homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:43 pm
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

Would you like to see LD Policy at NITOC?
Yes 54%  54%  [ 7 ]
No 23%  23%  [ 3 ]
Not sure 23%  23%  [ 3 ]
Total votes: 13
Author Message
 Post subject: Lincoln-Douglas Policy
PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 8:52 pm 
Offline
Hint hint peoples.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:18 pm
Posts: 1379
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: San Diego, California
I've heard about Lincoln-Douglas policy debate before, and it sounds kind of interesting and fun to me. Stoa USA has a brief informational page on LD Policy, but as far as I know there's only been one or two tournaments that have ever offered it. In other words, LD Policy hasn't really been able to get off the ground here in Stoa and is languishing in relative obscurity (like Parli used to be).

So, I would like to know: what do you think about LD Policy? Have you ever done it before, whether in high school or college? If so, what were your impressions? Do you think it would be a viable Stoa NITOC event, or should it stay as a pilot event but be offered at more tournament(s) than it currently is?

_________________
http://www.ebsd.us/

As the deer pants for the water brooks, so pants my soul for You, O God. -Psalm 42:1


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:59 pm 
Offline
Bumble! Bumble!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 9:30 pm
Posts: 1152
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Bumbling about in beautiful Colorado
It's like this.
I would love to have seen LD policy this year, when I still could've competed in it, because my club is miniature and far away from everything. But at the same time I think that TP builds a lot of skills that LD style debate just doesn't, and I don't know how Stoa would pull off four kinds of debate...

_________________
My guideline is, if you ever have to ask yourself if you're doing something creepy, you probably are. But then go ahead and do it anyway because being creepy is fun.
~JeremyB


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:59 pm 
Offline
Is now cool
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:29 pm
Posts: 3495
Home Schooled: Yes
I actually wouldn't like to see LD policy. The LD time schedule just isn't long enough to seriously discuss a policy proposal. With only one negative constructive (and with even that constructive being shorter than the ones seen in TP) you could hardly be expected to set out a comprehensive negative case. Besides, having the 1AC cut down by two minutes and being robbed of the 2AC, an affirmative could never set out and explain the ins and outs of what their case is actually about.

As I see it, within NCFCA/Stoa culture such a round would quickly degenerate into ignorant ramblings. There would be no depth of discussion, read evidence would nearly vanish, and plans would be virtually limited to one mandate. While there are a lot of things about the LD time schedule that are awesome, and that I miss very much, I don't think it would do the league much good to copy a debate style it already has in a manner that's less effective.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:36 am 
Offline
Hint hint peoples.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:18 pm
Posts: 1379
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: San Diego, California
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.

Speech times:
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.

_________________
http://www.ebsd.us/

As the deer pants for the water brooks, so pants my soul for You, O God. -Psalm 42:1


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:04 pm
Posts: 166
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: TN
Quote:
As I see it, within NCFCA/Stoa culture such a round would quickly degenerate into ignorant ramblings. There would be no depth of discussion, read evidence would nearly vanish, and plans would be virtually limited to one mandate.


In between the time when a lot of TN clubs left the NCFCA in the early 2000's and joined Stoa about 2yrs ago, we went maverick and created our own state-wide debate organization and, for various reasons, the leadership decided to only offer LDP at tournaments. I never actually competed in debate during those years, but I did flow a heck of a lot of rounds, so, speaking from experience, I don't think any of those things would be an issue. Depth was never a problem for our debaters, and the plans people ran were basically the same style as we run now in TP. There was less EV than you see in a TP round - but I never saw a round where EV wasn't read to support/prove the arguments, and the the other-side of the shorter times is that it teaches being succinct in your presentation. Some times in Stoa rounds I feel like people just throw in stock arguments that they may not even have a chance at winning, just to keep the other side busy. So yea, you're usually going to see less arguments in an LDP round, but thats not necessarily a negative.

All that being said, since I've been competing in Stoa TP for the last several years, I have a hard time imagining myself doing LDP. Mainly, the shorter times. I like to talk. :) (Maybe I should amend the point about depth? The depth of individual arguments was usually good in LDP rounds, but its true that you don't get to flesh out the issue as a whole as much)

Basically, I think there are benefits to giving LDP a whirl. But at the heart of it, I don't think LDP is the best system to compete in for policy. Besides, Stoa has too many events as it is, I think debate-wise, they've got it covered. If they add anything, it should be Model Congress, not LDP. :)

_________________
- Joy

"The trouble with talking too fast is you may say something you haven't thought of yet" - Ann Landers


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited