The Instigator
LDdebaterCG
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
sandite2010
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

LD is a superior form of debate to policy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
sandite2010
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/26/2009 Category: Education
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,297 times Debate No: 6655
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

LDdebaterCG

Pro

Well i stand in the strictest affirmation that LD is a better form of debate than policy. firstly in policy they spread which is cheap and well too gloaty you basically shove a bunch of stuff in your opponents face which leaves them nothing to respond because there's so much in their face. secondly the first aff and neg speeches are just policy debaters reading off evidence and spreading as i have stated before why spreading is wrong winning off of sole evidence is wrong. LD acknowledges this and realizes you must not only win off of sole facts you must also win based off of morality and ethics if we were to go off of facts alone that would be simply atrocious for example if were debating nuke war i could say hey nukes kill off all of the US's enemies and won off of that it would be different than me saying hey that's wrong morally because you kill thousands of lives evidence and facts can only get you so far before you realize what is easy and what is right i say that policy is what is easy. i would also like to state that policy provides rounds that are horrendously long policy takes an hour and a half where as LD takes half of the time Why would you supply twice the time unless you needed more time to think of rebuttals. policy is easier than LD because they allow you more time to think and when they allow you more time to speak there is no doubt that your going to speak longer. so my overall statement here is this. policy takes more time because they give you more protected thinking time. so as you can see LD is without a doubt the more serious form of debate you win off of evidence and morals you get less time so you have to think on your feet and you dont ordinarily spread and if you do most judges in LD look down on it so i urge a vote for the affirmation i am now open for cross ex.
sandite2010

Con

LD is a ridiculous form of debate. It is all about unprovable philosophies made by dead people that no one really knows about. On the pros policy is just "winning off of sole evidence is wrong" argument that is how debate is supposed to be you need proof that your policy is the best in the round not just who can talk about philosophers and what they defended for no reason. To correct the Pros argument about how policy is easier because you have more time to think. That's the worst argument I have ever heard policy is given more time because it is something people could actually utilize because policy is about current issues while as LD has short little speeches just so they can leave quicker because there is no reason to do LD its not realistic. So you must vote negative because the Affirmative just tells you how easy LD is and it is easy because it takes no effort to rattle all of the philosophers you know off where as policy takes real time, effort, and brain power.
Debate Round No. 1
LDdebaterCG

Pro

LDdebaterCG forfeited this round.
sandite2010

Con

Policy Debate has been around for longer than LD also so LD is just a stem off of a true form of debate. It takes more time for policy because you have to think in round you don't just have all of your case written up before hand. LD has to have topic changes so often because it gets to easy after a month of talking about the same thing. Policy stays the same because there is so many different ways a round can go and that always keep it way more intersting than LD.
Debate Round No. 2
LDdebaterCG

Pro

Well im sorry i was unable to post my argument this is my first debate online and is did not know how to post any way

My opponent states that it is about unprovable philosophies made by dead ppl no one heard about and that this is apparently not important philosophers make up out current day society and policy is all about spreading cheap evidence all over the place which i can extend since my opponent dropped it so we can assume spreading is wrong "To correct the Pros argument about how policy is easier because you have more time to think. That's the worst argument I have ever heard policy is given more time because it is something people could actually utilize because policy is about current issues while as LD has short little speeches just so they can leave quicker because there is no reason to do LD its not realistic" LD has to think on their feet more because we have less time which is why our speeches are in fact only 3 minutes shorter but we have 4 minutes less prep time So you must vote negative because the Affirmative just tells you how easy LD is and it is easy because it takes no effort to rattle all of the philosophers you know off where as policy takes real time, effort, and brain power." i call abuse on this argument to the judge he is insulting my brain power and all other LD debaters brain power. however I will still refute this i never stated LD was easier than Policy in fact i say its harder we have to use ethics and morals when policy only has to use evidence my opponent has clearly misquoted me and the philosiphers being "Rattled off" all you do in policy is ratlle off bits and pieces of useless cards that do nothing for you. and as for the whole Policy has been around longer than LD that doesnt mean its better washington and lincoln were great presidents but yet even though they were before and original we still had bush and clinton and obama so the time is e relevant and as for why LD changes you have time and you type your cases and they get intense and yeah we change because it gets boring but there are as many ways to interpret and apply the resolution as there are in policy but my friend AK (Alexander Kulacki) Who is a policy debater has stressed that there are plans that are used commonly as there are cases in LD so as you can see all of my opponents points dont stand while mine do not to include my extended spreading argument so i urge an affirmative vote this person has misquoted me and i urge an affirmative vote
sandite2010

