The other side of this argument, and the the more likely, is that the longer in office leads to the likelihood of corruption, power hunger, overreach and eventually dictatorship.
Which is what we have now.
The argument that says if you want to run against the incumbent, then run for election doesn't make sense against this argument. The incumbent always has much more chances of getting elected that the challenger.
1. When someone spends a long period of time at a job, they tend to become far more skilled than they were when they began working at it. Term limits limits the chances of someone growing into their position and becoming even better at it. A job of this importance can be overwhelming in the early going, so giving time to grow into it is recommended by some.
2. Should a member of UCO rise to the top and become a trusted voice, their career could end up being cut short by term limits. Even if a person has no history of taking bribes or being corrupted by their power, they are unceremoniously ushered out the door along with all of the embezzlers, the power hungry and the incompetent.
3 Getting rid of those who have served for too long ensures that there will be a new class of rookies who are not up to date on all of the rules and regulations that their job entails. If a government body consistently has to break in new members and teach them the ropes, this cuts down on the amount of time that can be spent on real work.