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

This debate has gone extremely well so far and I applaud debate.org and its members for having the first online forum I have ever encountered where debates don't just fall into anarchy. Now to get on topic. While I view policy as a legitimate form of debate I have yet to be convinced of how it is not inherently flawed for multiple reasons. I have explained my reasons in full so I will not drag them on for multiple paragraphs. It seems as if we simply disagree on what constitutes a significant flaw. I have never claimed that one cannot learn from policy. I believe much can be learned. As we find formats that allow further learning and better learning we naturally migrate towards those. Schooling 50 years ago was vastly different than it is now. There used to be one thick book students learned math, english, history, and religion from. Now we have separate structured classes, multiple books, and have toned down religion. That one thick book is a great way to learn but there are BETTER ways and that is what I advocate here. Policy is flawed for two main reasons as I have stated. 1. First is the issue of leaving arguments unanswered. If this is done one is not allowed to address the argument for "fairness" sakes in a closing argument. The impacts of this unanswered argument are pulled all the way through. If someone claims that pain is enjoyable empirically due to the prevalence of S+M and I don't have time to address this silly argument then the other team wins assuming they have a large impact. This is a flaw. If we have judges who throw this S+M argument out as it is silly then we have subjective judges and that is a flaw and brings a host of other issues. 2. Time limits and speed reading also make policy debate flawed. As I have stated people that speak faster and throw out more arguments have an advantage, even if the arguments are silly or plainly wrong or if they speak so fast few can understand them. But we have been over this and we simply disagree how much of an unfair advantage it gives. You argue this is ameliorated by other debate skills. I say all else equal, this still confers an unfair and flawed advantage. 3. My final repeated argument is the issue of explaining complex phenomena in a very limited time. Policy debaters often bring up Malthusian economics or Biopower and sometimes even S+M. These ideas, including S+M take a long time to explain and in order to draw concrete conclusions from. Using simple econ I can reason that since the west has many resources they should have many kids (due to spendable resources) or I can reason that since the west has many resources they should have few kids (as kids don't give much utility compared to their cost and econ is about maximizing utility). Which answer is correct? Noone knows and an 8 min debate from people who don't have a deep understanding of economics isn't going to solve this. I hope I have convinced you of the flaws in policy debate. Whether it is the speed reading or the depth of arguments people now little about, or the issue that unanswered arguments impact's are extended even if the argument is silly. Policy debate is a great learning tool but it is flawed due to the above.