(1) The time extension to the Summary speech has changed the role of Summary entirely. While the purpose of Summary had been to consolidate impact analysis so Grand Crossfire may be clearer, it has now made Grand Crossfire less meaningful because students are no longer forced to prioritize particular ground and impacts in a debate.
(2) The additional minute of prep time has caused debaters to focus more on searching for evidence rather than making the level of argumentation increase and develop throughout the debate.
(3) I have no position on the issue, as I believe evidence should only play a role in Public Forum Debate and not be the primary focus of the debate. I feel the increased focus on evidence in Public Forum Debate, to some extent, has come at the expense of participation in Cross-Examination Debate and emphasis on evidence only furthers that.
(4) No, because Crossfires in general have not made to be affectual to the results of a debate on the ballot. Proponents of eliminating Grand Crossfire desire Public Forum Debate to mirror Cross-Examination Debate, when Grand Crossfire on its own should be a voting issue if the spirit of the format is to be preserved. The official judging guidelines should be changed to reflect the importance Crossfires have to format.
(5) No, it has created the same time distribution issue when Final Focus was a minute and make tournaments run longer with leaning towards evidence-focus.
(6) No, it disincentives instinctual debate skills in favor for a reliance on prepped evidence.