The Instigator
redorc19
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zaradi
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

policy debate is better than ld

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Zaradi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/9/2012 Category: Education
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,639 times Debate No: 28008
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

redorc19

Pro

I take pro. First round is for acceptance only, definition of "better" can be a point of contention during the debate. No rudeness, profanity, etc. Good luck!
Zaradi

Con

I accept.

Also, as an FYI to my opponent, I'm probably going to break the profanity rule sooner or later in the debate, and no f*cks will be given when I do it.

See? Just did it there. Anyway, good luck to you.
Debate Round No. 1
redorc19

Pro

redorc19 forfeited this round.
Zaradi

Con

General points for LD over Policy (I can go more in-depth if my opponent shows up):

- LD is much easier to start learning as opposed to Policy, allowing for rookies to get started quicker.
- LD incorporates much of the same policies and tactics that Policy does. Policy doesn't use LD cases and tactic. This makes LD more diverse and flexible to more types of debating and debaters.
- LD is more parent friendly whereas its standard procedure in varsity policy to spread (speed read), in varsity LD one can be successful going slow or spreading, which allows for more judge adaptation.

Going to wait for my opponent before I disclose more.
Debate Round No. 2
redorc19

Pro

I deeply apologize for my forfeiting the last round, just could not get to a computer for a few days.

Response to Con's Points:

- LD is much easier to start learning as opposed to Policy, allowing for rookies to get started quicker

Answer: 1) The ease of a type of debate in no way demonstrates how good it is; on the contrary, learning something difficult allows one to get more educational value by persevering to improve their skills early on. 2) Even if you do not agree with my first response, then, even by my opponent's logic, it will be harder for everyone to start, therefore leveling the playing field for all beginners.

- LD incorporates much of the same policies and tactics that Policy does. Policy doesn't use LD cases and tactic. This makes LD more diverse and flexible to more types of debating and debaters.

Answer: 1) LD only utilizes a small fraction of Policy tactics and ideas, i.e. CP and Kritik, and some others while Policy has Stock Issues not in any way utilized by LD debate. Note: Policy debates would all agree that Stock Issues provide the high-intensity debate with some level of order and form. 2) Policy debate is WAY more open-ended and diverse than LD: there are no accepted rules in policy, and everything can be questioned, including the methodology of the debate itself. LD's format is not questioned at nearly the same level. 3) You conceding that LD borrows/steals much of its Theory from Policy shows that, at its core, Policy is more diverse and has more potential to expand its wings than the derivative debate called LD.

- LD is more parent friendly whereas its standard procedure in varsity policy to spread (speed read), in varsity LD one can be successful going slow or spreading, which allows for more judge adaptation.

Answer: 1) Education outweighs the ease of understanding for lay judges; debate is for the debaters, not the judges. 2) Spreading increases education, allowing for more arguments to be presented and, therefore, prepped and researched on. 3) Most varsity Policy rounds will have 3 judges, usually with only 1 lay judge, possibly none. Lays are used for novice, which does not have insane spreading, more often than for varsity rounds.



Now my arguments:


1) Policy topics are more diverse, open-ended, ambiguous, and have more potential for real-world education - increases breadth of research for debaters.
2) Policy resolutions last for a whole year; LD topics generally last for 2 months - increases depth of research for debaters.
3) More time for arguments- format, spreading.

1) a. More diverse/open-ended/ambiguous: Policy debates have more potential for philosophical arguments than LD for economical/political cases. Eg. Policy debates can go off onto value of life, extinction, and are FAR MORE OPEN-ENDED IN THE FOLLOWING WAYS: "ridiculous" Kritiks and other types of arguments open Policy debaters' minds more than the narrow, philosophical/moral arguments that LD is limited to.
b. Real world education: politics, economics, and, as has been shown, potential for other types of arguments like philosophy allow for a more realistic subject matter than LD. More high school/ college debaters go into Law, Politics than Philosophy, and they therefore are preparing and learning for more real subjects than LD allows research for.
c. These all allow for a plethora of research to be done by Policy, an amount comparable to that necessary for a master's thesis. Anyone who does varsity Policy knows this; and although this research is not all on one topic, PDers learn a ton more through this process of research than LD debater ever will. (research is more of a priority for Policy than LD).