Con

ok idk how many policy rounds the aff has seen but he doesn't seem to realize how much effort is put into policy debate it takes time to come up with quality arguments not just what a philosopher said and how we should do this action such as nihlism. It takes no effort to say lets do nothing. Policy has lots of differnt things to think about from the negative side such as counter plans, Dis-ads, topicality, and the not so much liked critiques. Things that take time to have a well debated round. On his spreading argument there is spreading in LD also but that's ok because spreading isn't debates anti-christ; so that's not a very good argument the reason I didn't feel the need to answer it. On to his abuse argument i'm not saying he has no brain power i'm just saying he took the easy way out in choosing LD over Policy as I am sure you have seen throughout this debate.
In conlusion the affirmative has no offense in this debate he has just claimed abuse in saying it was bad what I said I just called it as I see LD a relatively useless form of policy debate. I am sure that you have seen how much better policy is than LD so it should be easy to click the vote negative.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by SniperJake94 8 years ago
SniperJake94
Acutally Pro did have a fair ground. Cost benefit anaylsis. I overlooked a policy round and they spread quickly. This is why Policy is an abuse. The evidence is enoumous to go through but you get the see the cards. And if u know your losing then that sucks cuz u have to stick with it for another 1 and 1/2 hrs. LD you speak about morals and logic rather than scientific evidence. Aff can say that the slaughter is very quick and painful. Ideas must get out fast and LD will be better in court because logical ideas are more convincing and to the point for the judge to understand.

But in Policy u can go crazy, making it very stupid, for example you can bring up a Chuck Norris case in 08-09 rosution by saying that CN can roundhouse kick so much energy that it will power australia for 43.24 seconds.
Posted by sandite2010 8 years ago
sandite2010
OK if you read the debate the Pro is just angry about being out argued i didn't say pro your the anti christ. He was talking about how bad spreading is and that is just ridiculous. And there is absolutely no reason to call abuse twice in one debate. Deal with it life's hard.
Posted by LDdebaterCG 8 years ago
LDdebaterCG
OK i admit the no brain power may have not been an abuse but comon calling me an anti christ in the last round and this guy had better conduct like wow im just a little miffed i usually get this way during a debate
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
LD did not exist when I debated in college many years ago. Wikipedia says "LD was introduced by the NFL at the National Tournament in 1980, and has become a ubiquitous feature of high school debate tournaments since." http://en.wikipedia.org... The format is well-suited to debating values, per the original Lincoln-Douglas debates. It also has the aspect of not requiring much research to determine facts, which is good for high school students who don't have much time to prepare.

What is dreadful about the format is that it reinforces the profoundly modern notion that facts are unimportant, and that what really counts is how you feel. In the real world, facts count for far more than feelings, so a person needs to be able to cope with facts. A person may feel that gravity works in ways that are totally unfair, but gravity really doesn't care how you feel or how eloquently you express your feelings. Thats the way the world is. Society has reached the point where bringing facts into a debate is often considered impolite at best. You could see that in the last Presidential campaign, for example, where both candidates avoided questions of fact in favor of empty sound bites.

So, nothing wrong with debating values in the LD format. It develops the skills that lawyers and politicians use. It is just very limited.
Posted by flare1234567 8 years ago
flare1234567
no LD was the original but over time it shifted to policy. so they make policy its own form and then shifted it back. each has its strengths and weaknesses but LD is better for sure.
Posted by 1994bookworm 8 years ago
1994bookworm
Oh, there's also spreading in LD, although it doesn't happen very often.
However, in circuit debates for LD, everyone spreads.....
Posted by 1994bookworm 8 years ago
1994bookworm
Huzzah for LD!
It's the most legit form of debate.

However, didn't LD originate from policy in the first place?
I'm not really sure...but I did hear something along those lines
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
I don't know enough about the debate formats to take this challenge, but if policy requires both prolonged thinking and many facts, as Pro asserts, I can understand why it is out of favor.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
LDdebaterCGsandite2010Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by sandite2010 8 years ago
sandite2010
LDdebaterCGsandite2010Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07