Jump to content
TamaleTosser

What Is The Best Debate?

Recommended Posts

Pretty self-explanatory. What is the best debate weighing it however you want?(e.g.- best lit, most education, hardest so best, most fun.etc)

-Policy
-LD
-Pofo
-Parli

Which ever debate gets the most support will be declared the best debate. 

 

I'll start it off by saying Policy Debate because it offers the most in-depth education on tangible topics(such as policy making affs) seen in pofo and parli and at the same time has a philosophical twist(such as kritik) seen in LD. Also since its the longest I feel you get the best debate.

Now let the blood brawl begin.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll start it off by saying Policy Debate because it offers the most in-depth education on tangible topics

 

I'm going to go against the grain and express a minority viewpoint:

1. Direct application to daily life (real conversations)

2. Scale (its easier to teach & therefore you can have more Lincoln-Douglas debaters--this makes the footprint arguably larger).  

• Smaller barriers to entry

• Not as much time needs to be devoted to theory versus actual debate

3. Speech & persuasion model

 

The research benefits of policy can mostly be integrated now.  Plus, most people opt out of some of the research benefits anyway--by focusing on Ks, etc...  

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to go against the grain and express a minority viewpoint:

1. Direct application to daily life (real conversations)

2. Scale (its easier to teach & therefore you can have more Lincoln-Douglas debaters--this makes the footprint arguably larger).  

• Smaller barriers to entry

• Not as much time needs to be devoted to theory versus actual debate

3. Speech & persuasion model

 

The research benefits of policy can mostly be integrated now.  Plus, most people opt out of some of the research benefits anyway--by focusing on Ks, etc...  

 

Are you saying that critical debaters don't research....? 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying that critical debaters don't research....? 

 

Just that some people use K debate as a means to decrease their research burden.

 

You may have a different frame of reference or perspective for who constitutes a K debater.....There are K debaters who do work and do lots of work.

There are also folks who don't go much beyond camp files.

 

Given the way I framed the statement--I was suggesting that K debate is one mechanism that debaters use to opt out of debate research or segments

of research. (ie they still may research, but not the scale that others do).

 

And moreover, are there other ways people opt out of research....yes.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kritikal debate is as much a means of decreasing research/work for debate as any policy oriented styles. it's not the style of debate that's used to opt out of work, it's the people doing it.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer LD to policy. The wider variety of topics is better. 3 months of research is more than enough to have a working knowledge of the topic, and I prefer the variety. The downside is the shorter time limits. LD has a bit of a time skew problem.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to go against the grain and express a minority viewpoint:

1. Direct application to daily life (real conversations)

2. Scale (its easier to teach & therefore you can have more Lincoln-Douglas debaters--this makes the footprint arguably larger).  

• Smaller barriers to entry

• Not as much time needs to be devoted to theory versus actual debate

3. Speech & persuasion model

 

The research benefits of policy can mostly be integrated now.  Plus, most people opt out of some of the research benefits anyway--by focusing on Ks, etc...  

policy covers a plethora of things that other debates don't. 

1. For instance we have discourse too and moreover policy and potential policy is verty real world

2. Okay it is easier to teach, but there is arguably just as much as cx as LDers so the footprint isnt that much larger than policy. The only reason its harder to teach is because it covers more which in and of itself leaves a larger footprint. Plus in many leagues and lay circuts policy is as easy as LD to teach.

  • Alright yeah true there are less barriers to doing LD. Gotchu' there, touche, fair point.
  • ​But theory is a very important point to debate. We need to frame how stuff works and critique it if it fails si we can more easily amend it. Without a conceptual understanding of why and how we do stuff it is impossible to actually debate

3. Okay thats your opinion which you are perfectly entitled to. I personally like policy debate's evidence oriented mindset and how speeches are structured.

Ks aren't opting out of research, they actually involve more work because it takes more effort to familiarize oneself with the  evidence and you actually need to read and cut versus just going on big sky debate or something of that sort which is seen in most other debates.

 

Having said all this I see  what you are saying and it perfectly makes sense. The above is just how I see it opposed to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is arguably just as much as cx as LDers so the footprint isnt that much larger than policy. 

Regarding CX, it's a lot less valuable and far more underutilized in policy debate. After the first speeches, debaters already know (often all 8 minutes of) what they're going to say before CX even begins, and in the later speeches, the partners are often using that time prepping. This leads to CX being used minimally if at all. In LD, I've seen entire strategies based off CX concessions. In PF, CX (CF) is functionally a speech.

