Spreading is lame.
If it's "let's-throw-crap-at-a-wall-and-see-what-sticks" spreading, then I agree -- but that's not how we spread.
"this [insert justification/evidence/analysis/impact] deals with [insert argument], so if the other team attempts to bring this argument up in following speeches, refer back to my speech."
Sure, but in order to assume that that's effective you have to assume that I have no response to your response.
Katie can generally clump and dump pretty well.
That's exactly my point. Monroes clumped and dumped against us -- and in the process dropped almost all of my Topicality analysis and half of my significance analysis. They dropped even more of Daniel's stuff in the 1AR. With any other judge, we would've easily won.
If you clump and dump too much, you're going to drop analysis.
it seems to me that the whole point of spreading is based on the hope that the 1A will drop something in her 1AR
Partially. It's a strategy for the win. But it's also about bringing up all of the arguments that should be brought up (and would be in real life) in order for the judge to really be able to evaluate the aff plan.
which does not provide good clash
There's lots of clash -- the 1AR just has to be really fast.
and therefore an educational experience
I think in every neg round Daniel and I have had every person in the room had an educational experience. Some affs just got lazy and dropped analysis.
it can come across as rude and annoying as well.
It depends on the kind of spreading. If you ask the Monroes and Pierson/Prevost, we spread them -- but it wasn't crap-spreading. It was all legit stuff. Nobody was offended. Everybody was educated. We just didn't give them the liberty of moving slow in the 1AR.
debate angel wrote:
I think Katie and Drew's main point here is that it's a little lame (I had a hard time finding the right word, so I'll just settle with lame) for a negative team to win because they ran 19 stupid arguments
So true. That's why we never run stupid arguments