Debaters who rely upon "spreading" in order to bury their opponent in volume mention of so many unexplored contentions as to make rebuttal impossible, or very nearly impossible, and then argue the dropping of one or more of their unexpanded contentions as voters, are not all that likely to succeed in a round I judge. I don't mind relatively rapid speed, but the debater had better be making rational and "clinched" arguments. Also, if it is so rapid that I don't catch what a debater is saying/has said, then it doesn't make it into my flow and it is of no value to the debater as a voting issue. Arguments that contradict earlier contentions, or have a large gap in reasoning/linear progression of logic can be quite fatal to one's case. Jargon and/or lingo/technical terms can be used to the extent that one's contentions and flow of reasoning are lost amongst them, and I will be likely to point out such. Frameworks should be applied in such a manner as to support the thrust of your overall argument rather than in manners which back you into a corner from which a fatal contradiction of earlier contentions or obvious humanitarian considerations will be likely to destroy your position. In other words, please don't argue for an extremely dubious morality or an unjust form of "justice" as the argument won't be likely to prevail, even if it does cause your opponent to contort and spasm in trying to meet and overcome your claims. Please do not put forth a ridiculously abusive definition, contention, or series of contentions, especially those that aren't germane to the topic at hand for the purpose of defeating your opponent through a haze of confusion and theater of the absurd. I don't vote for those strategies.