(1) — Yes, because it allows a bit more depth of argumentation, which is something that those who coach/judge a lot find frustrating with PF.
(2) — I think the real issue with prep time is that the community writ large hasn’t developed procedures on evidence transfer in PF, which is especially problematic with lay judges. This is one of the big things that has to be addressed in PF.
(3) — Make students actually read evidence text in rounds — any allowance we make for paraphrasing opens the door to abuse — any of us who’ve judged PF to any degree can think of at least a few students who paraphrase a 20 page report to make it say what they want and then defy the other team to read the report and prove it’s not the case. This community is the one place that ought to place a premium on intellectual integrity, especially when a lot of the rest of the world doesn’t seem to be valuing it nearly as much.
(4) — Nope. It still doesn’t really do anything to advance the debate. I also don’t think, as some have advocated, that all four debaters should generally be involved in the individual crossfires — that’s the one good chance to see two debaters side by side without the partner bailing the other partner out.
(5) — Yes.
(6) — Agnostic on this question.
P.S. — The other big change that needs to be made is to eliminate the coin flip. Two reasons: 1) it serves no pedagogical purpose (people like to use the word “strategic” but that’s just code for “gaming the system”) and 2) it takes the event where we are committed to placing the judge pool least experienced with debate practices and given them the greatest opportunity to enter things on a ballot incorrectly.