1) You know why we cannot allow coaching, right? It would be incredibly unfair to allow for a club with more coaches, members, and alumni to help out with their debaters, while our teeny, little Rhode Island club is stuck with one inexperienced parent to assist. This rule simply removes any potential "elitist" [as Mrs. Nasser termed it] activity.
What other way would you have it?
While I understand (from reading the rest of this thread) that there is currently no ban on preptime coaching, I think it is important to address this notion that preptime coaching should be banned because it is unfair.
The first problem with this argument is that resource inequity is inevitable—that is, even if it is possible to ban preptime coaching, it is not possible to ban things like richer competitors having faster internet access as well as greater access to resources outside preptime.
Second, I don't think it even makes sense to ban preptime coaching. Consider, for example, that on the NPTE/NPDA circuit, student-run parli teams have historically been very successful (see, e.g., Berkeley and UC San Diego). One of the reasons (besides the fact that those kids were very good debaters) is that parli, as an activity, lends itself better to equitable access than policy debate does. In policy, a large team with several coaches is always going to be able to outresearch a small team without a coach; but I contend that most of one's success in parli comes from skills unrelated to how much your coach can spew at you in 15 minutes, such as: (a) the ability to make strategic in-round decisions (such as kicking and collapsing); (b) the ability to reason on the fly (which preptime coaching won't necessarily help and can actually hinder); and (c) the ability to memorize generalized arguments and adapt them to the specific arguments in the round. A good debater is a good debater is a good debater.
Third, even if preptime coaching provides some value-added benefit, I don't know why that's a bad thing. When I did parli, I learned the most from debating against teams better than I was. So if preptime coaching is going to make Team X better, and Team X debates non-coached Team Y, Team Y is presumably going to benefit (even if derivatively) from Team X. And because knowledge is not a zero-sum game, this benefit is good for the activity overall.
Finally, there are ways around this "problem" that I think improve the activity. In college parli, my partner and I would sometimes prep with other teams, by ourselves, and without coaches. This was often preferable to prepping with coaches. Additionally, coached squads would often "adopt" coachless teams and share coaching and other resources. These sorts of arrangements are good for all teams and beneficial for the activity overall. I am convinced that, even if there are valid arguments against allowing coaching in preptime or overall, that any such arguments are swamped by the numerous benefits afforded by avoiding the institution of such a rule.