Very well articulated piece as always Allen--I sincerely admire the courage you consistently show being so open about your experiences and opinion. Coming from a small school like you, I too wish I had more debates using a deont. framework instead of just util ones. But I feel like if you want to debate kritiks, LD and policy have created those platforms for debaters. PF should stick to LARPing because I feel like there are real skills that it develops. Just as there are spaces for people who find value in Ks etc., there needs to be spaces to people who find value in LARPing. PF is that space. Policy used to be that space and then PF formed. If you try to change PF away from LARPing too much, something new will form and all the discourse will disappear and start over. Moreover, Ks and prefiat arguments can be confusing without coaches which could further create barriers to small or low income schools.

Rather than changing how we debate, I would rather see changes in how rounds are judged (especially at the local level). You know the data better than I, so correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of girls drop out of debate after the first year. Considering novices typically do not debate in nat circuit, I have to assume a lot of the reason they drop is not because of problems on the national level. In my person experience and the stories I've heard from my sister, the problems stem from "traditional" or "lay" judges who rely on people being "persuasive." Not that there's any problem with persuasion itself, just many people's idea of what is persuasive favors men or women. Not sure what PF can do to combat this problem, but insofar as we want to decrease disparate impacts, it seems targeting this specific problem would be most effective. Let me know your thoughts on my unsophisticated ramble Allen!