Instigator / Con
14
1677
rating
24
debates
93.75%
won
Topic
#1702

Resolved: The US should institute congressional term limits

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
3
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

blamonkey
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
15,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
11
1592
rating
14
debates
78.57%
won
Description

Round structure:
Con skips first post
Pro posts constructive
Con posts constructive
Pro rebuts
Con rebuts
Pro crystallizes
Con crystallizes
Pro waives last round

-->
@blamonkey
@Barney

Yep, I did. Should have enough time to type that up tomorrow.

-->
@Barney

I'm pretty sure Whiteflame said he wanted to write you the endorsement. For what it's worth, here's mine.

"This is singlehandedly the hardest debate I ever undertook in terms of preparation and effort exerted. Bsh1 is a prodigious debater who effortlessly extinguishes effectual arguments with sterling evidence and analysis. It was a great privilege to debate him."

-->
@bsh1
@blamonkey

This debate is being put into the Hall of Fame. Any endorsements you would like with it? You can also name anyone you would like to request write one.

-->
@blamonkey

Congrats on the victory, my dude!

-->
@blamonkey

Will say that I was hoping to see more votes on this. There's a reason we don't see a lot of high quality debates on this site - they just don't get the kind of attention that they used to on DDO. This was an impressive debate and it's obvious that both sides gave it their all. Here's hoping we get more like this in the future. Also, to blamonkey, I'd love to debate you sometime... when all my available time isn't taken up by writing my dissertation.

-->
@blamonkey
@oromagi

Another one bites the dust. You vs oromagi on something would be fun. Your both undefeated.

I hate to say it... While this looks like an epic debate, with how close things appear to be, my pet peeve about sourcing could be a problem. I’ll refrain from voting.

-->
@Barney

Perhaps they didn't check the comments section and only reported "RFD in comments."

-->
@SirAnonymous

I am having a hard time imagining any reason why someone would report your vote.

-->
@MisterChris

No problem.

-->
@SirAnonymous

Correct, I apologize for any inconvenience with my mistake.

-->
@MisterChris

Are you supposed to tag me when you decide whether or not to remove my vote?

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: [SirAnonymous] // Mod action: [Not Removed]

>Points Awarded: [0:0; 0 points to Pro, and 0 points to Con]

>Reason for Decision: [RFD in comments.]

>Reason for Mod Action: [The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards. Please also note that a tied vote has little measurable impact on debate outcome aside from commentary on the debate.]
************************************************************************

-->
@SirAnonymous

Thanks for the vote! This debate was a test of endurance.

I'll try to judge this soon, it looks interesting.

-->
@blamonkey

-->@bsh1
Great debate. Also, you owe me medical bills for killing my brain when I wrote the RFD. We really need to get a reward of some kind for voting on non-FF contested debates. Maybe some green credits for every vote on a contested debate?

R1: (I'm counting this as a 3-round debate due to the waives, so my R1 will be Pro R1 and Con R2)
Pro begins with his proposal that Representatives should have a maximum of 4 terms and Senators should have a maximum of 2 terms. He present three reasons to support this proposal.
Pro (P)1. The massive advantage afforded to incumbents in elections means that the elections are much less free and fair than they would be with term limits.
P2. By enforcing the retirement of term-limited incumbents, term limits could lead to an increase in diversity in the Congress (by which he means that it would have more women and minority congressmen).
P3. A vast majority of Americans support term limits.
Subpoint P3A: Congress is widely unpopular, so it needs change to rebuild the people's trust in it. Pro claims that term limits could help restore that trust.

Con presents four points for his case. As a framework for his arguments, he uses consequentialist (You know you're in deep waters when the spell-checker doesn't recognize your philosophical terms) philosophy to say that, if he can prove that the consequences of no term limits are better than the consequences of term limits, he wins the debate.
Con (C) 1. Term limits lead to "memory loss." That is, due to the loss of experienced lawmakers, older programs are forgotten in favor of newer programs.
C2. Experienced lawmakers are several times more effective than freshmen lawmakers.
C3. Inexperienced lawmakers are more polarized than their experienced counterparts, which leads to a decrease in effectiveness.
C4. The priorities of term-limited lawmakers shift away from the interests of their constituents and toward their post-legislative career, which means a greater emphasis on party loyalty.