 

Another difference is prep time. As an LDer who did policy at a tournament, I felt like I had eons of prep time before each speech. I'm not sure whether this is a pro or a con.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think policy is the best. It appealed to me at first because of proposing policies and running exaggerated impacts, but after doing it, I think that I've learned more than I would've from public forum. Especially since all the PFers at my school come to me for information, and I'm not even that good at policy. 

 

However, parli in college, (I don't know what high school parli has turned into) is pretty cool. It's policy without cards and with a new topic. It may not be as in depth as policy, but it does seem fun. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, parli in college, (I don't know what high school parli has turned into) is pretty cool. It's policy without cards and with a new topic. It may not be as in depth as policy, but it does seem fun. 

Oh yeah parli in the circuit I live in(Redwood) is pretty weak(not to say its the same in other areas), but I've heard tons of stories on how crazy and competitive it is in college.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the K debaters vs. Policy debaters brawl, I think policy debaters win on quantity of research, but K debaters win on quality of research. K files and evidence are hidden in huge peer-reviewed scholarly files and big books, while policy people generally have to do more regular research for ptx/econ updates, new DAs/CPs, new affs, etc.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say LD. 

 

I think Policy Debate is full of bullshit. It's all about ridiculous impact scenarios, combined with sketchy links and power cut evidence. You never get the whole story behind anything. For example, I used a little known "Pay-Go" provision to justify my extra topicality on my aff we ran this year. While I never lost with this card, I'm pretty sure that it doesn't do what I say it does, despite the warrant being there. 

 

Yeah, I'm pretty much a self hating policy debater. I would have switched long ago if I thought I'd be decent at anything else. 

 

In LD, at least non-progressive, you have a true, honest to god debate about a moral issue. I like to see those the most 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

National circuit LD. 

 

1. The fact that it's still quite new means that norms are evolving quickly and you can do  pretty much whatever you want – policy arguments, Ks, theory (b.s. or otherwise), ethical arguments – without too many raised eyebrows

2. This may be a lack of experience personally, but I view policy rounds as too long, actually. Many of the speeches are fairly similar in content from what I've seen, whereas LD collapses more dramatically, and 1AR expansions or NC/1AR Theory can entirely reframe the round. Time skew (1AR) is a problem though. 

3. Theory is better developed in execution in LD - the grounding may be more developed in policy, but the execution in LD is more structured and thought out, whereas policy tends to be an interp and a litany of reasons to prefer. 

 

Also, who are we convincing? with the exception of RainSilves, everyone's just advocating their format or dodging the question. Every form of debate has some value, but what we pick is probably what we have the most experience with...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3. Theory is better developed in execution in LD - the grounding may be more developed in policy, but the execution in LD is more structured and thought out, whereas policy tends to be an interp and a litany of reasons to prefer. 

I have only 2 rounds of nat circuit LD, so I can't speak to most of you arguments, but from what I've seen this is patently false. 

Even if policy rounds are too long in the abstract (I don't think they are if the round is good, but bad rounds can get boring and repetitive quickly), LD rounds are definitely too short for a good theory debate. If the neg does something theoretically illegitimate in their 1NC (or whatever you call the first speech), the aff has only 2 speeches to introduce and develop an argument. The neg has only one speech to respond to the argument, which makes comparative debates essentially impossible. The aff's second speech is also incredibly time-strapped, so introducing non-blippy theory args is difficult.

Theory args made by the neg aren't very good either. They can be devoloped slightly more, but the aff's first chance to respond is in a speech as time-strapped as the 1AR is in policy.That leads to really shallow debates. LDers try to get around this by starting theory debates in the 1AC. With RVIs. I really can't imagine a world in which theory debates are  improved by the introduction of RVIs. 

 

Also, can you explain what makes LD theory args more "structured and thought out"?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have only 2 rounds of nat circuit LD, so I can't speak to most of you arguments, but from what I've seen this is patently false. 

Even if policy rounds are too long in the abstract (I don't think they are if the round is good, but bad rounds can get boring and repetitive quickly), LD rounds are definitely too short for a good theory debate. If the neg does something theoretically illegitimate in their 1NC (or whatever you call the first speech), the aff has only 2 speeches to introduce and develop an argument. The neg has only one speech to respond to the argument, which makes comparative debates essentially impossible. The aff's second speech is also incredibly time-strapped, so introducing non-blippy theory args is difficult.

