Should presidents be allowed more than two terms? 2nd
Yes
Side Score: 29
Winning Side! |
 |
No
Side Score: 27
|
|
|
|
|
Presidents should only be allowed more than two terms if our country's republic retains its basic priciples; that is, only if the election of these presidents is dependent on the impressions and opinions of the people, the voters. I see no issue with allowing more than two terms as long as other candidates are still able to oppose the person currently in office who is attempting to run again. It is no different from a president running for his second term - the other candidate can still conceivably be elected over the current president, especially if he is truly more experienced or qualified to handle the country at that time. It is possible that the current president will be elected over a more adequate candidate, but this happens in the two-term system as well. In addition, the possibility of more than two terms will allow exceptional presidents to extend their presidency and continue to aid the country in ways that other leaders possibly could not. Side: yes
I don't think there should be a time limit on how long the president should rule. If the president is good enough to be eleceted for 3 straight terms in a row, I say why not? If the president got started on some big project to help our country and its economy that would take a litle over 8 years to complete, is it really fair to let someone else try and finish off the great deed that the original had began before him. If we as a country think one man or woman is good enough to be president for more than 2 terms, then they should be allowed to rule for as long as we keep them in that spot. Side: yes
I like how you started that presidents shouldn't have limit to their ruling. I do agree with what you say, but you seemed to repeat somehow. You kept going on about IF the president has positive energy towards the country. You could have mentioned what could happen if there's a bad president in office. Mix things up a little bit and make things flow to another point once in a while. Side: No
Even though this president might be a good one, people are still gonna be against him. I don't think that these people would like to have the same president for more than two years, they want their party's president to win an election. Maybe they can elect a president that has the same views as the president before him. It's just good to have a change after a while. Side: No
I do think your argument has a good point, but I would have liked to see more elaboration intead of just one example. I understand exactly what point your trying to get across, but there is no need to ask a question like "...I say why not?" if the side of your argument is already apparent. There is one place that does need a question mark(if you had originally intened to ask a question). "...is it really fair to let someone else try and finish off the great deed that the orininal had began before him. " Side: No
If someone else is able to "finish off the great deed" that the original leader has set, then why shouldn't they? A new person in office after even the greatest ruler's two terms could bring fresh ideas and motivation to the table. New potential presidents should be introduced regularly for the American people to take in all of their options for a leader and a future. The current president's ideas could be great, but there could easily be someone out there with better ideas that isn't being heard because the country is so closed-minded and centered around this one person leading for so long. It's also very likely that the president will crack under such constant stress and pressure and need someone to take their place. Side: No
If a president got started on some big project to help out countrty and its economy that would take over 8 years to complete, why doesn't he/she pass that along to the next president in office and ultimately end up following the law that a president should only be allowed two terms. Side: No
Presidents should be able to have more than two terms. Once a president, people can decide if they want to keep him in office or not. If his ways of leading are exceptional and for the better, keeping him in office might be good for the country. It all depends on the president, whether his effect on the country is positive or negative. Either way, he can always be voted off. Side: No
Presidents should be allowed to serve more than two terms. In the past, only a few bold men attempted to serve more than two terms. One example would be when Franklin Roosevelt was in office. Roosevelt served four terms and brought positive impacts to the country during his time in office. He was a leader during a crucial time. A sudden change in presidency might have caused distress to the millions of Americans at the time. If Obama's stimulus plan helps years after he serves his two terms, then we shouldn't limit his time. If Obama was given more terms, he could create even greater changes for our country. I believe that if a good leader is in charge of our country then there is no reason to limit their years in office. Side: yes
If the president is question was able to effectively handle all political, economic and social crises, then yes, he/she should be allowed to run for president again. Presidents of the past have run for and/or won third elections, and they were most welcome in the oval office. However, there is danger to this. If one president was completely impotent and inadequate to handle this job a first time, why let him run three times? Think about for whom the ballot is cast first. Third time's a charm! Side: yes
People in opposition to this statement would claim that if an inefficient president was to serve more than two terms, the country would suffer under his term. However, that is what elections are for. The general people wouldn't vote for a useless president. If a president bolstered America's economy or pulled it through difficult times, the people would want him to continue his role as president, even past his two terms. Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected four times during the time of the Great Depression. He was elected because he proved his ability as a leader and the American people trusted him. Just because presidents are allowed more than two terms does not necessarily mean he will. If a president becomes corrupted within his extended term, the U.S. Constitution gives the right of impeachment as well. Despite George Washington setting the tradition of two terms, if the president is a strong, able leader that America supports, he should be able to serve more than two terms. Side: yes
I believe presidents should be allowed more than two terms because if someone is doing a very nice job at being a president then that person should be able to serve as president for however long they can.Why put a time limit on them if they are helping our country out and making positive changes in our lives. If the president was not doing a good job then the people in America would not keep electing him. Side: yes
A president should be allowed more than two terms if the public votes for them to remain in office. If the country believes their president has the mindset, motivation, fresh ideas and strength to continue moving the country forward in a positive way, then they should be able to reelect that person for as long as they see fit. Elections are in place to determine who citizens believe will lead our country in the best possible way. If Americans support what a person is accomplishing during his or her presidency, then they should be able to run in another election and serve a third term or more to continue to carry out their plans and their supported, respected and trusted leadership. Side: yes
If presidents are effective and contribute to change in America, then they should be allowed for more than two terms. If they don't do anything in their served terms, then it would be a waste of time to have the same person in office, again. But yes, if they are productive, then by all means, do America a favor and serve for a third term. Side: yes
Despite the fact that few of the past American presidents were often ridiculed or hated, many were good leaders. Why vote in a new man or woman if not necessary? The way I see it, presidents should be allowed to serve for an amount of time determined by popular sovereinty. Sure, there are some of those who we may not believe to be the most wonderful leader for our Country, but in this case, I believe the pros outweigh the cons. If a promblem arises, there's always impeachment or the chance that president will resign. What if some great leader happens to be elected? Surely the people of a nation would want he or she to serve for much longer than two years. Side: yes
Most presidents are good at what they do, or else the people wouldn't have voted for them, but sometimes one term is enough. In other cases, a person with that much authority is so good at what they do, that there's no reason to substitute them with a rookie who may or may not do as well of a job. We the people will have the power to decide this, we are the ones that are most affected, we are the ones that have a say in the matter, and we are the ones that can change the future of this country. So I think we should also be able to decide when it's time to get a new president. Side: No
1
point
If a president does a great job while serving during his two terms he should be allowed more time. I think as citizens we should extend the time depending on the votes of the people. If the people vote no then the presidents' terms will end and if the people vote yes his/her time will be extended. Side: yes
1
point
My opinion on the matter is that something like this should be left for the people to decide. I think that if a president is a good enough leader, he should be allowed to do so. But this raises a question; how can we trust this president? Very few actually know the president, and their votes don't really matter in the long run. I mean, what we elected this president for a third term and he was a maniacal dictator who wanted nothing but power? What this "third term president" destroyed our government? What if this president was the next Adolf Hitler? Overall, I think the benefits outweigh the risks. If the people want this "third term president" to continue to lead the country, it has to be for a reason. Side: yes
If a president is a good one, then he deserves to serve longer than two terms. We should not have to worry about a bad president being in office for too long because no one will vote for him the next time or no one would have voted for them in the first place. Some people may complain about a president being in office for too long, but the majority of America would have voted for him/her. Side: yes
I believe that presidents should be allowed to serve more than two terms but less than four. President Franklin D Roosevelt was to only president to serve four terms but they were not full terms. He died in office during his last term. Thinking about it, each term is four years long. If somebody serves two terms, that is eight years. If a person serves three terms, that is twelve years. The average life span of the American citizen is about 78 years. If you serve 3 terms, you spent about 15% of your life in office. You have to be atleast 35 years old to even e considered to run for office. That means 44% of your life is gone already and you will add another 15% to actually running a country. In turn, you on have 41% of your life to enjoy. Also, in addition to the time and effort, you could not possibly imagine the stress that is not mentioned on the job application. Side: No
You said something about the fact that there is alot of time, effort and stress involved in being president. What happens if the current president serves more then two terms (maybe three or four), and suddenyl falls under the pressue? What happens if it was during a time of war or economical failure? The country would be left without a "leader", and would have to put their faith and trust into someone they might not even know all that well up to date. Side: No
Although the statistics help provide a good argument as to why a person should run less than four terms, I think it's more important that this President is only in office because they want to be. This president is dedicating their time and effort into our Country because this is what they enjoy. It may not be a peaceful life and it may have an enormous amount of stress but in the end, this is what the President enjoys. Roosevelt may have died during his last term but he didn't die upset that he dedicated so much of his life as a President. Side: No
It seems as if you are arguing against the statement. You state that presidents should be allowed more than two, but less than four. While you give many good reasons and statistics of why a president shouldn't serve more than four, you give no support or evidence as to why a president should be able to serve three. Any candidate for a president should know the "stress that is not mentioned on the job application" from past presidents. Everyone knows that being a president is difficult. And perhaps, a president wants to spend his life leading his country. Side: No
First of all, what's with all the number sense? I couldn't decide if you were trying to to honor them by saying how much of their life they give up to run the country, or if the person in question stupid for giving up "15%" of their life. The argument skips a lot, and it does not develop well. So what about stress? Does any job not include that? Also, why did you mention Roosevelt's incomplete terms? Are you implying he was incompetent, or maybe it was just a flash of intellect? Side: No
|
It is certainly true that some presidents have done great deeds for our nation, like Franklin D. Roosevelt and his new deal, but there are still those presidents that have harmed our nation even more. A president that runs for two terms has the opportunity to help the nation for eight years, so they should be able to do what they deemed necessary during that time. After the two terms a new person should come into office, so new ideas can come in as well. A person that has resently come into office has a better understanding of what is going on in with the people since they were just with them and not in the white house. Side: No
