Debate leagues should not allow spreading.

Note that in R1, Pro stated that R2 is supposed to be for constructives, yet he utilized this round for rebuttals. As he has bucked his own rules, I will put some rebuttal into this round and use that to expand upon my contentions. I'll go down the same flow. 1) So let's think about this. You've been training for months/years/decades in a particular style of debate, in this case policy. You've learned how to quickly compile your information such that you have many arguments and then speak them out rapidly. You may even teach that style. Suddenly, the system shifts, reducing the amount of WPM you can use dramatically. Pro thinks this is simple. Pro assumes that a debater, coach or judge is able to take what they've known and done for an extended length of time and modify those behaviors tremendously within a short span of time. He's expecting too much. This will force many people to either leave debate as a whole, or struggle in their remaining schooling to completely buck past behaviors. Even judges, who are often former policy debaters, would have to massively alter their paradigm for voting against their will. Pro's also harming the quality of the decisions; the purpose of judging is not for the judge to learn, but to provide adequate feedback and a reasoned decision, and since now anyone could easily be in a round without any background in debate, this is lost. He's also forcing judges to monitor speed on the basis of his arbitrary standard for "fast. " Does Pro expect judges to somehow clock the WPM of each speaker, while giving time signals and flowing? 2) Pro ignores the fact that debaters are already forced to conform to judges. He gives no reason why a judge cannot make this decision. Debaters should learn to speak to different audiences, as Pro says. Different experienced judges with different preferences are a diverse audience. He's reducing that diversity by taking their preferences out of the matter. 3) Pro essentially concedes this point, he simply tries to outweigh it. He says a good teacher and educational supplements can also help memory, but this is a nonsequitor. It doesn't matter if other things can do this, as that doesn't reduce the benefit. It shouldn't be eschewed just because other methods exist. Pro provides no warrant on why depth will increase, and his argument ignores the fact that policy still functions based mainly on dropped arguments. All Pro is encouraging is better word economy and even shorter, less explained position analysis. He concedes this by saying that debaters will: "articulat[e] several facts and arguments into a few short statements," which means less depth, not more. 4) If someone wants a debate style in which spreading is frowned upon, they can engage in other styles where judges focus on speaking style. These options exist, and debaters can always select them if they dislike spreading. Pro has never once stated why it is a problem to have the option to spread in certain forms of debate, just assuming that its presence is harmful to debate, though other options exist. Even within policy debate, there are mechanisms to prevent the problems he states. As a policy debater, Pro should know that judges call out "clear" when they feel that someone is not understandable. Pro assumes that people will flock to policy when NPDA, LD, BP, CEDA, PoFo, and Model UN exist that create niches for each type of debater. Even if he's right that it's a draw to policy, all he does is remove them from other areas. It's a net 0, at best. Pro is a purist, stating that anyone who debates too rapidly is not a real debater and not training for real life skills. Just because it's not the type of debate you like doesn't mean you can deny access. Just because you don't desire those skills doesn't mean others don't. As for elitism, have you seen this site? It has nothing to do with spreading. Elitism is anywhere anyone thinks they're better than those around them, plain and simple.