MOST RATIONAL METHOD for NUMBERING and REFERENCING ARGUMENTS in a DART DEBATE?

I have tried a bunch of different ways of maintaining some kind of consistent internal reference method for arguments and I've never been really satisfied by any method I've experimented with.   I wonder if there's some excellent standard debaters have seen here or particularly on other sites with big advantage in clarity or style?

There's two core fundamental approaches to this and you are approaching it from the other angle to me.

I aim to write such that even the most casual reader can follow what I'm saying without stressing their brain or eye too much.

You aim to write such that the most intensive readers can rapidly pick up on the logical framework of your rebuttals and point-extensions.

Ultimately these two polarities are stylistic debating vs structural debating. Debaters like yourself exist also in real-life tournaments, you don't flex your eloquence, you just slam in as many words as possible in the amount of time and are skilled enough to know what types of lines-of-logic the judge is looking for. You overload your opponent in many rebuttal-tangents while maintaining anything the opponent failed to rebuke as a point you still maintain (and you repeat these each Round).

I was always a more stylistic debater, especially in person and it's why I was much stronger as a late-Round speaker than a first-Round speaker (all teams I worked with agreed with me on this both positively and negatively, I will go a bit creative and crazy if I'm forced to speak first and always will spice up or tone down a contention or two if I feel it's necessary for defense later on, which both annoys the team and is a position I myself dislike to be in as I don't know for sure how well or how poorly the enemies nor my allies will actually have pulled off said points, I much prefer/preferred to be the backup there for rebuttal-defense and creative angling).

Debaters who aim to format their debates textually how you do, tend to be excellent mid-Round debaters actually, though they certainly are superior first-Round than last-Round debaters. The type of debaters who do best first-Round tend to be the ones who don't enjoy what rebuttals entail and that line of thinking in debates (they're great presenters of already well-built cases, not so much actually hot-seat defenders or attackers).

Thanks, if I read you right, you'rr not much of admirer of any kind of rigid numbering method.

I'm  disappointed that you don't think I flex my eloquence, since I consider eloquence my top priority here on this site.  I assure you, my lack of eloquence is not for lack of maximum effort on my part to achieve that particular benchmark.

I still like my adopted method of using roman and arabic numerals to number my progressive paragraphs. That way, a particular point is easily referenced later on, rather than having to quote the earlier text, such as: R2, IV.a.2 goes directly to that specific paragraph of that round. It would actually be nice to be able to embed the reference as a hyperlink, but I don't know if that is possible to do, or not.

I like to use this method for what I refer to in arguments, where I link the text and reference the article it's sourced from. Here is an example

Bro; out of your 99 debates, you won 98 of them.  Others should be asking you for advice on debates, not the other way around.