homeschool debate | Forums Wiki


Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Sun Feb 25, 2018 4:19 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  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Advice for TP Converts?
PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2014 8:50 pm 
is jealous
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 8:50 pm
Posts: 224
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: climbing in yo windows, snatchin' all yo people up
Hey all!

My club's decided not to do TP this year, so we have a lot of ex-TPers joining our LD team. My club leader wants me to teach them all how to do LD, since I've been recently promoted to being the LD coach. Having converted from LD to TP last year, I have a pretty good idea of how to teach them, but do any of you have any advice for TP converts or good drills to run with them? :)

Elizabeth Danford | Alumni

PostPosted: Sun Jun 15, 2014 3:05 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:01 am
Posts: 652
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Flying a UFO to an undisclosed location ;)
Just a side-note, why is your club deciding not to do TP? Just seems a little strange.

I'm not an LDer, but one thing I would suggest is encourage them to use their strengths in Team Policy to their advantage. In TP, we get a lot of judges from the LD flight and they appreciate us shaping our case around values. I'm sure the same must be true with LD.
Also, I have watched a few LD rounds and think that one of the most valuable areas to an LDer is through the Cross-examination. It is important in TP, but in LD, the judge already understand your arguments for the most part and where you are coming from, so the best opportunity to win (in my opinion) is in Cross-examination.

John Mark Porter, Alumni
Arx Axiom/Carpe Dictum/Verdict/UADC/HSDC/HSDRC

2011-12 l Porter/Thomason, Light/Porter
2012-13 l Bailey/Porter
2013-14 l Bailey/Porter
2014-15 l Folkert/Porter

2015-16 I Childs/Porter

PostPosted: Sun Jun 15, 2014 7:03 am 

Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 4:19 am
Posts: 54
Home Schooled: Yes
I decided to try out LD this last year because it was something new and did not require much time, especially researching (or so I thought<:)). For me personally, one of the most interesting things as I look back is to see the parallels between TP and LD. Such as:
TP = Passing Plan; LD = Uphold a value
TP = Stock issues; LD = "Core links"
TP = Individual arguments; LD = Syllogistic arguments
With the illustration of going on a trip, TP = Road; LD = Destination.
TP = Research; LD = Brainstorming responses/arguments (<- of course, both are definitely involved in both styles, just a little more emphasis on either one).
This has really improved my understanding of how LD works. And I would also be glad for anyone to expand/correct me on these.
Hope that helps.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:36 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 9:20 pm
Posts: 636
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NH, Reg10n
As someone who transferred from TP (4 years) to LD (last year) with some success, I'll tell you what helped me transition:

Watching LD.

Because I always found watching TP rounds unbearably boring, I would always opt to watch the LD rounds. For years, that was the kind of debate I liked to watch. I liked to hang out with LDers (they were always less confrontational than TPers). Because of this, I understood the lingo and structures of LD.

I'd say the best thing to do is separate the jargon and structures you learned in TP and learn the mode of debate that is LD instead of trying to connect the two. Really, TP is about debating the consequences of action. LD is debating the consequences of ideas.

Mrs. A wrote:
Oh my.... another Edelblut?

edelblutmusic <my music you listen to with your ears

PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:21 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 4:55 am
Posts: 211
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: VA
Resisting urge to say: "Come back to TP."


But, as a TPer who simply sought to understand LD better, I have to say what helped me most was...

1. Talking to good LDers outside of rounds
2. Watching rounds between good LDers
3. Trying to make arguments myself (and running them by good LDers)

I would suggest you do them in that order. I guess, hypothetically, you could do 2 before 1, but I learned better the other way. :) Hope it helps.


Reagan Bass/Justin Moffatt '12-'16


PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2014 5:51 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 06, 2014 6:13 pm
Posts: 11
Home Schooled: Yes
I tried LD this last year. TP was still my main focus, but I attended the LD club, did some club rounds, and even went to some practice tourneys. I would say that JohnMarkPorter1 hit it square on the head. The problem with LDers that I've noticed, is that they freak out if someone runs a real world argument. For example, I watched a round this year when a smart LDer made a real world argument, and his opponent responded by saying "this is not TP". That made me laugh so hard. But I think that judges are really looking for real world arguments. They want to know that what is being debated matters. I think that if you can teach them how to make real world arguments, then they will automatically be in the top 20% of LDers.

Keep in mind that I've only done a limited amount of LD, so if anyone thinks I'm wrong, I'm open to your correction. :)

Cody Stewart

PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:26 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 1:39 am
Posts: 29
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Split between the states of Olympus and Midlands
My advice to you would be to teach them that LD =/= TP as quickly as possible. What do I mean by this? Having real world applications is good. Having contentions that are more like mandates is not good. (Trust me, I've seen people try to turn LD into individual policy debate. It's not pretty.) The key thing to remember, though, is simplicity and clarity are far more important than "LD theory." If they make things easy to understand, they'll do well. Just make sure they're not proposing a plan, and they should do fine.

