Debate leagues should not allow spreading.

Thanks again to Pro, and I'll launch right in. 1) Pro concedes the harm, and seeks to mitigate. He says that it's possible to change, but I've shown how it's very implausible that such a shift will occur for many. I provide warrants, he provides none. Whether they leave by a lack of ability or unwillingness to adapt, he's assuring a substantial loss. It means a lot to many debaters. It's the livelihood of many coaches. Pro tries to outweigh this by saying many will flux in, but this is always going to be uncertain. The sole certainty here is that the numbers will start by going down. Pro states the need to "rise to challenges," but never explains why rising to this particular challenge is beneficial or integral. Pro says that the league will select judges with appropriate backgrounds, however, judges are currently screened by that speed. If they can't keep up, they don't judge. Pro assumes that some other mechanism will go into place to ensure a quality judging pool without stating what that mechanism would be or how it would work. That's not to mention that the amount of experienced judges decreases, so tournaments will have to draw from lay judge pools. He then says that it's fine to have uneducated volunteers, but policy debate is not simple to understand, even if you build a "flawless case." Simply understanding the structure, how to evaluate evidence, how people use cards, and all of the technical language (Kritiks, Topicality, A/O/Espec, etc.) is a huge task for a lay judge. So either these people don't judge at all, negating Pro's benefit, or they do judge and force people to speak to the lowest common denominator, further harming policy debate. Pro states that he's not forcing judges to count WPM. This leaves no incentive to regulate rates of speech if judges are put under no pressure to enforce it. It is only because judges are required to take rules into consideration in their rounds that they are enforced, and yet Pro has not specified any pressures whatsoever for judges. Pro gets no solvency. 2) Pro doesn't respond to my point that debaters are already required to conform to judges. He simply says that this is a "major issue," but why is that any more important than views on highly technical argumentation, or flowing? He never warrants why this is special, simply stating that it might provide some round-to-round judging variation. It's interesting that Pro doesn't want debaters to have to conform to judges, and yet is supportive of including a very different judging pool with varied expectations. 3) Pro says, again, that there are other ways to obtain memory boosts, but that's still a nonsequitor. He then states that precision in word usage is possible, but doesn't link it to his case. Even Pro admits that faster speakers aren't more prone to less precision. He never responds to my argument that reducing the rate of speaking will reduce depth, which means I'm winning both that depth and breadth are negatively affected by the slower rate of speaking. 4) Three things are assumed. One, he assumes that there are people outside of debate who are clamoring to get in, and all they need to see is policy debate slowing down. No warrant. Two, he assumes that no other form of debate requires "copious amounts of research." However, both Model UN and LD both have long preparation times and less rapid rates of speech. So he'll draw from them. Three, he assumes that any flux in will exceed flux out. No warrant. Lastly, Pro says that what makes a better debater is a person who speaks at a pace under 300 WPM. Still sounds arbitrary. His only warrant is that speaking to the masses is important, but it's not up to Pro to decide what is and is not a useful skill, or to narrowly define its uses. Nor is it up to Pro to decide what makes someone elitist. If he doesn't think it's "best" then he shouldn't do it. It isn't "obsolete" because there's nothing backward about speaking quickly. The only elitism I see here is his own.