2) Not much elaboration needed here- Policy debaters stick with one resolution for 6 times the length of time than LDers, increasing breadth of research.
3) a. Format: adding up Policy and LD times, PD rounds take twice as long, allowing for more arguments to be make by each team, therefore increasing necessary Pre-round research.
b. Spreading: PDers spread, which may not sound pretty but which is a viable and logical way to get out info and evidence; Varsity PDers even spreading during rebuttals and when using analytics, forcing them to Think FASTER. I concede, LD sounds prettier, and helps PDers develop speaking skills more than PD, but no good debater does just Policy debate; they may do Extemp, or Expos, oratory, acting, etc. Those are the places where they can develop speech skills; policy is pure, hectic info overload.
Zaradi

Con

"1) The ease of a type of debate in no way demonstrates how good it is; on the contrary, learning something difficult allows one to get more educational value by persevering to improve their skills early on."

a) this argument is simply not true. The easier it is to get into something that's not exactly super simple (competitively debating isn't exactly a cake walk, I'm sure my opponent would agree to this if not I can certainly defend this point), the better off they are and the more enjoyable it will be for them.

b) you can turn this argument because the more difficult it is, the less likely people will want to perservere and would rather go to something that they are better at and can succeed in, thus lessening the educational value of the activity. The easier it is for people to become immersed in the activity, the more likely it is that they will find the activity enjoyable and will want to stick with it, increasing the educational value of the activity.

c) my opponent hasn't even refuted that LD is easier to get into, but rather made a comparison to the difficulty of getting started in Policy. This means that you can presume my argument is true, as my opponent is making the exact same presumption.

"2) Even if you do not agree with my first response, then, even by my opponent's logic, it will be harder for everyone to start, therefore leveling the playing field for all beginners."

a) this argument is non-unique. Everyone who is beginning any sort of activity will always be on a level playing field with everyone else who is beginning any sort of activity. There's no offense being garnered off of this point.

b) this point essentially concedes that Policy is hard to get into, meaning that he's biting directly into the turn I made against him earlier. He's not going to be linking out of it.

So my first argument stands and can be extended across the flow.

"1) LD only utilizes a small fraction of Policy tactics and ideas, i.e. CP and Kritik, and some others while Policy has Stock Issues not in any way utilized by LD debate. Note: Policy debates would all agree that Stock Issues provide the high-intensity debate with some level of order and form."

a) this is a fundamental misunderstanding of LD. LD doesn't just use CPs and Kritiks, but also plans, disads, theory, topicality, and many other cases that originated in Policy. Policy, however, uses none of the traditional value-critierion format commonly used in LD. If you're looking for a policy debate, presuming a policy judge or at least a judge that is okay with policy arguments, you'll find just as many policy debates in Policy as you will in LD.

b) this argument is just drastically wrong. Stock issues are debated just as hard in policy as they are in LD. His argument there is non-unique

c) he doesn't respond to the fact that LD using more of Policy's cases while policy doesn't branch out at all. The only place he touches on it is in a later response, but I'll get to that in a second. This turns my opponent's argument for education, as more types of arguments are offered in LD, thus meaning more educational value as different types of arguments and information are being used and need to be researched.

"2) Policy debate is WAY more open-ended and diverse than LD:"

LOL!

a) this is so far from the truth. At best for my opponent, LD topics are just as open ended as Policy topics. More closer to the truth, however, and you can see that LD topics are far more open-ended and thus more debatable than Policy topics. While in policy stock issues revolve around one certain concept - such as transportation infrastructure - stock in LD can take many different forms. Both sides run philosophical arguments, so that's non-unique, although I'd say it's more common in LD than Policy.

b) the rules in LD are just as much up for discussion as they are in Policy. Theory and topicality are used in LD just as much as they are in Policy, meaning that the rules and technicalities are constantly shifting. This is non-unique.

"Policy is more diverse and has more potential to expand its wings than the derivative debate called LD."

a) there's literally no reason to believe this. This is just an assertion with not even a hint of analysis to back it up.

b) you can turn this because LD has far more room to grow and is currently growing, via adapting to different styles of argumentation, while Policy is failing to adapt and is currently shrinking, notable by the decline in Policy debates at certain tournaments and the prevalence of Public Forum debate taking it's place. This means that LD has far more room to grow than Policy, which has clearly hit the wall and is currently in the process of dying.

My second argument stands. Extend it.

"Education outweighs the ease of understanding for lay judges;"

a) Even if you buy this, I've already given analysis and arguments as to how education is better in LD than in policy. This is a point in my favor as I provide both while my opponent provides little to none of both.

b) My opponent has a worse link into education as they don't provide for the education of the judges, who still stand to gain from the debate, whereas LD takes the judges into consideration.

c) My opponent again just makes a comparative argument while not touching on my original argument of judge adaptation, which allows for an increase of skill in debaters. His argument for education is non-responsive.

