I think this is precisely the thing that needs to happen in order to legitimize PF as a debate event.

The coin flip ruins everything. If the Con can speak first, it forces the con team into a position where they have to argue the opposite of the resolution. That isn't negation, it's effectively just an affirmation of a different statement entirely. It creates a burden of proof for the con team that isn't present out of necessity in either LD or CX. The end result is far too many PF rounds winding up being dueling oratories, as debaters argue at cross purposes with far too little time to develop deep argumentation.

Eliminating that rule would allow for a few good things to happen:

1. Teams no longer wind up arguing just one side of a topic the whole tournament. Switch side debate is awesome, and this is an issue more often than we might like to admit.
2. It allows for the development of ACTUAL negation. The con team isn't saddled with a burden of proof by necessity. They can run strategies that allow them to argue the insufficiency of the Affirmative advocacy. This is how interesting critical arguments, detailed disadvantages, etc. develop. The con team can still provide an alternative advocacy of some sort (the way a policy debater can provide a counterplan), but they're not sort of boxed in by dint of having to speak before anybody has presented the case for the resolution.
3. This will improve clash, and provide for what I expect to be debates of better quality because of the prep required. While it doesn't solve the problem of being utterly unable to develop any argumentative depth in a 2 minute long speech, at least it should be a little bit easier for everybody to strategize a bit better regarding their issue selection.

So, I say hooray to Golden Desert for trying something that allows this event to move forward in what I think is a better direction. I hope it catches on.