Policy Debate as practiced is inherently flawed (pro argues that policy debate is inherently flaw

I will start with responses to my original cards section and then go onto format. 1. Cards While I see your point and fully agree with it my original argument relied not on "trading cards" being bad. That of course is a waste of time if no education or knowledge is gained. If I read a textbook but do not process the information what have I accomplished? My argument relies on explaining complex ideas in very limited time. One cannot get in depth knowledge of most if not every subject in the limited amount of time Policy offers. One cannot fully compare and contrast Deontology and Utilitarian or Biopower and Federalism or Communism and Capitalism in this short amount of time. People spend their lives researching this stuff. At best a few argument from each side can surface. But this doesn't neccesarily get the truth out there. This can be based on a plethora of factors. An example is below. Assume we are debating evolution. One side has its spiel and the other side claims evolution is too complex to happen without direction. It would take a bio major let alone an average debater at least a few minutes to explain how evolution can occur spontaneously. This leads to a huge time deficit. Throw in a few of these straw man arguments and the other team is done. And unless a judge is well versed in these complex ideas the cards or the speaker deliver then the vote isn't based on objective facts but on subjective interpretations. We'd gain much more knowledge debating in formats that allow for depth or breadth of knowledge and not compromising one for the other as is done here. 2. Format On format I again see your point however here I disagree. I disagree with your claim that "No judge will vote for you if you simply throw out excessive amounts of cards. " A fair judge on this format should vote for the arguments presented or the in round evidence. If some judge wants to subtract speaker points for taking advantage of a rule go ahead but if judges start voting against the logical winner due to a personal disagreement with speed or card rules then we have (subjective) judge anarchy and no effective way to judge a debate. My speed argument is not directly addressed either. Many debaters or judges miss out on what the opponent is saying. Then there is the tactic of whispering to the judge so the other team cannot hear you. I do not disagree that being quick to respond is a valuable asset however it comes at the cost of understanding each others arguments fully. 3. Misc I understand tactics have been made to deal with these issues. Lumping arguments into one big thing, line by line, etc. Maybe this works sometimes at varsity policy level. The potential for abuse is still there. One can take advantage of time and mention many arguments or time wasting arguments or a combination and still win. Fast talking is still an issue and often people cannot debate b/c they cannot hear. Conceding arguments leads to almost every round ending in nuclear war. Even if a judge can somehow alleviate these symptoms then the judge is subjective and we do not want a subjective judge on his or her own personal mission judging. I understand that policy debate has some merits but there are better formats for knowledge. If one wants to learn how to speed read or speak quickly policy is the way to go.