In a democratic society, term limits are unjust!

Thanks for the opening argument.Definitions:Just - having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason : reasonable (Webster's)Incumbent - Person running for reelectionI'll start by giving reasons democracies should have term limits. C1: They want term limitsPro operates under the assumption that what the people want should be the end-all-be-all of a democracy. If this is true then you negate. In the United States, 78% of people support term limits (1). Also note the difference between strong and weak term limits. Strong term limits mean the leader can only have X amount of terms in his career. Weak term limits just prevent the person from running for consecutive terms. 26 democracies worldwide employ strong term limits (2) while many more employ weak ones. Clearly this is something that those countries do want. There are no major protests going on in most of these countries to remove the term limit. I have not heard of an Occupy movement to eliminate them either. So empirically, many countries do have and want a limit on their leaders. To say that they are unjust directly contradicts my opponent's democracy argument.C2: Fair competitionThe official running for reelection is at a huge/unfair advantage against the competition for reasons stated below. 1. The politician running for reelection has already been chosen by the people once. Everyone knows his name and knows he's been elected before. Conversely, whoever is running against him doesn't have the same popularity. The person running for reelection can win based off name recognition alone. 2. Empirics: In the last 46 years, the lowest reelection rate the US has ever seen has been 82%, while the highest was 97% (3). Based off this you can infer that if there are no term limits, then as long as someone ran a good campaign, they could be reelected an inconceivable number of times. This is a problem. Incumbents being elected at a ridiculously high rate crowds out potentially better candidates. Historically, politicians are only not reelected if they did a terrible job. So long as no major mistakes are made, they'll retain office. But suppose that we have a mediocre candidate in office, named John. He's not doing a bad job, but he's not doing much to help either. Now assume the person running against him in his reelection campaign (Bob) would, if elected, be phenomenal. He would solve all of the country's problems and bring in a new era of wealth. He is most likely to lose against John in any reelection campaign simply because people have heard of John but not of Bob. Without term limits it would follow that either Bob would either never get into office or have to wait an excessively long time for the people to get tired of John. But with term limits, it would eventually give Bob a fair chance to run for office since his opponent wouldn't be the current president, but would be someone just as unknown as him. This benefits the democracy because Bob is a superior candidate.C3: Solves seniority system.Remember that the resolution doesn't specifically question presidential term limits; it also applies to Senates and congresses. The seniority system refers to people in Congress getting more benefits and power over everyone else because they've been in office for a long time (4). Their bill proposals are taken much more seriously, they choose their assignments more freely, and are usually the only ones to become chairman. Similar systems exist in other countries. This is a problem because seniority systems discriminate against newer politicians. The fact that new officials' propositions are rarely taken seriously creates a disincentive to run for office. They know that they will have to wait several years and win reelection campaigns before they join the seniority system and their word actually carries some weight in congress. Creating a disincentive to run for office will crowd out potentially stellar candidates who would otherwise make office and benefit the country.And term limits solve. When time in office is limited, it ensures that the senate, congress, or whatever, is always full of new officials who have been elected recently. This means there is no seniority system, and thus there is no discrimination based on how many reelection campaigns someone has won. C4. Legacy incentiveWith term limits a politician has a definite amount of time he can be in office. Because of this, he is incentivized to produce positive results as quickly as possible because his tenure isn't indefinite. He can't just say "I don't have to worry about getting the troops home right now, there's always next year". He must act now within his limited tenure if he wants to be remembered as a great president. This encourages politicians to get their platforms enacted immediately and to start working on fixing the country's problems right away, because he knows he doesn't have all the time in the world.Moving to Pro's case.Contention 1: Term limits contradict a democracy. My Public Support argument pretty much turns this. Term limits actually support a democracy moreso than contradicting it because the people want limits on their leaders. At the very least, the lack of an Occupy movement to eliminate term limits shows that people aren't against them. Also, my opponent brings up this syllogism. 1. In a democratic society, the people have the right to elect whom they wish to elect. 2. Term limits take away/limit that right.I object to the conclusion drawn that this makes term limits unjust. My opponent has offered no method whatsoever of determining what it means to be just. He hasn't even defined it. So prefer the definition I gave: conforming to fact or reason. We need to ask whether term limits are reasonable for a democratic society. Term limits reducing the ability to vote for certain candidates doesn't mean they're unreasonable. While they do limit the right to vote, the benefits they produce (4 advantages outlined in Con case) far outweigh this small limitation. Furthermore, because the purpose of a democratic government is to benefit the people, it would not allow the elimination of something that would produce a net harm. Murder would not be legalized even if 51% said so. The same applies to term limits; if they objectively produce a net benefit to the country, they should stay even if they limit rights somewhat.C2: Term limits prevent the correct person from taking office. This is non-unique. Having no term limits also keeps mediocre politicians in office for extended periods of time because they have an unfair advantage in reelection campaigns. This is true even if another candidate running against them would do a much better job. As such, this contention and my "crowding out the better candidate" disadvantage should cancel out, and you should vote Con based of my other 3 contentions.Cross-ex:Infidel asks me these questions: 1. "How long should a leader stay in office?"Imo, 4 terms 2 years each. 1. Can you justify that length of time?8 years is plenty for a president to accomplish his platform. Two year terms encourage him to get stuff done quickly and within that time, otherwise he won't be elected. 2. If a leader was well-liked and has done lots of great things for his nation, shouldn't he be able to have more than that amount of time that you mentioned above?No. There are situations where it would be good for someone to be reelected again, but we should still enforce term limits because in most situations (on balance), they are beneficial. I wanted to run agument about the New World Order, but I don't have the space :/ Oh well.I await my opponent' response.1. http://www.termlimits.org...2. http://voxeu.org...3. http://www.opensecrets.org...4. http://uspolitics.about.com...