I don't understand, given how things are today, how someone could argue AGAINST term limits.

[alc]

46. new candidates need more assistance from the party

I think our problem is partys, not incumbents. Term limits will only strengthen party power.

Incumbents have the name recognition and can run off that and win with less party help. New candidates need the parties support (or can at least benefit greatly from it). So, when a term limit is reached and a number of people in both parties primary then those winners face each other in the general election, it's almost certain that the party choice will win. And that winner will owe the party more than the incumbent would have.
Once in, either new or old candidates will work to ensure that they get the parties support next time. Their biggest problem for reelection is having to primary again with a candidate the party selected over them. (unless you want a term limit of 1)

Also, with bigger turnaround and no elders, party powers outside of congress will have even more power since they will be the consistency in DC.

But, my biggest issue against term limits is that it limits who we are allowed to vote for. If I like "my guy" I want to be able to vote for him/her. The real problem is that voters are lazy and/or stupid and easily manipulated and that won't change by limiting their choices.