"Spreading increases education,"

a) Spreading decreases education for all, as you hear and comprehend more arguments, which allows you to do more research and come up with better responses that go more in-depth than a skin-level understanding from hearing spread.

b) Even if you buy his argument, both events have spreading, so it's non-unique at best.

"Most varsity Policy rounds will have 3 judges, usually with only 1 lay judge, possibly none."

a) Non-responsive, my point was talking about varsity, so the speaking speads of novice are irrelevant.

b) Still non-responsive, as there's still a chance for a lay judge in policy debates.

c) Misrepresentation of the debate. There's only panels in outrounds, whereas in prelims there is a single judge. The same style of judging is used in LD, so at best for him it's non-unique.

All my arguments stand. This means you negate on a risk of offense at worst. But let's go to his arguments now.

"Policy topics are more diverse, open-ended, ambiguous,"

a) already responded to this above.

b) it's just false. The same style of kritiks and political/economical arguments are used in LD as in policy, and then some. This means that LD will always be more open-ended, and thus more educational.

"Policy resolutions last for a whole year; LD topics generally last for 2 months"

a) He gives absolutely no warrant to it and just gives a bare assertion.

b) Turn, more resolution are better for research and education as it forces you to switch tacts and research something completely brand-new, thus increasing educational value to the activity.

c) Not true at all. There's little to nothing you wouldn't have researched by the end of four months on a topic, let alone a full blown year. Having topics change often allows people to be constantly researching, thus increasing education.

"More time for arguments- format, spreading."

a) More time hurts the quality of arguments, as it lets people get side-tracked by meaningless matters and not hurt the round in general. Condensing speech times lets people focus on the important matters, and thus creates more in-depth discussions on what truly matters which means more education.

b) His point about doing multiple events is non-unique at best, a crappy argument at worst. LDers can do more than one event just as well as a Policy debater can.

All his arguments are refuted. All mine are standing. I think the debate is a pretty clear decision. Thus, I urge a con vote.
Debate Round No. 3
redorc19

Pro

redorc19 forfeited this round.
Zaradi

Con

Another forfeit? Sad day.

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
redorc19

Pro

Indeed, it is sad. However, I will do my best and try to leave no points untouched... First, outline:

1)Spreading
2)Beginners
3)Diversity
4)Education (breadth, depth, etc.)

1) SPREADING
I quote my opponent: "b) Even if you buy his argument, both events have spreading, so it's non-unique at best."
Fine... I'll go with that. If both events have spreading, then the argument is nullified and is no longer a point of contention in this debate. Any ads/ disads with policy spreading go with LD as well... so disregard spreading completely.

2) BEGINNERS
Why dumb things down? If people are going to seriously strive to do well in competitive debate (which I agree, is pretty damn hard) then they should perservere from the start! The argument that starting off doing something easy is good is ridiculous; beginners should know what it is that they are getting into before they progress too much into a type of debate, and policy does this well by throwing them in the water. Anyone who would continue doing that debate event would not quit because it is hard to begin with.

3) DIVERSITY
CX debate is policy, economically, and politically oriented while LD is value, ethics, and philosophy oriented. However, it is common knowledge in the debate world that policy has less customs and de facto rules than LD. Philosophy is much more commonly entered into a policy round than stone cold economics into an LD round. EG. Policy can say "Extinction good" or "Religion bad" or can freaking advocate nihilism! LD is more rigid in that values are prioritized over real-world situations by far.

4) EDUCATION
Longer speaking times make policy win over LD in breadth.
Spreading and reading lots of evidence makes policy win over LD in depth.
The practical issues in policy win over LD's philosophical conversations, making it win in real-world education.

Don't be fooled by my opponent's long, drawn out response. This boils down the issues for which Policy is superior to LD, and therefore I have concisely explained why you MUST vote AFF. Thank you.
Zaradi

Con

Alas, what you see here today ladies and gentlemen is my opponent's last futile attempt to get back into this debate. He is trying to focus the debate on four issues and disregard the rest that he chose not to address. I will not allow that. The following points are points that my opponent dropped and function as offense in favor of LD over Policy:

