It was rare that any negative team would take the time to present counterarguments to any discrete part of the affirmative plan.
These, plus the shotgun, rapidfire delivery style, dominated policy debate, and made it pretty un-fun to participate in.
I ended up switching to extemporaneous speaking and enjoying it a lot more.
"I guess misdirection from deconstructionistism would be an entertaining alternate tactic. Yes you have introduced 122 points in your favor, but alas the very foundation of your arguments is undermined by my simple deconstruction."
The world/life is insane. It is far too large to understand, and even if you did, so unpredictable to be predicted anyway. Thus logical argumentation is subject to nihilistic nullification by a sufficiently skilled / pedantic debater?
There's also more performance than people admit to, if your responses seem more competent, that goes a long way. A slow talking K that gets responded to by a team speed reading their prebuilt, 20 point "Foucault was a wanker" folder is probably going to lose.
Emporia SW won the NDT which was covered heavily in mainstream media