This form paradigm is essentially nonsense. 

Check my full paradigm on tabroom.com. important NSDA addition below:

***Fair warning for Trad teams (NSDA/NCFL): I think there is a lot of value in traditional debate. If you go slow or talk about the stock issues, I have no problem engaging you. I would prefer you engage your opponent more offensively to increase chances of getting my ballot but don't fundamentally change how you debate for me.

However, if you devote a significant portion of your speech time to talking about how debate is dying because of these pesky kritiks and people talking fast ruining the educational value of debate I am uninterested, annoyed and likely offended on some level.

My students and I have personally benefitted significantly from policy debate that includes all of these things. There is an immense value to both traditional and "progressive" debate and these things can coexist. I am from the state of Kansas where you have to be good at both to succeed, so examples of debate flourishing in your state "because we're traditional" are completely unpersuasive.

Your speaks will be tanked and I will not vote on this level of the debate. I will still consider the remainder of the debate regardless, but you will have wasted your time. I want to emphasize, this does not apply to all critiques of spreading or fairness arguments against kritiks. An ableism critique or accessibility requests on this level are of course important, interesting and effective arguments. Fairness standards as a part of a framework argument against a kritik are also totally fine. There are plenty of ways to make logical and persuasive critiques of the way we function in debate without reading cards from the 1990s written by people who wanted to make debate great (white/male) again.