R2:
Pro begins by attacking Con's consequentialist framework. Consequentialism, he argues, cannot differentiate between consequences toward good and evil people. Furthermore, he argues that individual liberties, which he maintains that his proposal protects, should have precedence over some collective good. He then present rebuttals to Con's R1 arguments.
Counter-C1. He argues that Con assumes that Pro's plan would lead to a dearth of legislative experience. However, due to the short learning curve in Congress, the prior experience of many congressman, the possible methods of mitigating experience gaps, and the small decrease in average experience from 9 to 7 years in Pro's plan, the negative consequences of a dearth of experience would not take place.
Counter-C2. Pro argues that "hitchhikers" added to other bills by freshmen lawmakers, sponsorships, and subpoenas were not accounted for in Con's source regarding the relative ineffectiveness of freshmen lawmakers, so its results are faulty.
Counter-C3. Pro points out that the increased polarization of new lawmakers is more indicative of a more polarized electorate than a problem inherent to new lawmakers and that the gridlock created by partisanship has been largely effected by experienced members, not the freshmen.
Counter-C4. Pro argues that term limits have no effect on shifting priorities other than to make it happen after 7 years instead of 9, that there is no evidence that term-limited law-makers are less beholden to their constituents, and that a lack of term limits merely allows ineffective lawmakers to stay in office.

Con defends his framework by arguing that it "is not tenable to grant everyone unfettered individual rights." Criminals are one example of this. Furthermore, consequentialism would seek the general welfare of the people, which, according to Con, is the purpose of lawmaking.
Defense-C1. Con argues that the learning curve is not as short as Pro claims, as evidenced by the relative lack of bills passed by freshmen lawmakers. Furthermore, he argues that the prior experience suggested by Pro is not equivalent to the experience required for Congress and that only half of lawmakers have been in state legislators anyway. Con then presents a double bind for Pro. Pro's proposal would not significantly reduce the average time lawmakers spend in Congress. Thus, the advantage to Pro's plan is not clear. If, however, it does lead to a significant reduction in legislative experience, then the negative consequences that Con described will take place. Thus, Pro is left with a choice of either ceding away most of his offense or conceding to most of Con's offense.
Defense-C2. Con argues that if freshmen lawmakers are not effective at passing bills, then it makes little sense that they would be effective at adding hitchhikers, sponsorships, or issuing subpoenas.
Defense-C3. Con argues that legislative gridlock is usually broken by experienced members, who Pro would have term-limited out. Also, his study regarding polarization is more recent, so he argues that it should have more weight. Also, he argues that Pro's other explanations don't discredit his causal link between freshmen lawmakers and polarization.
Con extends his argument that new lawmakers tend to ignore old programs.
Defense-C4. Con argues that one of Pro's sources supports his claim regarding shifting priorities and argues that term-limited lawmakers lose motivation for bipartisanship.
Counter-P1. Con presents a study that is 16 years newer than Pro's showing that the incumbency advantage has been decreasing. Furthermore, he argues that it would undemocratic to use term limits to stop a popular incumbent from running.
Counter-P2. Con argues that term limits have actually been detrimental to the increase in diversity of lawmakers.
Counter-P3. Con argues that the popularity of an issue has very little to do with whether it is a good idea.

R3:
Pro argues that he does not support limitless rights, but that rights nevertheless trump consequentialist concerns. He also argues that Con dropped some of his points against consequentialism as well as dropping Pro's framework.
Conclusion-C1. He points out that Con dropped his arguments showing that his proposal would not lead to a dearth of legislative experience, which also refutes the allegedly dropped point of orphaned programs. Furthermore, Con dropped the short learning curve, methods of mitigating brain drain, and the fact that there are means of gaining prior experience other than state legislatures. Finally, he turns Con's double bind back on him, pointing out that it is a concession that Pro's plan would not lead to a dearth of legislative experience.
Conclusion-C2. Pro repeats that Con's study does not account for hitchhikers.
Conclusion-C3. Pro argues that one of Con's studies supports the idea that more experienced lawmakers grow more partisan. Furthermore, his alternate explanations for polarization make it impossible for Con to establish a causal link.
Conclusion-C4. Pro contends that Con dropped most of his arguments against this point.
Pro argues that his plan would lead to an increase in turnover without a significant decrease in experience.
Defense-P1. Pro argues that Con's study says that it cannot be compared with studies from previous years, that Pro did use other, more recent sources, and that Con dropped the reasons he provided for the incumbency advantage.
Defense-P2. Pro argues that his source is more recent and post-#MeToo, supporting his argument that term limits could increase diversity.
Defense-P3. Pro argues that popular sovereignty does matter and that term limits would promote closeness between legislators and constituents.

