Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

LD + Policy = Happy!

I_heart_debate
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2009 4:35:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
What do you think of the idea of combining the theory of LD with the argumentation of policy.

Keep the value premise and criterion!

Keep the idea of "what should happen"!

Add stock issues to the AFF!

Let the NEG counter plan and run disadvantages!

Your opinion?

My opinion is that LD lacks argument logic or literature on theory compared to policy. This lack of literature make it hard to decipher what exactly is a good LD argument. So using argumentation theory of policy for LD would solve the problem of argument logic. Policy limits the potential for creativity while LD fosters creativity. Policy lays out a bright line for construction of arguments but because of the over use of evidence needed to back arguments you are limited in what arguments you can make. LD allows debaters to write arguments that illustrate what should happen, rather than being forced to write arguments that illustrate what has happened.

What is your opinion?
SportsGuru
Posts: 1,648
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2009 5:01:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
1. It is completely possible to run CPs (just call it an alternative) and all a disadvantage is is a formulated contention against the resoluiton.

2. You are attempting to mix things that don't mix. L-D concerns itself with what would be most associated with kritickal ground in CX. It is not about policy and adding rules designated for POLICY debate simply defeats the purpose of having an L-D event.

My opinion is that LD lacks argument logic or literature on theory compared to policy.

What? Granted, a certain topic may have less literature than another topic, but the basic classc, L-D case basis (philosophy) is certainly not lacking in evidence.

Policy limits the potential for creativity while LD fosters creativity.

How does either one foster more creativity than the other? You can run anything you want in either debate, presuming you can prove your side

Policy lays out a bright line for construction of arguments but because of the over use of evidence needed to back arguments you are limited in what arguments you can make.

No, you just need to create blocks (gasp! work?!)
I_heart_debate
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2009 7:33:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
@ SportsGuru

1. It is not excepted by all judges that the NEG can run a counter plan. I wished that the NEG could have the power to run a counter plan or alternative, without the judge complaining about what is proper LD case arguments.

2. Using a policy case structure in a LD case does not defeat the purpose of having an L-D event. With resolution such as Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate or Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity, policy action and rules are debated.

3. There is not a lot of LD theory. All you need is a VP, VC and 1 - 3 contentions. I have not found literature for the justification for the VP or VC. I have found literature as to why policy debaters feel that the AFF must defend stock issues.

4. Any argument you make in policy has to have evidence. You don't write arguments for policy debate you research arguments all ready made by others. This limits the potential for argumentation. Rather in LD you can create arguments as long as the arguments links to a moral theory.

5. I have no problem with working, its just a policy mentality requires one to make arguments someone else has already made which limits your creativity.