There was some precedent to term limits in 1787: in 1776, 5 states (Delaware, Maryland, New York, South Carolina, and Massachusetts) included term limits in their constitutions. Indeed, the Articles of Confederation included a stipulation that persons could only serve as Representatives to the Congress for 3 years in any given 6 year period (a common style of limit in the period). However, such limits (particularly this one) became an impediment to effective government.
While both the New Jersey and Virginia Plans included term limits, they were tabled by the Philadelphia Convention because both schemes "enter[ed] too much into detail for general propositions."* However, term limits in the Founders opinion was supposed to deal with breaking up dangerous concentrations of power, rather than preventing the rise of career politicians (an anachronistic concept in 1787).
Nevertheless, IIRC, some Anti-Federalists did strongly object to the lack of term limits in the Constitution. However, having term limits in the Bill of Rights would mean that the Federalists allowed the Anti-Feds to get more than just the insertion of Rights into the Amendments, but also structural changes, in which case term limits wasn't the highest priority for Anti-Feds (limiting the authority to tax probably would have been).
IMO term limits are an ineffective guarantee of democratic responsiveness. It would be far better to have a workable system to ensure the vast majority of House elections were competitive on a regular basis. Madison thought elections would take care of this by themselves. The experience of the 20th century, however, suggests that some kind of scheme would be needed to check excesses of gerrymandering and the like. That would make for a good inclusion in the Bill of Rights, but the question is how to structure it so as to avoid ineffectual vagueness and over-specificity. This was what doomed the originally proposed 1st Amendment, to delineate a formula to determine the size of the House: the mechanism was fairly complicated and could either have produced a needlessly large house (5,000+ members today) or a very small one depending on how one interpreted it. Additionally, one could argue that including such a formula in the Constitution was an attempt to include just such a guarantee.
Also, I feel certain that there are some discussions of term limits out there. For example,
this one between myself and Thande.
___
* By the way, you can access Madison's accounts of the Constitutional Convention's debates at the Avalon Project at Yale Law School: check
here for the specific citation for this topic.