Persisting- From CX to LD: My Experience as a Policy Crossover
By Carina Villalona, HW ‘22
After doing Policy Debate for three years on the national circuit, this year has been my first at Harvard-Westlake and competing in Lincoln-Douglas Debate. Initially, I was quite nervous about learning the unique fundamentals of LD, but I was pleasantly surprised by the many similarities between these two events. I have participated in two circuit LD tournaments so far and from my first impression, there are some aspects I enjoy about LD, but other issues I have noticed that differ from Policy.
Similarity: Card-Cutting and Off-Case Positions
To begin with, many of the arguments, cards, and authors that are read in Policy are also read in LD. A lot of my backfiles have been applicable due to the overlap in literature bases and the same general formatting for cards and blocks, which has made the shift significantly easier because my research strategies and methods have remained consistent. Both circuit LD and policy have theory, topicality, kritiks, counterplans, disadvantages, and framework as core off-case positions, and theory arguments like “conditionality bad” and “plan-inclusive counterplans bad” are common in both events. I eventually learned that this similarity could be attributed to the history of how many of the circuit elements of LD were directly brought over from Policy.
Difference: Open Evidence Project
One major difference between Policy and LD is that there is, unfortunately, no Open Evidence Project in LD. This is because LD topics do not remain the same year-round like they do in Policy. Due to this lack of an open evidence project where debaters can download different camp case affirmatives and negatives, case debates tend to contain less depth and specificity when it comes to new affs, and negatives resort more often to reading their generic negative positions, such as theory, because it is harder to predict the types of affirmatives that teams may cut. The lesser amount of engagement with the opposing team’s arguments and in-depth debates in LD also occurs due to the rounds and speeches being shorter, as well as the duration of each topic being two months instead of a whole year.
Difference: Time Structures
Moreover, another one of the biggest differences between these two forms has to do with the structures. There is significantly more time for in-round preparation and speeches in policy than LD due to the rounds being double the length. In theory debates, affirmatives frequently call attention to this perceived time skew in favor of the negative. The affirmative rebuttal speeches are more difficult in LD because the affirmative has only four and three minutes to respond to the negative’s seven and six-minute speeches, which puts the affirmative at an inherent disadvantage against negative teams that run a variety of off case positions. According to NSD Debate, in LD, there is a negative side bias, as the negative team was reported to win 53.04% of ballots. This time skew issue has created more debates on theory instead of substance about the resolution in comparison to Policy debate because many affirmatives in LD are unable to respond to all the negative’s positions due to inefficient time management.
Difference: Whole Res Affs and Value Criterions
One position I was originally unfamiliar with when transferring to LD was a whole resolution affirmative. In Policy debate, all affirmatives need to endorse a specific action by the United States federal government, so whole resolution affirmatives do not exist. Having whole resolution affirmatives is positive for LD because it is always a predictable affirmative that is easy to engage with. These types of affirmatives are especially popular in Traditional Lincoln Douglas, which is more focused on case debate and specific values than is typically seen in Policy. Traditional LD affirmatives also tend to contain a value criterion and a standard that the affirmative team uses to guide the intention of their case, such as the standard of maximizing wellbeing. This difference is important in recognizing how LD has more philosophical stances embedded in their positions and a greater focus on framework and moral ideas, while topical affirmatives in Policy are more centered around pragmatic political solutions and impacts. This is greatly due to the usage of the word should in the Policy resolution, meaning to be compelled to put an action into place, while the word ought is used in the LD resolution, often meaning to have a moral obligation to pursue an action. Most debates in policy end up taking a utilitarian approach due to the resolution being written in such a policy-oriented lens.
Difference: Tricks
Transitioning to LD, I found "tricks" and frivolous theory to be confusing. In Policy, we generally observe a lower tolerance for this style of argument. For instance, minesweeping docs for tricks is a uniquely LD phenomena, and was originally hard to adjust to, given policy's focus on carded, substantive arguments. If you were to read Zeno's paradox against a Policy affirmative, most judges would not take it seriously. To be clear, this is not meant to disparage anyone's preferred style of debate; my goal is to describe some of the differences I've observed in my first year of LD.
Which is easier?
Some people may wonder: which form of debate is easier? There isn’t a clear-cut answer to that question, and there are difficulties to both LD and Policy in their own rights. The question mainly boils down to preference and under which circumstances the person in question performs better. If a debater finds comfort in compromising and sharing research responsibilities with a partner as well as having longer periods of time to both give speeches within rounds and to learn about a resolution in-depth, then that debater may see policy as easier for them personally. However, if a person enjoys the independence of working alone and changing topics every two months, then they would be better suited for LD. Lincoln Douglas requires more adaptability in researching and preparing for new topics, while the overall research burden is greater in policy because of the vast extent of affirmative and negative positions that are developed by different camps and schools throughout the year.
Despite the differences, both of these models of debate are enjoyable and educational in their respective ways. Happy debating!