I do agree with JohnMarkPorter that CX is extremely important. When you're aff, you have a 4 minute 1AR to respond to a 7 minute NC. If you cannot raise doubt about the neg arguments in the judge's mind in CX, you generally will not recover. Because LD is more abstract than policy, direct admissions can kill you, so the stakes are much higher than in TP. I've won quite a few rounds in CX.

Make sure they know how to impact, particularly how to impact to values. Very few people know how to do that, and the quality of LD debates suffers as a result. They need to tell the judge why an argument is important, not leave the judge to draw his or her own conclusions.

The final thing I'll mention is to make sure they have plenty of direct ref. I hate it when negs run a 7-minute neg case and ignore all of the aff's arguments. That makes for horrible debates.

PostPosted: Tue Aug 12, 2014 9:39 pm 
THE Cookie Monster!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 12:43 am
Posts: 2599
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: where no one knows my name
I did TP for 4 years and LD for senior year and TP was definitely my thing and I went to one LD club meeting and I have no idea how to do LD. But here are my thoughts:

1. Teach them the difference between TP and LD voters. At least for me, TP voters were typically like Sig, DAs, and Solvency. Maybe a bit more abstract than that, but most TPers label their VI's with argument names. LDers make entire sentences out of their VI's. What I liked to do was turn my voters into a syllogism. It really helped tie the round together and give a clear reason to vote for me. Or against me if they were bad :P

2. Teach them how to do 2ARs. I say this because up through my last round at NITOC, I was still giving terrible 2ARs. I thought I'd do fine at it since I was a decent TP 1AR, but the two speeches are soooo different. It's more like a PMR except also with extra pretty fluff. And shorter. And slower. The LD 2AR is HARD.

3. Teach them to be good explainers and pretty talkers. I know LD isn't all fluff and sparkles, but I do believe more LD than TP rounds are won/strongly swayed by persuasiveness and clarity. Especially since I think more com/new judges take LD since it's shorter (and oh boy, did I love having shorter rounds.)

4. Maybe teach them some LD jargon :P I spent my first few tournaments having no idea what "intrinsic value" meant in the context of LD. And I would routinely have experienced LDers ask me things in cx where I just had to laugh and say "I have no idea what that means." Which is fine. My judges usually just laughed. haha. But teach them what the jargon means while reminding them not to use it if they can help it.

5. Teach them to be comprehensive. The very best TPers learn to be comprehensive over time. The baby LDers already have to be. What I mean is, an LD case needs to be full and complete and rely on all of its different points. It's really hard to win an aff round with just one of your contentions. You need the whole thing. You may drop a couple apps, but you still need all of your main points to stick through to the end. Even as a neg, you usually have to win your case to win the round. You can't just throw every argument at the wall and hope your judge likes mitigative solvency and sig.

6. Someone already said this, but teach them to be good cx'ers. I do think it matters more in LD.

7. Teach them to be good flow sheeters. This may seem like a no-brainer, but since the little things count more in LD, it's extra important. In octafinals at NITOC, I lost on a 2-1 and both of my losses mainly named a small neg argument that I had an easy response to, but forgot to mention in my speech because I didn't flow well. And flowing has always been easy to me, since day one. I just got lazy. You can't get lazy in LD.

8. The last thing I can think of is, teach them to constantly be mulling over arguments in their heads. I did next to no research last year (cause I hate research :P my partner always did it in TP. I was an excellent organizer, though), but I did a LOT of thinking. Especially living a thousand miles away from my club senior year, I didn't have the collective brain power of many LDers to think about common arguments and find responses. I would just think and think over an argument that was stumbling me until I could figure out the response. Other LDers are a great resource, though, and they are typically friendlier/more open than TPers. Minutes before LD finals at Washington, I was stressed out trying to decide if I wanted to go aff or neg. A coach I'd met that week, whose student I had beaten in double-octs, ran up to me and told me to go aff and gave me a great argument against my opponent's neg. Only one judge voted on it, but the decision was a 4-3, so that one coach won me the round. Basically LD is super friendly but it's also individual, so take advantage of both sides of that.

Hopefully all the TP converts will learn to at least enjoy LD. I never loved it because TP is just the perfect fit for me, but by the end of the year, I started looking forward to my rounds. :)

Brenna Bakke, Veritas CA
Adorable Speecher | gr8 debate timer | 08-09
Bakke/Ruscigno | TP <3 | 09-10
Bakke/Bakke | TP <3 | 10-11
Bakke/Van Ness | TP <3 | 11-13
Sad Brenna | LD ew | 13-14
PHC Student | wow such college deb8 | 14&beyond

You're not alone.

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 8 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited