Return to CreateDebate.commrmountain • Join this debate community

Mr. Mountain's Community


Debate Info

25
24
Yes No
Debate Score:49
Arguments:35
Total Votes:54
Ended:12/18/09
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (17)
 
 No (18)

Debate Creator

bmountain(424) pic



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

Should presidents be allowed more than two terms? 3rd

Yes

Side Score: 25
Winning Side!
VS.

No

Side Score: 24
6 points

Initially, the president's terms weren't set in stone – George Washington actually retired after his two terms because he felt he had done enough for the nation he loved, and that set a precedent for later office holders. Like George Washington, modern presidents should know when they are helping the nation and should be able to gauge their ability to lead the nation. As long as the American citizens vote, the number of terms a president serves shouldn't be a problem. The US has a checks and balance systems to keep each branch from being too powerful, and if that fails, it's the people's duty to change the government if the president is becoming tyrannical. As long as the people have the power to pick who leads them, and the president is honest and holds the citizens' needs at heart, the number of terms served shouldn't be a concern.

Side: yes
2 points

In America's past history, there have been several great presdients, and some not so great ones... Although we'd like to make and exception to the rule, we can't. The 22nd Amendment allows a president to serve for two terms, or eight years. Abolishing this amendment won't turn our government into a dictatorship; "Sufficient power resides in the Congress and the Judiciary to protect our country from tyranny." - Representative Steny Hoyer. The Congress and Judiciary can veto a bill that the President proposes, which will prevent any tyranny from happening. America elects the president, so if they choose to elect someone for more than two terms, perhaps it's for the better of the country.

Side: No
2 points

Yes but only if they truly deserve the chance. Rather to keep a munificent president then take the chance at gaining a misanthrope. There has already been cases where unfortunate events could prehaps been avoided like The Trail of tears, if Adams stayed in power the problem could have been solved another way.

Side: yes
1 point

Although many undeveloped countries were taken over by dictators who were at first serving as presidents and after serving many consecutive terms declared the countries a dictatorship, US presidents should be allowed to serve more than two terms. Many people are scared of tyranny but with safe methods and regulations presidents serving more than two terms would accomplish more than past presidents. Democracy should over rule and if a president didn't satisfy the country for the first two years it served then it would be less likely that he will be voted to be president for a third point. With longer chances of terms a president's policies could be more efficient.

Side: yes
1 point

If a president is doing well enough to become president more than twice, shouldn't they get that opportunity? George Washington believed in two terms of presidency to prevent the U.S to fall under tyranny again. Franklin D. Rooselvelt served four terms and no such thing happened. A president that the people want to serve more than two terms is obviously doing something right and why should we stop that from happening.

Side: yes
1 point

Presidents were voted for a reason, and that's because the majority of the people voted for him. Since we like our president enough to vote for him, why shouldn't he be able to work for more than two terms? Franklin D. Roosevelt held office for more than 2 terms, actually he was on his 4th term when he died in office, even though the constitution clearly states that a president can only hold the office for 2 terms. If he was allowed to serve twice the amount stated by the constitution, then other presidents should be allowed the same right. Also, many presidents make promises, and sometimes 2 terms just isn't enough time for them to fufill those promises. They should be allowed the time that the people want them to have.

Side: yes
jordavis(2) Disputed
1 point

Just because a president is popular doesnt mean that they are doing what is good for our country. A president may have ceartain qualities that people like, but they may be spending monney on wasteful things or be sending troops to where they dont need to be. And also if a president makes a promise, they should be able to fulfill it in those two terms. They should know how long they can potentially be in office and know their limitations.

Side: No
CarlosG(7) Disputed
1 point

Just because we the people show some love for our president doesn't mean that person is going to bring our nation forward.If it takes a president more than two or three terms to just to get started on his "great plan", then how long is it going to take for them to accomplish their goal?

Side: No
lindsayh(8) Disputed
1 point

"Franklin D. Roosevelt held office for more than 2 terms, actually he was on his 4th term when he died in office, even though the constitution clearly states that a president can only hold the office for 2 terms." Is this saying that our president broke the law? If it says he can only hold the office for 2 terms, and he serves for 4, what can of example is that setting for our country? And even if he was "allowed" or "gave permission" to serve more than 2 terms, why wasn't the law or constitution changed then? Also, presidents should make promises they know they can keep. They shouldn't make them, if they're not sure.

Side: No
abelg(9) Disputed
1 point

The "majority" that voted for that certain president could've won by a slight margin, leaving almost half of the nation unhappy. And if presidents can't fulfill their promises in two terms, it's probable they won't accomplish them at all.

Side: No
mariellen(6) Disputed
1 point

The 22nd amendment which states that presidents should be allowed to run the office only two terms were signed after Franklin Roosevelt's presidency. If presidents are not able to make a change after 8 years, maybe they are ot competent as president. President Kennedy who was assassinated during his first term in the office, made a lot of changes.

Side: No
SeymoneB(10) Disputed
1 point

"Also, many presidents make promises, and sometimes 2 terms just isn't enough time for them to fufill those promises. " Yea I understand president's make lots of promises. Isn't our country supposed to represent equality. Which everyone has the equal opportunity. The Equal Rights Amendment from the United States Constitution intended to guarantee equal rights under the law for Americans regardless of sex.

Side: No
1 point

If a president is doing a great job for the country, he should be allowed to fun for more than 2 terms. If the president is loved by the people, because he is honest, responsible and makes positive decisions, then it makes no sense saying he can't run again. Abraham Lincoln was a great president that did remarkable things for this country, he kept this country together, abolished slavery and should of been allowed to run again, if it weren't for his mournful death. If a president is not one who betters the country than the judicial branch should kick them out of office.

Side: yes
0 points

Really good presidents often serve two, four year terms in office. Some presidents are lucky to have been voted to be the president of the United States. Amercica has had very good and very bad presidents. The goods ones are voted again and the bad ones are thrown out. When America has a good president, we want to keep him as long as possible but he is limted to two terms in office. Changing presidents can affect the overall prosperity of America. Presidents should be able to serve more than two terms and if the president becomes a tyrant, we have the right to abolish and get rid of him. If presidents have the right to serve more than two terms, America will have more trust because he has had experience and makes good choices. Good choice make presidents get voted again.

Side: yes
-1 points

Presidents should have unlimited terms. The people vote each term either way. All should be well due to those circumstances. The chances of us keeping a horrible president is slim.

Side: yes
byronh(8) Disputed
1 point

The people may have voted for the president, but that does not mean he will be a good leader or president of this country. People are so tied up into only voting certain political parties, aspects, similarities, race, etc. (like with Obama). Also "The chances of us keeping a horrible president is slim." we may not get a "horrible" president, but we have ha dsome presidents that aren't that good and could have a better president, most recently, George W. Bush for example.

Side: No
3 points

I do not believe that presidents should be allowed to serve more than two terms. First of all, I believe that after eight years of being in office the president may end up becoming a dictator. I am not putting Obama down, but as an example, from my point of view the government is taking over everything. They took over GM, they bought out banks, now they even passed a law about how the NCAA does playoffs. Secondly, just because a president is liked, doesn't mean they are doing what is good for our country. Some presidents are liked by a majority of people, but they have only hurt our country. Allowing more than two terms would just make it more likely that the "popular" candidate would get reelected, therefore potentially giving them the oppurtunity to hurt our country more.

Side: No
beverlyc(10) Disputed
1 point

Jordan, I understand that yes, the government is owning everything right now but it is because it is essential. If the government wouldn't have saved those companies then right now there would be more and more unemployed people.

A president will come popular because he is liked, correct but he wont be like djust because he is hot or because he is charming he will be liked because of his leadership in previous years.

Side: yes
3 points

Throughout human history one of the few, if not only, things that has remained consistent is change. We can date back to the beginning of our very own nation. We did not like the way our goverment was running, so we changed it. Presidents rule for four years when they are elected, with the possibility of being re-elected four more years. Changing Presidents every four or eight years is essential. If a President is going to make an impact on our nation, eight years is more than enough. Allowing more consecutive terms would annoy the people. The president is said to be the biggest celebrity in the world, well just like celebrities, they have their 15 minutes of fame. After those 15 minutes, it's time to move on. We wouldn't want to see Tiger Woods in the spotlight for years and years! It would get annoying. Even if the a president manages to make a great impact, after his two terms, he would probably be ready to step down and let someone else take charge. We rarely consider asking if presidents would even want to rule for more than two terms.

Side: No
SamC(9) Disputed
1 point

Okay, sure, fairness and a fresh view, but say the U.S. fell into another World War and Obama had done everything and more than what he said he would and impressed us all. We would feel safer and more comfortable if he kept us going through the new crisis.

"Changing presidents...is essential." How so?

Side: yes
Jinwook(10) Disputed
1 point

But there are people who believe celebrities should have more time that their true potential can be achived if they were just given more time. For example a president deploys a plan that should achieve peace but is set over ten years so when he is forced to resign from power the next president may just scrap the whole plan do to his own veiw of how it should be done.

Side: yes
joser21(12) Disputed
1 point

Yes, change is sometimes neccessary, but you forgot to mention the fact that many people fear change. For example, when kids get transfered into different schools, or when you move into a new neighborhood. People will always fear change, unless that change is neccessary.

Side: yes
kaitlynh(4) Disputed
1 point

Franklin D. Roosevelt was a president for 4 terms and it didn't "get annoying" He was re-elected for a reason, obviously because the people wanted him to be the president. All good things come with time, and so a president may need more than 8 years to to fulfill his vision of the nation. After two terms, if the president is "ready to step down and let someone else take charge" then he will, otherwise he'll run for office again.

Side: yes
yulianaa(5) Disputed
1 point

President don't just decide if they want to serve another term, they have to run again. If majority of the people don't want to be "annoyed" by the current president, why would be give him another term and give him a chance? Presidents aren't celebrities like Tiger Woods - they aren't in the office for the limelight and fame. If they have the best interests, they're in office to help the nation and continue to help flourish the nation.

Side: yes
hendrixi(23) Disputed
1 point

If a president after two terms is in the positiion to run again and win than how would it annoy the "people"? The "people" are the ones who vote and decide who are president should be. The only way the president could win again is if the "people" voted for him again. Any president doing that good a job, where the "people" want him to continue running after two terms should get that chance. If a president is doing a bad job would people even consider to vote for him again?

Side: yes
JettB(1) Disputed
1 point

Presidents are elected to serve and guide our country. If asked to be president once more, many would say yes because they want to serve the country and its people. Change has been consistent, but sometimes change has a bad impact on society. A good president is favored by the people and he deserves to have another term if elected. The people know what is right and their decision to elect a president again is their right.

Side: yes
2 points

I think presidents should not be allowed to serve more than two terms because it may cause turmoil. For example is not good at the job and is elected for a third term he may damage the country even more. There is also is also a chance for rifts between the Republican and Democratic parties. If one party is in charge for too long the other may get annoyed or frustrated. Every election there is always someone who brings new ideas and may help the country with the problems that are happening. If one is too popular and gets reelected term after term the people with new ideas may not have the chance to put them into action. Change is always good.

Side: No
1 point

The reason for presidents not to be allowed for more than two consecutive terms has been proven before with Richard Nixon. He was vice president for two years, then president for two more years for the rest of that current term, then became president once again for two more terms. The government became fearful that he would be elected again and could led to a dictatorship so they put a limit on how long one could serve as the president of the United States. This is a good limit to the maximum duration for a president because it may keep a president in power for too long for them to possibly become a dictator or permanent president of the U.S. This also grants other who want to become president that are waiting that could be greater than that current president that wants to run more than two terms. If the president would like to run again after his two consecutive terms, then he can wait at least one term of not being president and then run again for another two terms.

