Term limits are completely against what democracy stands for

BOP REQUIREMENTSAt this point in the debate, I'd like to reaffirm the burden on my opponent. He has to defend the statement: Term limits are completely against what democracy stands for. I need to show that statement to be false. So if I properly defended the following statement: Term limits are what democracy stands for; or even: Term limits are mostly against what democracy stands for; I have have fulfilled my burden of proof. That is why I have no problem acknowledging that term limits have some faults. This said, my arguments this round will not respond to everything in the previous round, as it's getting quite tedious to address every 'quote and respond'. PSI will not be responding to my opponent's response to his poor conduct. I trust voters on this site know poor conduct when they see it enough to not keep beating this over their heads.DROPPED ARGUMENTMy opponent never responded to the following fact:The longer a politician is in office, the more likely he/she is to become corrupt. Obviously this is against democracy stands for(what democracy stands for corrupt government?). So, this fact alone fulfills my burden of proof.INCUMBENCY"An incumbent, with the time he or she has spent in the political world, winning multiple elections, forging alliances, etc, will undoubtedly have political capital. So you've got people who do have political capital versus people who might have political capital."This was in response to my opponent's statement that a challenger might have political resources to match an incumbent. Obviously my response shows that it would seem logical to assume that in general incumbents would have an advantage not related to their worth as a representative. This logical assumption is verified given that the data shows incumbents having an average money advantage of 12:1 in the Senate, and 9:1 in the House[1][2].INCUMBENCY AND VOTER APATHYMy opponent had this to say about my meme-esque picture regarding Congressional re-election rates:"By the way, it should be considered that the issue of congress is due to voter apathy. The voter turnout for the 2014 midterms was the lowest it has been since World War Two[2], when you have a minority of americans choosing our leaders, that creates issues like this, however that's another issue entirely."Statistically speaking, voter apathy does not appear to be the sole reason for the massive advantage incumbents have. For the 40 years prior to 2014, voter turnout rates have been higher than they were in 2014[3]. Despite that, there has been no discernable change in incumbent advantage in these 40 years. House re-election rates have hovered comfortably at 90%, and Senate rates at 80%[4].I believe that this, in conjunction with statistics related to Congressional inefficiency and massive spending advantages, shows that incumbency is a major advantage. This being the case, term limits would be good for democracy, as there'd be less elections with incumbents, and less time for said incumbents to build up advantages not related to their worth as a candidate."Plus, congressional elections are done in seperate states and districts, national polls like this lump a bunch of random people from different states together."Yes, they're lumped together. But that is only fair as they are lumped together when they work. Despite the fact that the Congress has an 11% approval rating, 96% of the dysfunctional Congress came back. That's the incumbency advantage of a career politician. As I've already shown, it's not going to be blamed by voter apathy, because this has been a problem even during times when voters weren't apathetic.COMPETITIONBased on the advantages demonstrated with incumbency, one might assume that when an incumbent is up for election, there are less candidates than there might be if there was a vacant seat to be filled. This assumption would be correct; studies have found that seats made vacant by term limits draw 50% more candidates than it otherwise would[5].The benefits of this for a democracy should be clear. Democracy is all about providing the people a diverse set of options. The more options you've got, the better the competition there is. The better the competition, the better the person who comes out on top. That's survival of the fittest. Term limits give us that by throwing more candidates into the races. This increased competition could also decrease voter apathy; more contenders=more competition=more excitement.FUNCTIONAL FIXEDNESSMy opponent smartly followed my source and plucked out some contradictory information.The key thing to note here is that functional fixedness is helpful in familiar scenarios. The problem for career politicians is that the world is constantly changing, and being stuck in problem-solving techniques that work in old scenarios could be detrimental.MISCI said this:"Most of our Presidents have violated the Constitution, and all modern Presidents have"My opponent said this:"However your scenario included things that were already explicitly set up by the constitution or forbade by it."And the Presidential violations of the Constitution are in contradiction of things "..already explicitly set up by the constitution or forbade by it."The point being that there is a disrespect for Constitutional limits in the executive branch. Based on this (and the fact about the relation between time in office and corruption) it is reasonable to assume that we'd see more breaches of the Constitution the longer a President is allowed to remain in office. Obviously breaches in the Constitution, the gatekeeper of our democracy, are anti-democratic.I said:"No, but my point is that there's a ton of people in America, and there are bound to be tons of qualified candidates as a result."He said:"That's like saying there are tons of people with left hands, so there are bound to be tons of left handed people in the world."This is simple logic. We know that if you get enough people in a room, one of them will be a part of politics. Based on this, we know that the more people you get, the more politicians you're likely to get. It's kind of like buying McDonald's fries during those monopoly deals. The more fries you buy, the more monopoly thingies you will end up collecting. The more people we have, the more politicians we have. The more politcians we have, the less likely it is that we won't be able to find new ones that are good replacements for the ones we kicked out with term limits. This seems especially true when you consider the 'Competition' argument above.Sources:[1] http://www.opensecrets.org...[2] https://www.google.com...[3] http://www.nytimes.com...[4] https://www.opensecrets.org...[5] http://www.cato.org...