Currently, I'm on the fence with regards to LD Policy, both its legitimacy in general and as a potential NITOC event. Both sides, for and against, have compelling arguments. LD Policy sounds like an intellectually stimulating activity, and it could be a great way to let TP'ers try "going maverick." When I did TP, sometimes I wanted to have it be a one-on-one debate. LD Policy might fill that role. But, I wanted to clarify a couple of issues +X and Bee have brought up.
Re: Timing: Lincoln-Douglas times are actually different from LD Value times. All cross-examinations are 3 minutes, and debaters are given 4 minutes total for prep.
Affirmative Constructive (AC) 8 minutes
Negative Constructive (NC) 8 minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR) 4 minutes
Negative Rebuttal (NR) 7 minutes
Second (final) Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR) 3 minutes
Notice the constructives are the same amount of time they are in TP.
Negative has to walk a tight rope on time management in the NC, but it's not like it's impossible to address the AFF case and present your own arguments. Actually, come to think of it, that's what LD'ers (and TP'ers) basically do all of the time currently. While time constraints are an important factor, and +X did give some good viewpoints on why she would not like to see LD Policy, I'm not quite so sure that timing would hinder LD Policy debaters as much as some think they would.
Re: Four debate events at NITOC: It certainly would be very interesting to see Stoa try to manage four debate events at NITOC. Would it be impractical? Maybe. Would it be possible? Most likely yes. The only way I can think of having four debate events even remotely working in Stoa is double-flighting both forms of LD and running those rounds at the same time. Or, we could tighten up the qualification standards for NITOC somehow. But that's another discussion (can of worms)
to open up in another thread, another day.
Re: Debate skills of TP/LD: Ok, this is a somewhat legitimate point. Working on a team gives you different skills than working alone. But isn't more diversity and sharpening of skills a goal we should strive for? Parli infuses a lot of skills from both sides of the debate spectrum, and I didn't hear anybody using that as a reason NOT to do Parli. You would still have the personal choice to do TP, LD, or Parli - it's not like LD Policy is taking anything away from your ability to choose. If LD Policy teaches you a different skill set that WOULD be useful in the real world, to my mind that would be a reason for LD Policy and not against it. Consider that LD Policy is the
major collegiate form of LD debate. Think of all of the policy implications and potential job opportunities that happen with one person - LD Policy might
be a good way to prepare students for post-graduation policy oriented jobs.