Theory args made by the neg aren't very good either. They can be devoloped slightly more, but the aff's first chance to respond is in a speech as time-strapped as the 1AR is in policy.That leads to really shallow debates. LDers try to get around this by starting theory debates in the 1AC. With RVIs. I really can't imagine a world in which theory debates are  improved by the introduction of RVIs. 

 

Also, can you explain what makes LD theory args more "structured and thought out"?

 

100%. An LD Round is definitely too short to actually develop the debate, which is insanely frustrating considering how many high-level rounds are decided on it. I meant the structure of the initial shell: In Policy, it seems to be an interp and a litany of reasons to prefer, like I said before. LD shells have clearly demarcated standards, internal links to voters, explanations of the significance of fairness/education, weighing for competing interps vs. reasonability and warrents for drop the arg/debater/team (in policy). The shell structure may not compensate for the round itself, but it generally means that the theory debate is at a minimum easier to follow and flow – it lays potential groundwork for a good debate, at least.

 

I do think RVIs in LD make sense though in a way they probably don't in policy: the aforementioned longer speech times mean that a theory arg usually isn't a huge time sink, and it's usually run as drop the arg. LD theory tends to be drop the debater, and time skew means the neg has an incentive to run theory no matter what – in LD, the aff is usually screwed if it's a no-risk issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best debate is the one you join. The worst debates are the ones you ignore. Just pick a debate, dive in, work hard, have fun, and win rounds. If debate is not your thing, try platform speaking or interpretive events. Just speak and be heard. I prefer CX and also like PFD, but I would rather see you in another event rather than another activity altogether. Stay in Forensics. It has something for everyone. Go. Speak. Conquer. WTJAZZ

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I deleted some posts; remember this is the Other Debates forum, and the following rule still applies:

 


2. Since this thread is designed for LD, PF, Congress, Parli and other debaters to come for help and support, there is zero-tolerance for mocking those events or their participants. There are plenty of other forums on this site to do that. Legitimate criticism or comparisons of an event or its elements is fine, but one-liner insults and unwarranted attacks on an event or its participants is not.
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

best debate is the one with the best judges, which can vary. All else is secondary.

 

1) Consistently good judging.  

 

2) Evenly matched competitors.  

 

3) Also, I think its easier to use evidence as a crutch in policy--versus in LD which analytical arguments can provide a check on massive card reading--at least I would thinkg.

 

My argument would be that LD creates both 1 and 2.  I don't think it intrinsically creates #1, just that the learning curve on being a good judge in policy is typically longer.

You generally have to be a competitor to be able to judge or coach it......LD this is much less the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah parli in the circuit I live in(Redwood) is pretty weak(not to say its the same in other areas), but I've heard tons of stories on how crazy and competitive it is in college.

Parli can become incredibly competitive in college. Pretty fast, no carded evidence, no backside rebuttals make for really intense and fast debates at times. Not saying not having cards & backside rebuttals is good (as a former policy debater, I miss these a lot) but it can make for a really interesting and good debate. Also, WTJAZZ is right. Debate is debate and debate is good.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parli can become incredibly competitive in college. Pretty fast, no carded evidence, no backside rebuttals make for really intense and fast debates at times. Not saying not having cards & backside rebuttals is good (as a former policy debater, I miss these a lot) but it can make for a really interesting and good debate. Also, WTJAZZ is right. Debate is debate and debate is good.

 

If your Parli rules are anything like the rules in Oregon, then Parli has a lot of balance problems. 

 

Aff has far too many structural advantages: 

1. 15 min of prep making it impossible for neg to know how the aff will spin a resolution

2. First AND last speeches 

3.  theory and topicality aren't always considered legit in parli - meaning aff can be abusive easily

4. Aff flex, specifically on how they frame the resolution (As a value, only defending the resolution, or a plan) 

 

and the neg can do what? Abuse the fact that Parli debaters usually don't know how to say "Perm do both" and you run a BS non-competitive CP that solves there impacts and leads to utopia? 

 

This is why aff wins something like 70% of rounds in Oregon. 

 

At least this is how it is in Oregon and maybe it's a lot better in Texas. 

 

Edit: I realize that many of these have similarities to how Policy works, but I also believe that the neg's ability to run decent off case positions checks most of the structural advantages that would be present on aff 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best debate is the one you won most recently. The worst one is the first one you had. Even if you won it, think about how nervous you were.

WTJAZZ

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best debate is the one you won most recently. The worst one is the first one you had. Even if you won it, think about how nervous you were.

WTJAZZ

 

Maybe you should consider reading the OP before you reply. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...