I feel that the president should stay limited to two terms during his presidency. As we all know, there are two major political parties in our country, the democrats and the republicans. If a president were to be elected to more than two terms, the people of the opposing party would raise havoc and everything would be a mess. There would probably be a lot of strikes and many angry people. Americans like change and if we had the same president consecutively, there wouldn't be that much change. His ideas toward world order would be geared toward the same causes and people would eventually get tired of them. Side: No
Two terms of presidency means much to the U.S. It means eight years for presidents like Bush to put our family members, friends, and others we care about into devastating war, eight years for Obama to fix and rebuild our economy, eight years late John F. Kennedy could've wisely used to prepare our country into years of turmoil. Although all three of these presidents have worked under tough pressure, Americans can't say that there will or won't be better after the current president. In eight years, too much could've changed, and then we'll need a new president to take over, or the current president could be doing such a stable job of keeping our economy strong that we'd want him/her to stay for longer, but in most cases, a new president means new change, and change always has the possibility for better. Side: No
If the country was unhappy with their president after two terms, they would not win another term, even if there was a possibility. The country would demand a new, fresh president to start over and save the country, so the possible third or fourth term would not affect this mediocre president. Side: yes
Last time I checked, Americans of age have the right to vote for whichever president whom they think will be best for our nation. So what is wrong with a beloved President running for a third term. Sure, change is good and encouraged. But what if the upcoming President ruins the present Presidents' good streak and drags all of the US to hell? Side: yes
2
points
If a president is making much needed reforms, shouldn't we keep him for another term? He may need 12 years to complete his work. This may be necessary because not much can really change in 8 years; a president really can only set plans in motion. Sometimes change isn't always what we need. Side: yes
A new president does not always mean new change, it might just mean that there is a new person in office and the new president might not even have the possibility to better America. There might be a president in the future that changes America for the better and wants to continue in doing so. Side: yes
I disagree with your statement because sometimes the president is doing a good job and we want him to stay in the position of presidency. You shouldn't assume that we're going to need a new president after eight years because that isn't always the case. Sometimes the president needs to finish their job and eight years isn't enough, even though that may seem like a long time to us, it isn't to them. It's like giving us eight days to finish a school project, sometimes that just isn't enough time to get the job done because we have other activities, projects, assignments, and jobs we have to do. Side: yes
There is a reason that presidents can only be preseidents for two terms. There wouldn't be a law against it if nothing bad could happen from a president holding office for more then 8 years. People, especially politically invovled people, like their presidents to be stand for what they stand for. Sometimes, people are not happy with who the rest of America voted for, so the only reason they are "happy" is because they know that the prseidency has a time limit. If the people aren't happy, the country will not function. Also, history has shown us what can happen to a person if they hold to much power for to long of a time. Our country is set up in such a way that no person can have to much power, but the president is still the president. If he or she holds office for to long, he or she might become "rich with power" and make choices and decisions that are not good for this country. Everyone has an opinion, and sometiems they agree with the current president, and sometimes they don't. Knowing that they will be able to listen to someone with new and fresh ideas on how to make this country a better place in only a matter of years is what keeps them staying involved. Side: No
1
point
Two terms for Presidents is the only fair solution. Even if the President is phenomenal, and makes much-needed reforms, he could still be followed by a horrible president that crashes the economy and embroils us in a pointless and bloody war. The less time that horrible President has to worsen the state of our country, the better, but that also means that the excellent President must have the same limits on his time in office. In my opinion, it's always better to elect new presidents every four to eight years. Even if we're in a dire war situation, or the economy is about to collapse, the rules must stay in place. Sometimes new presidents can bring fresh ideas to the office, especially after an especially hard term for the previous. Side: No
If presidents were allowed more than two terms than there could end up being a possibility of a dictatorship in this country. There was a reason why this law was made. If a president was allowed more than two terms then that power over this country may end up going to his/her head and he/she might not take the peoples best interests in mind. Side: No
A president, already having enough power, could abuse of his/her power to the point that it is to late to fix. For example, giving a teenager a longer curfew, they start to abuse the privileges that were given to them, and if the parents don't act upon the problem, the teenager will keep on abusing the longer curfew they were given. If we allow a president to have more than two terms, our country could turn into a dictatorship and for that matter the consequences could be irreplaceable. Side: No
Giving the President of the United States a third term in office is like your parents buying your annoying little brother three ice cream cones and leaving you empty handed, it is simply unfair and insane. I am no man of politics, not yet a men actually, but with my comprehension I should say that two terms a president is more than enough time for them to accomplish what they promised and intended to achieve. I believe that other parties and other individuals should have the oportunity to run for office. Besides I strongly doubt a president wants three terms anyways, it is a lot of pressure to run a country. Have you seen how gray and stressed almost all if not all presidents end up? Like I said it is unfair and simply insane. Side: No
|
