Debate leagues should not allow spreading.

Why thank you, whiteflame. Let's jump in, shall we? I will be addressing my opponent's contentions by number, as he listed them in his opening. 1) This issue has multiple points within it. First, my opponent clarified (in comments) that the structures to be upset are "things that make up the basis by which someone decides to engage in a given style and by which someone excels at that style." So the crowd might change. People that excelled because of their spreading skills may fall to the bottom of the pecking order. More likely, though, is that any serious competitor would change with the rules to maintain their place on top. Additionally, those who just couldn't keep up will now have a chance to compete, which does two things: A - draws more people, who will bring their own unique styles and views, leading to increased philosophical diversity and variety from round to round. B - because of increased numbers, there will be more satisfaction for winners, making the competition all the more alluring. I'm assuming we can agree that the proposed changes will cause no physical harm to students and, as I will explain when I address contention 3, no mental/educational shortfalls will come of it, either. Changing the rules will hardly throw coaches out of work, only require them to shift focus to accommodate a different style. Change helps us grow as people and, although some would disagree, coaches are people, too. As for making judging more complex, the opposite is true. Common citizens, not just highly trained professionals, will be able to judge because there will be no need for special listening and flowing strategies. This allows the less educated among us to learn something... from debate! 2) If judges make the call on how to assess argumentation, debaters will be forced to conform to (possibly drastically) different preferences in every round. Only the overseeing organization has the power, yea, the responsibility to moderate and standardize the way in which a debate round is judged. 3) I was excited for this one. My opponent is mostly correct on this point. There are benefits to faster speaking. The one I honestly have no comeback for is the positive effect on memory skills. Do you know, dear reader, what else can help memory skills? A good teacher, or one of the countless other free educational supplements available online or at a store near you! Slower speaking will cut down on the quantity and diversity or arguments, but this is a good thing. It allows debaters to delve more deeply into a few key areas, making them experts on their chosen topics. This leads me into my next point, as there will be no sacrifice of educational content. What is lost by cutting out some variety is replaced tenfold with the necessary skills of condensing and articulating several facts and arguments into a few short statements. These are important skills that have a variety of real-world applications from sales pitches to education to storytelling. Slower speaking shifts the focus from quantity to quality, hinging on rhetorical skills IN ADDITION TO the listening and comprehension required by spreaders. 4) The fact that numerous styles are against spreading would appear to indicate that I am not alone in my views. Since we are not debating one particular style, it seems that the status quo is not fully on Con's side. At such high speeds, it is a challenge to pronounce words, let alone add inflection and feeling. Unless the goal is to train future rappers and auctioneers, high-speed reading cannot compare to the lessons taught by slower, rhetoric-driven debate. Only by abolishing spreading as a whole can we ensure that debaters learn valuable speaking skills to use in any profession. Lastly, I would like to point out that endorsing such an obscure skill set can promote elitism, turning debaters into stuck-up snobs that alienate prospective newcomers with their off-putting attitudes. Without newbies, debate dies and takes spreading with it.