To me, I find it difficult to accept hard and fast rules in terms of what the content of a debate is supposed to be. In other words, I see no reason why a discussion of policy is bad in LD, and a discussion of philosophy and values is bad in TP. This is the view often taken in the NFL (now the NSDA). In the NFL, there is no "policy vs. value" distinction, at least not much. The primary distinction between LD and TP is merely the format difference.
I would have to disagree on this point; I think the format difference is not the only significant difference between LD and TP. Team Policy, by its very name, implies a discussion (if not a proposal) of policy. Such discussion of policy requires thorough background knowledge and presentation of evidence. Thus, teams have 2 members to allow breadth of knowledge, and the round is longer to 1) allow each speaker to speak and 2) allow evidence to be read.
On the other hand, Lincoln-Douglas implies a discussion of important ideas. Those ideas are best presented concisely, requiring the effort of only one person. Thus, LD has shorter rounds.
I'm not saying that details can't cross - TPers can have values (ahem, I mean standards) that their plans achieve, and LDers should present realistic examples. However, the formating is meant to serve the core purpose of each style of debate.
I see no reason why it's not valid to say, for example, "limited government is so great that we need to uphold anything that follows from it. And look, the Resolution is a proposition that logically follows from valuing limited government, thus let's uphold the Res." That seems, unless I'm just completely missing something, a perfectly logical train of thought.
I can see perhaps the validity of the argument, but (like you said) it would be very
hard to win. The only time we should support anything
coming from an idea is if the idea is perfect. If it's not perfect, then there are some propositions we should not
support, and how do we know the Resolution isn't one of them? Another line of argument would be, "how exactly does the Resolution come from valuing limited government?" Either you (meaning AFF) are just valuing freedom because a limited government would (not a strong position, in my opinion), or there are really other reasons you value freedom.
This other interpretation takes the view that the objective is to determine whether the resolution is true or false, but if this were the purpose then it would make more sense for the entire format to be opened up to more TP-like elements rather than isolating the debate to values and ideas.
Wait. If the point isn't to determine whether the Resolution is true or false, why do we say we "affirm" or "deny" the resolution? In other words, if we aren't affirming or denying the truth of the resolution, what are we affirming (or denying)?
Shouldn't we just say, if you're right about the purpose of LD, "now that we know the basic arena of the discussion, let's talk about my value" and never return to the Resolution again?
I do agree with you here: in LD, we are trying to determine whether the resolution is true or false. I think the idea meant by impromptu_LDer is that the debate should not center on whether the resolution is
. Sometimes, people argue as if the resolution says, "Resolved: in the realm of economics, freedom is
valued above equity." All you have to do is show that people value freedom above equity, and you've won. However, the question is not what is currently valued, but what should be.