Return to CreateDebate.commrmountain • Join this debate community

Mr. Mountain's Community


Debate Info

29
28
Yes No
Debate Score:57
Arguments:32
Total Votes:64
Ended:12/18/09
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (11)
 
 No (21)

Debate Creator

bmountain(424) pic



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

Should presidents be able to serve more than two terms? 4A

Yes

Side Score: 29
Winning Side!
VS.

No

Side Score: 28
4 points

It all depends on the president. If people are satisfied with the outcome of the presidents changes, then there should be no reason why he can't serve more than two terms. People like change and if the president is a well respected man among the nation, then he should be allowed to keep his place as the Chief Executive of the United States.

Side: yes
3 points

Simple, if they benefit the country in their first term, then they deserve a chance at a second term.

Side: yes
3 points

If a president has already served two terms and has done a great job, and if there was scarce possibility of them passing away in their next term, I believe that the American people should be able to vote for them in the next election. They should, however, be in a separate "re-election" party which takes away the possibility of them being re-elected only due to their party status. For example, if they were republican and won the republican nominee spot only due to their experience as president and then went on to win only because they are republican.

Side: yes
nj16(7) Disputed
2 points

Doing a "re-election" would be too much of a hassle. The re-election party won't represent everyones opinion.

Side: No
MandyH(15) Disputed
2 points

The word "great" is an opinion. I think you're forgetting that people and circumstances can change overtime, as in Bush's case. Giving someone the oppurtunity to be re-elected or gain more power, this person already one of the most powerful people in the world, is a dangerous idea. This is why we have the two-term rule in the first place.

Side: No
parrisj(2) Disputed
1 point

I dont understand the example. I also dont understand the re-election idea.

Side: No
stephanie(9) Disputed
1 point

This doesn't make sense. If he is in the "re-election" party and everyone liked him, why should he get to be in 2 parties when everyone else is not. When you said that he could be elected because of his experience of being president before, how is that fair to other people? They probably won't even get the opportunity to be president since everyone knows the most recent one and they know what he believes and what he can do.

Side: No
sophieH(21) Disputed
1 point

YOU MAKE NO SENSE (:

The whole :" For example, if they were republican..." statement, was run on, and left me hanging.

I didn't know where to go with that, and if I was indifferent to this subject, your statement didn't sway me to a certain side of "Yes" or "no". Kudos on giving me your opinion, and throwing in sources, and examples, but they didn't help me at all.

But hey! maybe that's 'cause I don't really understand this topic.

Side: No
Trevor(2) Disputed
1 point

I agree mostly. But I think that experience as a president should be a big part of that decision because it directly affects their choices in office.

Side: No
tamiyeb(9) Disputed
1 point

The president may have done a great job for the country at that time, but what if the term he is running for in the "re-election" party some major disaster happens in which he does not know how to react to the situation and our country begins to go under. Our governemnt needs change once in awhile. The president may die in the next term, but no one can officailly predict something like that. And there is always the possibilty that the new president is wiser, and does more good for our county than the other.

Side: No
richardt(3) Disputed
1 point

Your arguement feels like it could be longer. It lacks a concluding statement that wraps it all up. It could have been a better argument overall.

Side: No
danielle23(3) Disputed
1 point

If there was a "scarce possibility of them passing away in their next term", I'm pretty sure that the opposing party would win the election. The "re-election party" seems like an un-needed election party. We already have parties to choose a president from, why cant that person be put back into their original election party?

Side: No
NathanielY(4) Disputed
1 point

I feel as if we are left with a "to be continued..." statement at the end. The arguement doesn't feel as if its ended. Also the presidents re-election process seems as tho it wouldn't work because they may still have the same ideas as their starting party.

Side: No
ahmalsabag(4) Disputed
1 point

People are dumb. They think that if a president did good for two terms, they should vote for him again. That is why we limit the terms of the president. People don't know the technical reason for only serving two terms. It is because people need a taste of something else that could be better. I don't think there will be a scarce possibility of them being re-re-elected.

Side: No
JamesP(30) Disputed
1 point

If people don't know the reason for the two term rule, then why has nearly everyone here referenced that exact idea?

Side: yes
justinc(2) Disputed
1 point

If Americans voted for him/her, then how would putting them in a different category cause Americans not to vote for him/her, if Americans already voted for him/her twice.

Side: No
marcantera(10) Disputed
1 point

The "re-election" process sounds far too complicated. People like change and there should be an opportunity for there to be more variety of presidents to vote for.

Side: No
3 points

If a president is loved by the public enough to be elected more than two times he should be able to serve more than two times. Being elected more than two times may mean that you helped change the economy, win wars, lower crime rate, or help the general public. Presidents that win more than two times earn the right to serve more. Also if a president starts a war I believe that they should be able to stay in office long enough to finish it up to a certain point. The president should not be limited to two terms or less, because if the public wants a new president they can vote for a new president.

Side: yes
JamesP(30) Disputed
1 point

Just because a president is "loved by the public" doesn't mean that they are what's best for the country. Someone can be elected twice by only the philosophy of the lesser of two evils. Also, a president who has two terms under his belt has more of a chance at getting elected than someone with no experience at all.