Side: No
1 point

One term is more than enough for a president.What if the president isn't good at being the president and is allowed more than two terms? Some people would probably wish that he had less than two terms that way someone else can take his position.Also if he serves more than two terms,it's going to take a longer time for some one new to come and take that position. Also new people bring in new ideas and if we had a president serving more than two terms there would be a less chance of new ideas to be introduced and improvements for the country.

Side: No
1 point

There are those who excell and achieve many things and there are those who do nothing but sit around like stumps. It would not be vary wise to allow a president more than two terms because there are people who instead of bringing hope and progress, they only bring failure and greif.No one would like to have a president who sits around doing nothing while watching his country fall into ashes.There are people though, who have the capacity and determination to run a country beyond its limits not only to succeed but to bring this nation forth.But, that is what every president says they will do when they are running for president. Some of them do try to accomplish this but some do not. That is why there should not be more than two terms. By us limmiting the terms, we are able to give someone else the opportunity to help our country especially if we are in desparate times.

Side: No
1 point

While a president may be extremely charismatic and worth what he/she says or does, it may become dangerous if someone held the presidency for too long. I understand that if the U.S., for instance, fell into another World War, and Obama was everything and more than anyone expected, it would be logical and make us feel safer if we kept him through another term or two. However, is too long too much? Take Hitler for example. He was a very charismatic and uplifting leader for the decaying and poor Germany. At the beginning, he made it seem like he could take away all of Germany's suffering, but in the end only led them to more. From then on Germany has become wary of overly charismatic leaders so as not to repeat the past. Not only that, but the time limit gives a fresh view to the US.

Side: No
1 point

The 22nd amendment clearly states that presidents should only serve two terms. It was signed by the Congress after president Roosevelt stayed for 12 years and he died while still serving in the office. It is not only unfair for other candidates who want to run for presidents but also for the people. By confiscating the power, the president with more than two terms will most likely turn into a dictator or just fail as a president and threaten people's right and wellbeing. For example, if president Hoover did not leave the power to president Roosevelt, maybe the Great Depression would have never ceased. He did not do anything to prevent it. However when president Roosevelt came to power, the economy gradually increased.

Side: No
1 point

To start running for president, you have to be at least thirty-five years old. According to the pubic data on Google, the life expectancy of 2009 is seventy eight years old, so when you first run for president you're life is already half over. Yes, you have experienced a lot and seen a lot of things which would make a good president, but not for the next eight years. Eight years is a long time, and presidency is a lot to handle. If you have that much stress on you for 8 years, it's hard, and seeing how you have to deal with aging as well, will be harder. Another reason two terms is too long is because of the publicity. Do you really want your kids growing up to where everywhere they turn there is cameras? Do you want the world to know all the little bits and pieces of your life? Like Obama, for example. Him and his family purchased a dog recently, and it was all over the media. There were magazines with his family and dog on the cover, stories on channel 8 news, and articles in the newspapers. If there was that much publicity because of them getting a dog, think about how much publicity there would be if something big actually happened? Also think about how that would be for over 8 years.

Side: No
1 point

Everything we do in this world revolves around the decisions made by the president. For example, how the economy is running, the education, the government, and etc. He has many responsibilities and is highly depended upon to carry us and keep us at a level where everyone is satisfied. Which is why we vote for the president based on the level of skill they have in order to accomplish the task and expectations he/she has set forth. If you have the same president for more than eight years, then there would be no change to the world, there would be no room for improvement, and it would all be ruled by the same person which is boring and shallow. There is always room for improvement and creativity, and if we have the same president then the creativity level will remain at the same level because the people haven't seen or recognized anyone else.

Side: No
1 point

Presidents should not be allowed to serve more than two terms. After the eight years of ruling, our country will want to take a breath for change. We would definitely need a fresh new pair of eyes to step in and take charge. Our country will need new decisions varying from government, laws, education, safety and so fourth. There will always be an unhappy side whether you’re a Democrat or Republican. For instance, George Bush’s main focus was in war with Iraq while Obama is mainly focused in health care, every president has a different area of focus and if you focus on one thing for a long period of time then you could have consequences. The effects may bring our economy down or into a level of complacency.

Side: No