he had accomplished some of these achievements after two terms, due to the fact that he already got familiar with the American public in those two terms. Also, Franklin D Roosevelt was a commander in chief during World War II.

Supporting Evidence: Franklin D. Roosevelt Biography (www.biography.com)
Side: Yes, they should be allowed
0 points

Closing Statement: Presidents should be allowed to serve more than 2 terms in office to support the peoples democratic right due to the examples we have provided.

Side: Yes, they should be allowed
2 points

Opening Statement:

The United States of America was built with democracy, vibrant electoral system, a strong rule-of-law tradition, & a wide array of other civil liberties. Without democracy, this will lead to allegations of corruption, rise of a dictatorship, and political accountability. Even though having a longer presidential time limit can provide more change to the country and meet all the points that they argued during they're presidential election, term limits should be imposed for presidents. New blood & fresh ideas will keep this country moving in a positive direction.

Side: No, they shouldn't be allowed
2 points

Argument #2-It is believed that people with too much power for too long become corrupt(1). One example that supports my claim is of president Paul Biya who is the longest serving leader in the world as a president or prime minister. His 42 years of service have been marked as fraud and human right abuses.He has been criticized as one of the world's worst dictators. His long term presidency lead to a lot of corruption and frauds. He forced on people to vote for him throughout the years to get majority of votes. (2) http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-13146032

Supporting Evidence: Long term presidency can lead to leaders like Paul Biya (learningenglish.voanews.com)
Side: No, they shouldn't be allowed
1 point

When a president is in office for a longer amount of time, they start to shift to either communism or fascism. As an example, Italy had Benito Mussolini as the prime minister from 1922 to 1943. Benito was in office for more than 20 years & turned italy into a fascist country

Supporting Evidence: Should the 22nd amendment be extended (www.debate.org)
Side: No, they shouldn't be allowed
RobertA(7) Disputed
0 points

This is true, however, there are other long-serving presidents which are very well respected and loved by the citizens of the nation. Since as I said before, Abdullah II, ruling Jordan for around 20 years, is showing no signs of corruption throughout his whole leadership. This is also stating that there can be long-serving presidents which are not considered dictators but instead considered as very well respected presidents by many.

Supporting Evidence: King Abdullah II of Jordan - Biography (www.hellomagazine.com)
Side: Yes, they should be allowed
AliQazzaz Clarified
1 point

As an example, if there were 5 presidents in the span of about 30 years, the country will have many presidents to help their problems. But if there were 2 presidents within the span of 30 years, there could be a possibility that they wont be able to help their country with their own ideas. This shows that if we have more presidents, we could solve the problem faster

Side: Yes, they should be allowed
2 points

To support the 26th amendment, when more elections are being held. the citizens of America will psychologically cause them to he a higher chance to actually vote. This helps america because when there are more votes, America will have a better chance to see what the majority of the country wants. Citizens will want to vote if the vote is meaningful & can make a difference to they're country. When they are given more of a chance to vote, it would be more probable that they would

https://www.fordfoundation.org/ideas/equals-change-blog/posts/how-to-encourage-better-and-more-meaningful-political-participation-in-the-us/

Supporting Evidence: How to get people to vote (www.fordfoundation.org)
Side: No, they shouldn't be allowed
EmmaSoph132(6) Disputed
0 points

Your argument is based on the 26th amendment, but this debate is on the 22nd amendment. Citizens have the choice to vote and if they don't want to vote, they do not have to. However, if they do vote and they vote for the president for a 3 term, then you can see that they want the president for more than 2 terms because they like how they run the government.

Supporting Evidence: 22nd amendment (sites.coloradocollege.edu)
Side: Yes, they should be allowed
RobertA(7) Disputed
0 points

I think what you are trying to say is that presidents start to lack ideas after two terms of serving. However, this is not true, since when a president is in office for a longer amount of time, they have more time and can make a more obvious and important change to the US. An example of this is that Franklin Delano Roosevelt, one of America's few presidents that were in office for more than 8 years, exactly 4 terms, ended up ending world war II & the Depression era. These are very important and difficult achievements to have achieved withing two terms of serving.

Side: Yes, they should be allowed
2 points

Looking at the 22nd amendment and cases in which long-term presidency lead to frauds and corruption, we conclude that presidency for more than 2 terms is a sign of greed for power which can lead to the US constitution being abused.

Side: No, they shouldn't be allowed