(1) It’s resulting in the debaters being even more likely to “go for everything” late in the round. Ultimately though I think the community will get better at using it wisely, and it’s at worst exacerbating what was already a significant mistake made by a lot of teams. I support the extra minute in summary insofar as I support lengthening speeches in PF in general.
(2) Even more time to call for cards that never get indicted or discussed in the speeches! Honestly I’m fine with it though. Second speakers need three minutes now to deliver the summaries to their first speakers to parrot back.
(3) I don’t think there’s been much of a change, but I cannot convey how opposed I am to a ban on paraphrasing. It’s a real world academic skill and the alternative practiced in LD and CX of being wed to lining down cards does just as much violence to author’s intent and is often even more confusing for a judge to try to understand. Here’s an alternative: let’s view evidence as PART of the decision-making process for judges in a debate instead of weighting it so heavily in our decisions.
(4) No change. It’s really got to be eliminated. There are better places to allocate this three minutes, including ever so slightly shortening the day for all of our students and all of us.
(6) Sure, but I don’t feel strongly.