In a democratic society, term limits are unjust!

Thanks again for the response.Con case:C1: The people want term limitsLol, my opponent accuses me of appealing to popularity, but when we're talking about what a democratic society should have, that's exactly what we need to do. His definition even said that a democracy is a government by the people, so if the people want term limits then definitionally that's what a democratic society should have. Note that he's dropped and therefore conceded that generally, democracies DO want term limits. So if we're looking to who's best upholding democracy in this debate, the winner is obvious.He also restates his argument that term limits reduce the right of people to vote for candidates they want, but remember that this is a right that they're voluntarily forfeiting by supporting a term limit.C2: Fair competitionMy opponent suggests reforming the election campaigns to make competition more fair. He suggests not allowing presidents who increase the debt by 2% to run for reelection. But first, this debate isn't only about presidential term limits, its term limits in general, which includes congress and senates. So his reform argument doesn't even apply as a generality. Second, reforms are nontopical. The resolution says "term limits ARE unjust" indicating the present time, not in some hypothetical future with X reforms. He also says "if someone has done more harm than good while in office, that person cannot be in office as well." But he's offered no method of determining whether an official produced a net benefit or not. How would we even evaluate that?C3: Solves seniority systemPro suggests reforming the system again to solve this problem, but never says what reforms we can make. He's basically saying "prefer my counter-proposal" without saying what the counter-proposal is. "Reform" is far too broad an unspecific. What specifically can we do to fix this problem, other than keeping term limits? He hasn't explained. Also remember that reforms are nontopical by the word "are" in the resolution.Also, he's dropped and therefore conceded that term limits solve this problem. So since you don't have a viable alternative, prefer term limits.C4: Legacy incentiveThe argument is that term limits give a limited amount of time for a president to accomplish his platform, thus he is incentivized to execute it quickly and efficiently if he wants to be remembered as a good president. Pro rebuttal is literally "they can still vote the politician out". Please explain how this responds to my argument.Pro case:C2: Term Limits prevents the right person from taking office. He actually agrees that having no term limits keeps mediocre politicians in office. He thinks his criteria for determining who can be reelected would make sure we always have good president though rather than mediocre ones, but just extend that 1. This debate isn't exclusively about presidents, 2. Reforms aren't topical, and 3. He hasn't explains how to determine whether a president did more harm than good.C1: Contradict a democracyNot sure why he wants to wait til next round to address this; he had well over a day left and plenty of space to refute it. But sure, he can refute it next round. I await his response.