Debate leagues should not allow spreading.

In the end, Pro is just one person expressing his grievances with a system he doesn't like. Pro continually uses lines like "useless," "obsolete," "detrimental," and, most recently, "fester" to describe spreading, even claiming that it only breeds useless skills (beyond improved memory). Each of these arguments lack necessary warrants, making it impossible for him to meet his BoP. Despite conceding that the faster speaking can improve memory and increase breadth and depth, he continues to claim that this is not what's best for anyone, again with a lot of unwarranted analysis. So he's making these changes not for their benefit, but for a nebulous group of people external to debate who, and we have to trust him on this, are just waiting for the moment that policy debate speaking speed goes down to less than 300 WPM. Apparently, equality is only important when applied to those who agree with his views on what makes for good debate. At best, Pro's harms are uncertain and/or low impact. Even if you're buying any level of harm, he completely lacks solvency. Pro drops my argument that spreading can occur at slower speeds with word economy and less detail, which means he provides no benefits by just reducing allowed WPM. Pro drops my point that, under his plan, judges have absolutely no incentive to enforce the WPM cap, and thus the policy will be a paper tiger. Pro's plan isn't, as he claims, "implementing an existing system. " It's distorting an existing type of debate for the benefit of people who like other types of debate. If, as Pro suggests, this system does exist elsewhere, then there's no reason these people couldn't join that type of debate, which again means Pro lacks solvency. At worst, Pro is actively making things worse. He's conceded in previous rounds that depth AND breadth is reduced in a world without it. When every single debater loses such large amounts of quality, it far outweighs any harm he can possibly provide. The same is true for when judging quality decreases, which is certain when Pro drops my points about increasing numbers of lay judges being used. He's similarly conceded that debaters will leave, the coaches will lose their jobs, and that qualified judges will be at a premium. As these are the sole conceded impacts, they are the sole certain outcomes, and should always be preferred. Pro does eventually get to the warrants, though he apparently chose to do so in new arguments in this final round. His future #1 is an entirely new argument, asserting that spreading will die out on its own. Two responses. One, spreading got its start in policy debate due to popular opinion, and Pro is merely asserting a dramatic shift in that opinion based off of a feeling of advantage that is non-unique to spreading. Two, if he's right, this annihilates his inherency. He asserts in future #2 that the policy will create some "overall attitude of equality," but I fail to see how an enforced changes that many people will despise compare positively to a natural change of the overall policy community towards this supposedly equitable policy. If you buy this future, you're voting Con. As for his future #2, this is where he finally warrants the statement that new debaters will flux in. Late as it is, it's also entirely dependent upon anecdote. "I have seen multitudes who want to debate but stay away. " Pro is not a reasonable, unbiased source. My experience certainly doesn't support his assessment, but I don't expect anyone to trust me. There's also: No warrant for speed being the sole barrier that keeps them out No rationale for them bringing increased diversity into debate No basis for believing that this influx outweighs the certain loss No reason why other forms of debate (like Model UN) aren't the source of this influx. Pro's case lacks basic solvency, necessary warrants, and only succeeds in harming debate. Vote Con. The children can suck a lemon.