Term limits are completely against what democracy stands for

I think it is fair to say that the BoP is mostly on Pro here. He has a blanket statement to defend, that term limits are completely against what democracy stands for, whereas I only need to show that it is not completely anti-democratic. It could be shown that it is somewhat anti-democratic, and I would still win. That said, let's go.MONOPOLYIf we allowed elected officials to retain their positions for as long as they live, we would run into several problems. First is the fact that people tend to be more comfortable with what they know, meaning people are naturally more likely to vote for an incumbent. This can lead to a stagnant government. You've got the same people holding the same positions, with the same ideas. When you forcefully shuffle the field in terms of election options, you also shuffle the field in terms of ideas. And that is what a democracy needs to survive: fresh ideas. Much like a population needs diversity to be able to adapt to changing conditions, a democracy needs a varied government to be able to act efficiently.Furthermore, we need to consider the political and financial benefits a long term elected official has. The longer one is in office, we can presume the more of an advantage they generally have in terms of campaigning. They've got a political network already set up, they know more advisers, marketers, managers, etc than a newcomer might. Their 'war chest' is likely to be larger after many years of collecting donations. Basically, allowing people the possibility of unlimited time in office makes the battle for potential challengers an uphill one.These two realities combine to make one that is anti-democratic. Instead of our representatives being chosen based upon ideas and skills only, they are now chosen based on ideas and skills in conjunction with political power and the tendency to stick with what you know. Instead of really choosing the best candidate for the job, we choose the candidate we are most comfortable with, and who has the most advantage unrelated to his/her skill set relative to his/her opponent's skill set.CAREER POLITICIANSOne of the biggest problems today in our country is the career politician. Instead of focusing on passing real legislation, failing and succeeding along the way, our politicians would rather not mess with doing actual work, and essentially prepare for re-election 24/7. They do this by going over talking points, exploiting gaffes into 'scandals' for their own party's benefit, lying about the other party, and basically posing. Instead of actual representatives, we've got a bunch of posers.Despite the fact that doing nothing is not exactly admirable, a career politician would rather do nothing meaningful because that might mean taking a risk or taking away their talking points. Why should immigration reform be passed in earnest when you can use it as a platform to hurl insults and accusations at your opponents? Republicans are blocking immigration reform! They're racists! Democrats are granting amnesty to criminals! They're soft on crime! It would be better for our country if work was prioritized over posturing, because these differences of opinion could meet in a compromise, one which actually does something for the country. The country gets nothing real out of fruitless arguments.If our representatives had term limits, they'd spend less time worried about posing for the next election and do actual work. Obviously this would be especially so in their final term, but the atmosphere it would inspire, one where work is prioritized over looking good, would likely affect representatives who are not in their final term.CORRUPTIONThe longer elected officials remain in office, the more likely we are to encounter examples of some kind of corruption. One simple reason for this being that the longer you spend around a certain system, the more you understand it. The more you understand a particular system, the easier it is for you to exploit it, perhaps illegally. Further, the more times you are elected, the more confidence you may have in your mandate from the people, that no matter what you do, you are likely to get re-elected. This would be more easily avoided if you swapped out your options for representative every once and a while.My opponent brought up the Presidency in his first round. I believe this problem would be especially prominent in the executive, seeing as the entire executive branch is centralized around the one man. A President being re-elected many times over again would have to be very popular. This popularity, this support, might allow him to do certain things that would be detrimental to the nation long-term.Imagine, a President is so popular, he's been elected 4 times. Would it not be possible that with such enormous and lasting support, such a President could push forth laws that benefited him? Perhaps term extensions. Why bother voting every 4 years if we like this guy? Let's make it 6 years. Hell, 8 years! What, he wants to stack the Supreme Court in his favor? Sure! What's that, he wants to give his veto power some extra power? Why not? This kind of expansion of power in a 2+ term President is supported in the idea of extra time=extra corruption. The longer the President is in control, the more experience he has with the system, meaning he knows how to play it, bend it to his will. Not only this, but the people who elect a President to that many terms are much more likely to be complacent towards their guy. If you've got the same person as President for 16 years, it might be easier to take his rulership for granted, and therein take some of his corrupt and anti-democratic power expansion for granted.WHAT'S TO GAIN?Now I know some of the things I have mentioned can be categorized as slippery slope arguments, particularly corruption. Despite that, there is no reason to not guard against such slippery slopes when there is nothing to be gained in doing otherwise. There are over 300 million people in our country, the idea that we'll be unable to find suitable replacements for our representatives who can no longer hold office more is silly. It's especially silly when we decide to enable the copious amounts of career politicians we see today.The BoP is negated. I have shown that at the very least, term limits are not anti-democratic, as they inspire legislators who actually serve their people instead of themselves. Add that to unfair advantages in what should be fair elections to determine the best man for the job, and potential corruption, and it is clear term limits are a good idea, especially for a democracy. Thanks for reading.