Con defends his framework by pointing out that most of Pro's objections to it are hypothetical and should have no bearing on it. Furthermore, consequentialism is in line with the Constitution's goal of the general welfare. Finally, he points out that Pro's "framework" is in fact nonexistent.
Conclusion-C2 (Not a typo. That's the order in the debate). Con points out that there is no evidence for Pro's claims of hitchhiking.
Conclusion-C1. Con argues that Pro's plan would not significantly reduce the average time in Congress and would not substantially increase turnover.
Conclusion-C3. Con argues that freshmen congressmen are no less partisan that experienced congressmen. According to the evidence, they are more extreme.
Conclusion-C4. Con argues that his study regarding shifting priorities refutes Pro's study, which, according to Con, reaches 2 different conclusions using different assumptions and is therefore unreliable.
Conclusion-P1. Con argues that he used multiple studies to prove his point, invalidating Pro's objections. Furthermore, he repeats his claim that term limits do create unfairness by restricting the people's choices of candidates.
Conclusion-P2. Con argues that he did use recent data and that #MeToo would not remove any barriers for female candidates.
Conclusion-P3. Con argues that popular sovereignty is outweighed by the other concerns he brought up.

Both debaters have good S&G, conduct, and sources.
Both debaters presented excellent arguments for their sides, and I would like to congratulate both debaters. This debate was fantastic and very well researched.
In admitting that his plan would not significantly reduce the average time legislators spend in Congress, Pro loses much of his offense. I think he did do a good job of showing that there would be an increased turnover, which would be a good thing. However, that would also lead to an increase in freshmen lawmakers, which would not be so good. Arguments are a tie.

-->
@whiteflame

Thanks for the RFD! This was an exhausting debate, but I loved it.

Just to reiterate, I am still working on this. I've finished reading, but it's going to take me a while to work through an RFD. I will say, I have a winner in mind, but it would not be the first time that my decision shifted as I was writing an RFD, so I'm not going to say who it is just yet.

-->
@whiteflame

Thanks!

Bumping this debate. I’m in the process of reading through it, taking this one slow.

-->
@bsh1

Just finished. Good debate!

-->
@bsh1

I'm finishing it up now. Will be done soon

-->
@blamonkey

Please post soon so that I can post my waive message in the final round. I don't want to have to forfeit it, or be accused of forfeiting.

-->
@blamonkey

Also, I just realized how ingenious your short description when you're looking at this debate from the debate search list is. To just put the side that the person taking the debate will be before they even have to open it up is actually genius. I'm stealing it for all my future debates.

-->
@blamonkey

Good debate. It was fun.

-->
@bmdrocks21

Hopefully it lives up to that potential. I've no doubt that Bla will do a great job.

-->
@bmdrocks21

Hopefully it lives up to that potential. I've no doubt that Bla will do a great job.

-->
@blamonkey

Your move.

-->
@bsh1

There was a tiny problem on my part. When I discuss the Ohio State University card, it should be source 6, not 8. I'm really sorry about that.

-->
@bsh1

That's a pity. Well, good luck!

I think this has potential to be one of the best debates on the site.

-->
@bmdrocks21

Yeah. Part of me dislikes leaving with stats not divisible by 5, so I want 15 debates. It's one of those little things that would nag me if I didn't take action...Plus, I think this should be interesting.

-->
@bsh1

You're leaving after the debate?

-->
@bsh1

No problem. I think I can access you links. Sorry it took me a bit to come up with a case. I had to make some alterations.

Awh shit, this one be interesting.

-->
@bsh1

So glad to see you debate <3 <3

-->
@blamonkey

I would also ask that you post your rounds as promptly as is conveniently possible for you, as I would like to retire from the site in a timely fashion. Thanks!

-->
@blamonkey

Should be fun :) Your move.

Also, if any links are inaccessible, I would be happy to screenshot relevant portions for you at your request. Let me know if that becomes necessary.

Bookmarking this one.

Needless to say, I'll be watching this one closely.

He came back from the dead to make this debate very interesting.

:^)

-->
@blamonkey

hmmm. I'll do some research. Interesting provided speedrace doesn't take it first.

-->
@blamonkey

I might actually take this