1. He never responded to my point that in a seriously competitive activity, the easier it is for them to get started and sucked in, the better. This is strengthened by the fact that my opponent conceded that LD is easier to get into compared to Policy.
2. He never responded to my point that the harder something is to get into, the more likely it will deter people for trying to get started, which turns his entire point about beginners.
3. He never responded to my point that the playing field for everyone is always going to be equal among beginners so ease of starting is better.
4. He never responded to the fact that LD uses as much policy-styled arguments as policy does, yet policy doesn't use any LD styled arguments or cases (while LD has kritiks, plans, counterplans, theory, topicality, disads, etc., policy doesn't use the Value-criterion format that is traditional to LD).
5. He never responded to my point that the rules and guidelines in LD are just as open for discussion and modification as they are in Policy.
6. He never responded to my point that LD is growing and has a lot more room to grow, compared to Policy that has no more room to grow and is slowly dying out and being replaced by Public Forum.
7. He never responds to the fact that LD provides more education for everyone, including the judges, as compared to Policy.
8. He never responded to my point that LD debaters have a higher ability to adapt to different judges compared to policy.
9. He never responded to my point that spreading decreases the overall education level of everyone.
10. He never responded to the fact that LD can function without spreading on the varsity level, whereas spreading is basically mandatory for policy on the varsity level, meaning he bites into the harms of less education. He's trying to get out of the harms by saying that both events have spreading on the varsity level, but one can also be successful not spreading on the varsity level, when compared to policy this isn't the case, which means more judge adaptation and better education.
11. He never responds to my point that there are more different types of arguments and case ideas that are ran in LD than in Policy. His idea that policy runs more philosophy than LD runs economics is false, as LD runs the same amount of economics and far more philosophy.
12. He never responded to my point that the shorter resolution times give much more education because of the increased research load.
13. He never responded to my point that shorter speech times allow for better education than longer speech times.

So what this means is that even if you're buying all of the analysis that my opponent brought up new in the final round (and you shouldn't take pity on him for the two forfeited rounds, instead you should hold that against him), the vast amount of points he dropped directly disproves and outweighs those points. But let's address his specific arguments from the final round.

My opponent tries to get out of the spreading argument by quoting my second layered argument, but fails to address the first argument I made that functions before the argument he quoted does. Insofar as he dropped that spreading is harmful for education, and that LD can function without spreading on the varsity level, then he is biting into the harms on a far more drastic scale than I am. This means I'm winning on spreading, while my opponent is trying to brush it under the rug. Don't. Evaluate it as I've been extending it as offense throughout the entire debate.

My opponent claims for the beginner's arguments that they should perservere from the start. The problem with that is that beginning in policy is too hard for a beginner to just hop right into and perservere, as the difficulty discourages many from trying and turns them away from debate in general. That is why Policy is dying out and why Public Forum is becoming more popular. Since he dropped all of those points, plus the points I raised about beginners being more adaptable and more receptive to continue with something that is easier to start and just as challenging over the long run as policy, I'm winning this point.

My opponent then tries to claim as far as diversity goes that it's common knowledge that policy has less customs and rules than LD. This is drastically false, and the fact that he dropped my argument that claimed so further strengthens my arguments and weaken his. Moreover, he never responded to my points about how LD uses far more types of arguments and cases than policy does, which drastically increases diversity and education. This means that I'm also winning this point.

As for the final point about education, this is where my opponent does the worst job explaining why he's winning it. He just makes assertions that policy does better without responding to the arguments of mine that he dropped which contradict his assertions and point out that his arguments are assertions. I've already explained how longer speech times hurt education, and he dropped it. I already explained how spreading hurts education, and he dropped it. I've already explained how LD is much more flexible and can adapt to any style of debate as compared to how Policy is essentially a one stringed instrument with just different variations of the same idea, which harms education. Compare that with the countless other arguments of mine that he dropped that create more education for LD and harm education for policy, and you'll see that I'm clearly and definitively winning this point.

So, at the end of the day, this debate breaks down really simply:

1. My opponent is dropping way too many arguments of mine to consider being able to win this
2. He's not doing a good enough job responding to the arguments he didn't drop.
3. I'm making clear offensive turns and defensive blocks to my opponent's arguments, meaning he has zero offense in this debate.
4. I've extended countless arguments of mine that were either dropped by my opponent or sufficiently defended by myself as offense for the con side.

Insofar as my opponent has no offense and I have all the offense, I must urge the voters to vote con in this debate.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Worried you were going to bail on me for a while there. Glad we could actually discuss this.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by drafterman 4 years ago
drafterman
redorc19ZaradiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
redorc19ZaradiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: The FF was critical; there was no way that I could see for Pro to leave the game twice (allowing the remorseless Zaradi to run up the score) and remain competitive. Pro attempts to address all of these arguments, but following the FF, there was simply not enough space.