Debate leagues should not allow spreading.

Alrighty now. I would like to formally apologize for my goof-up with the rounds. There were no malicious intents, only miscommunication on my part. That being said, thank you to Con, and let's get jiggy with it. 1) I never said the shift from spreading to not spreading would be simple or easy, only that it was possible. Yes, some may choose to back away from debate because they cannot change their skill sets. These individuals can go on to advise aspiring rappers on the best speed techniques. For those of us who stay, along with the newcomers that will swiftly replace any dropouts, we will go forward with a form of debate that will be more effective at teaching as well as drawing crowds, for funding, for expansion, etc. One more thing. You said I was expecting too much. I thought it was too much to speak for 8 minutes about the Cuban embargo. Rising to challenges is an integral part of debate and any other serious competition. As for judges, it would be up to the leagues to determine what background would be required, which is not part of this debate. What I know firsthand is that being judged by uneducated volunteers, including supporters of rival teams, serves only to force us to build flawless cases, so there is no question as to who wins. Also, I'm not forcing judges to count WPM. Rate of speech should be taught by coaches, and an acceptably slow speaking will become the natural norm, as in the other forms Con mentioned. 2) Allow me to add interpretation to my previous statement. I was speaking in the context of speed, not style. I do feel that speaking to varied audiences is best, but not when that variety causes you to be penalized for speaking at a natural pace in one round and praised in the next. Major issues like this require standardization from an overseeing entity. 3) I concede to Con's point only in the way a health activist would admit that smoking can relieve stress. There are benefits, but there are other, better ways to obtain them, ways that offer additional gains. Count syllables: "There was this time like way back when I was in 5th grade when I thought talking really fast was cool." vs "In 5th grade, I thought spreading was cool." 23-9. I'm not saying that spreaders speak like the former, only showing how precise words can preserve meaning while dropping filler words. In that extra space, I could talk about other things. Granted, the slower pace would cause a bigger gap to jump, but Hemingway told a whole story in 6 words. It can be done. 4) The issue with spreading that i failed to clearly state is that it is simply not the best option. My arguments are about how slower speech is a better choice. The error in Con's "net 0" argument is that it operates on the premise that debaters will leave their chosen styles for a reformed policy debate. Speed is not the only difference between the various styles, and policy would still be different from LD, BP, and the like. Slowing down would not cause a Parli debater to suddenly like copious amounts of research. On the other hand, individuals who enjoy the principles of policy debate, but were help back by the speed, will now have every reason to join. Sounds like a gain to me! I am not saying spreaders aren't debaters, just that they could be better debaters without spreading. As for my preference of skills, I have the masses in mind. Think of jobs that involve speaking. How many of those require exceeding 300 WPM? The fact that elitism exists doesn't prove that spreading doesn't encourage it. The more someone is told they do better than everyone, the more they believe THEY are better than everyone. Let's step back and take a look at this. Spreading is the tradition, which may help with memory. Slowing down will be a big change, but so was using sails instead of oars. The general fact that large transitions aren't easy doesn't take away from the truth: spreading is obsolete. For future debaters' sakes, can we get over ourselves and be open to something new?