I agree. I was a high school CX debater. When I was participating, if you wanted a polite, well-reasoned debate, you did Lincoln Douglas. If you wanted a creative, high-stakes battle where random ideas hit you in the face and forced you to think crazy, random thoughts creatively on your feet and then find some evidence for them even faster, you went CX. We had workshops on speaking and reading quickly. That was absolutely the most important skill you could have. It didn't matter what you were saying, you just needed to say it fast.
I was in it for the disadvantages and counterplans. It was fun to get as creative as you could. If you could come up with a good counterplan or disad that would lead to nuclear war and nobody had evidence against it, you could win a tournament. Not always. Some judges frowned on that unless it was very creative and made some kind of sense. And not more than a tournament, because by the next tournament everyone would be prepared to take you down. But you could win a tournament.
I don't know the trends in CX debate now, but it hasn't been about the policy in a really long time.
Edited to say Wikipedia actually has a good description of how the game is played.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_debate. Kritiks did not exist when I was involved, but everything else did. It can sound very odd and incomprehensible to people who haven't participated, but that's the game.