Side: No
3 points

Sure the "Mr. Presidents" of all time, should give others a chance to be president at most, every eight years, but what if the President who was in his final stages of being President in his second term, was the best that this nation was ever going to get? Would you just rip somebody from their so called "throne" even if they were at their peak in the Presidential career? That'd be a little tumultuous, and uncivil. If they were to get out of hand, then the checks and balances system used in the government, could be taken into consideration, to see if the President is recieving all, or most of the power. And if that didn't work, the people could concede this matter, and the President would now be what the founders of our America were abstaining from; A tyrranical leader. The President should be allowed as many terms, if good enough to win all elections, and if he/she is under control.

Side: yes
3 points

In our countries past, we have had good presidents, and bad. The American people need a leader who they identify strongly with, and know to the core. It is dificult to get to know a new president every four to eight years because our views of people are based on their actions. We cant be sure that a new president will not become corrupt with power and make faulty decisions. The Americans themselves should be allowed to vote for who they want in the presidency, especialy if they have seen the pesident in office for eight years and still agree with his decisions.

Side: yes
2 points

Presidents should be able to serve more than two terms because if they enhanced the chances of our country being better and having more advanced economy then thats good.if they didn't meet their terms and was not really a persident worth voting for, then people will know better not to vote for them again.

Side: yes
2 points

If our president has the ability to lead our country while serving more than two terms, then he/she deserves the opportunity to do so. If our president has positively benefitted our country in ways such as politics, war, health care, and economy, then why not give him/her more years of forming the USA into a stronger and more advanced nation.

Side: yes
2 points

Presidents who serve more than two terms would have been able to earn that third or fourth term through improvements of their country. Public opinion would be able to dictate whether that president is capable of running another successful term. One could argue that four years is a long time, but we take that risk everytime we vote ANY president into office. Franklin Roosevelt served more than two terms. We trusted him enough to allow him a third term. He has proven to us more than worthy.

Side: yes
1 point

The fact that a president should be able to serve more than two terms is based on the president himself. If the people find him as a capable leader for the country than they should have the right to chose the person who they see fit to lead. Nothing should be limited because of rules and restrictions.

Side: yes
3 points

I think the ida of a president serving more than two terms is absurd, George Washington first stated this policy after leaving office after his second term. He felt the president should always relate to his people because he is chosen by his people. He felt that if a president was left in office and had that much power for that much longer he would lose that connection with that common person and lead to corruption of his power. I fully agree with his idea on this. The president needs to have that connection with his people because he makes the decisions for the common people. If a leader is left in a office with that much power for too long he loses that connection and he tends to start making decisions for his personal gain not for his people. Think of all the nations with the emperors and kings and dictators who ruled for as long as possible, their government was always filled with corruption. The became power hungry, greedy and corrupt. America is lucky to be probaby one of the least corrupt nations in the world because we are able to have leaders with a connection with the common person.

Side: No
2 points

George Washington served two terms as President then backed down. He realized that if he kept running for office, eventually he would have a little too much power or say in government. Even good men can't handle that much power. His stepping down was the best thing he could have done for this country. While some presidents, like Franklin Delano Roosevelt, served for more than two terms, and some were absolutely amazing for our country, Washington's example showed us that power is not to be taken for granted or abused.

It's like that guy on Jeopardy a few years ago. He kept winning and winning, and eventually, though everyone knew he was great at the game, it got to be a bit too much for everyone to handle. If one person is in charge for too long, their single opinions, though great at first, may eventually destroy our government.

Side: No
1 point

They shouldn't be able to serve more than two terms because it gives other people opportunites to have their say in what our country should and shouldn't do. It changes it up and gives us a different variety of ideas instead of having the same president that we know won't make a difference. What if the president wasn't right to be our leader, we need someone strong and brilliant to lead us.

Side: No
1 point

Presidents should not be able to serve more than two consecutive terms becuase our country's government needs change in it once in awhile. Maybe, the country's president does well for our country and everything is going fine, then two terms is just enough. He could always run for office again in a couple of terms, but after his first two terms we need some diversity. For instance, the new president could be the president who does wonders for our country. George Washington said that a president can only serve in office for two consecutive terms, he knew what he was talking about and we should respect his decision and thouhgt.

Side: No
1 point

No because for a president to be able to serve more than two terms is excessive as already needed. If more than two terms, it can lead to have a lack of advancement for our country. Serving for more than two terms seems long and tedious. Sometimes we need something different and by letting a president serve more than needed and have no improvements, like Bush, the chances of achievements and success can slip away.

Side: No
1 point

Presidents are what keep America running. We as citizens can think we have the greatest president (ie. Obama), but in reality we don't know what is great until we experience change. When you go to a resteraunt and you order something that you enjoy, you are most likely going to order the same thing everythime you go to that resteraunt, but if you try something new, you might like it more than what you previously enjoyed eating. I usually order the same thing twice and the third time I go I order something different thus giving me variety. Variety is what we need in America. The first term represents change and the second term represnts the continuing of greatness. To provide the president with a 3rd term, we are giving them an opportunity to change America in to their very own world. Then when we get a new president, it is harder to change into what he wants America to be like even if he really is the better president. More power can lead to tyrany as well.

Side: No
0 points

Presidents shouldn't be able to because they will have too much power over the government, which wouldn't be like a democracy. That's why we created "checks and balances," so that no one branch doesn't have more power than the other. If a president did serve more that two terms, than it can turn into a situation where he/she would want full control of the government. If the president did do a good job as fulfilling his duties as the president then voters should pick the next president who has the same ideas as the first president.

Side: No