Policy vs LD Series Part 4: Research
By: Jaya Nayar
This is the 4th, and final, article in a series about the differences between Policy and LD.
Here are the links to the other 3 articles:
https://www.girlsdebate.org/general-resources-1/2020/1/24/qmd5j6dobirmt5mofgich281kszmv8
https://www.girlsdebate.org/general-resources-1/2020/2/6/policy-vs-ld-series-part-3-speech-format
Research
I believe the ability to research is one of the most useful skills debate has given me. I wrote an article earlier this year explaining the benefits of research, so I hope this weighs heavily in your decision-making (https://www.girlsdebate.org/blog/2019/9/26/persisting-an-ode-to-research).
Policy benefits: Policy requires larger, more in depth files that have answers to more arguments since there are more speeches where you must respond to the other team. You debate the same topic for the whole year, so you have to delve a lot more into the literature in order to find innovative arguments. By the end of the topic, you’re extremely well-versed in the literature and have a sharp understanding of the issues being debated. Additionally, at summer camp you know what topic you’re debating during the school year. This gives students a head start with camp files and education about the topic.
LD benefits: Larger files aren’t necessary in LD when there are only 2 speeches in which either team can introduce evidence. Less evidence production can benefit smaller teams that don’t have the time to produce massive files. Students can still garner the same educational benefits of research, but in a different manner. LD students research over a broad spectrum of topics as it changes every 3 months. While many LD students I’m certain do produce extensive files (I used to enjoy doing so), I’ve found that much of this evidence never gets read, and the creation of such files isn’t necessary due to the structure of the activity.
The difference in evidence expectations also implicates the types of arguments that are accepted within each community. The fact that there is less of a need for evidence is, I presume, one of the reasons teams read more theory and analytical philosophy in LD than in Policy (“must specify status of the counterplan in the 1NC” theory, Kant, etc). Some enjoy this style of debating and prefer a model of debate that is less evidence-oriented. And while many debaters in LD do engage in evidence focused argumentation, the value-value criterion aspect of LD is almost non-existent in Policy, and theory is de-emphasized, which is something I enjoy about the activity (although I’m sure many enjoy such theory and philosophy debates).
Conclusion
There’s no formula for knowing what type of debate fits your personality, so I would suggest trying both regardless of what you think you might like more. This way, you can ensure you find the version of debate best for you :)