Lincoln-Douglas is, in many places, mutating to be just like policy debate (kritiks, spreading, reliance on "cards" rather than actual argument).

To solve this problem, the NFL (National Forensic League) created a new form of debate, called Public Forum, that focuses on clear, persuasive rhetoric at the expense of detailed research. And now it is starting to mutate just like Lincoln-Douglas.

I think that fast-talking and reliance on out-of-context quotes is sort of the dominant strategy for any kind of debate. As long as there is a rule than an unrefuted argument stands as true, quantity will inevitably become more important than quality, and the credentials of a source will be more important than what it actually says.

This process doesn't occur when judges are allowed to make their decision based on persuasive speech and rhetoric as much as on logic, but debate judging is already so subjective that this presents a problem for many people.

You're wrong about one key point - judges in policy debate are allowed to use whatever decision-making framework they want. They don't have to consider a dropped argument valid. But most do, because the point of policy debate is not to wax poetic about your beliefs in a passionate attempt to persuade others, but rather to play a highly technical game against challenging opponents.

I never liked the alternate forms of debate that attempt to re-create some golden era of slow talking persuasion because the decisions made are often arbitrary. I prefer a value-neutral environment where I can be assured a more objective basis for judgement.

I did parlimentary debate in high school, which involves absolutely no research beyond one's general knowledge, and a vast amount of creativity. In college, I tried my hand at policy debate, and found it wearisome. The research was enjoyable, but the motormouth spewing of undigested (and indigestible at that speed) facts seemed pointless. It was also less fun to watch others. So that lasted through two tournaments, then it was back to the computer lab...

It not indigestible, you just have to train your ears to hear it and think fast. After two years you start to have less and less problems with it.

Not "incomprehensible," but that was the case for some people, but "indigestible." I feel, you are obviously free to disagree, that policy debates actively discourage mulling over evidence in favor of a firehose of "argument by authority," assertions. Like I said, there are good things about it, too.