Team Policy-ers Switching to Lincoln Douglas: Four Things You Need To Know

Congrats! You're taking the plunge. You're officially switching from the toilet paper (Team Policy) debate to the big leagues...only kidding!! I do have to say, though, you're in for an adventure.

You've probably taken Lincoln Douglas classes and watched rounds. No matter how well-versed most converts seem to be, however, they always make these four mistakes:

(And it annoys the heck out of LD purists.)


1. Over-Emphasis on Evidence
 See all that glorious evidence you just looked up? Chuck it out the window. Most of it anyway.
Again, kidding.
But my point is, yes, it's still great to have applications and examples for your points. But evidence will not win you the round.

Depending on the resolution, and who you're debating, you might get sucked into what LDers call a "example war". Its when two people try throwing as many examples as they can at each other to try to prove that their side is correct. Somewhere along the line, the values, criteria, and logic are forgotten and the debate becomes 'who's applications saved more lives etc' and you might even start formulating a plan in-round as to how we can uphold the value. 

That's great and everything, but that's not what Lincoln Douglas is. It sounds nice and easy, with all your experience in Team Policy and all, but as soon as a seasoned LDer says, 

"Look judge, we can keep coming up with more and more examples, we could have millions of different applications. But as you can see, the logic behind my case is more sound. I've proved through my contentions that my value should be the one to be upheld. In fact, because of the ideas behind my points, I've proven how we can solve most of the problems presented in both our sets of applications."

You've put yourself in a very tough position.

Some times we can wrapped up in where and when evidence comes from.
 In fact, one of the most irking things is claim that your opponent's point doesn't stand because their evidence is dated, is from a weird source, or doesn't absolutely technically in a ridiculously specific way fit the resolution. If your opponent says "nine million Jews died during the Holocaust" your job is not to ask where they got that information and when it was published. It does not matter. In the least. It does not matter if it was actually eight million or ten million Jews. The point is, let's say, due to a disrespect for human life and blatant racism (disrespect for human dignity) millions of innocent people were brutally murdered and lives destroyed. If you ask them the technicalities about their evidence, you are wasting your time.
Now, if your opponent says that we never actually landed on the moon, and they're using that as a point, then okay break out your casual interrogation abilities. Just make sure you don't just disprove their application but you disprove the point behind their application. Because if their point behind it still stands, and they point that out, you haven't helped yourself much.

2. Lots of Jargon
I've made this mistake once too many times. TP is filled with many more fancy terms than LD. LDers have adopted relatively simple language to make up for the fact they have little time to explain terms due to such a short round. That, and that LD is confusing enough without throwing in Solvency and Inherency.
Experienced judges might be more forgiving, in fact go ahead and break out those mad TP skillz if you have a six-years-experience TP alumni who hates LD. But in general, most of your vocabulary abilities should be exercised in the realms of ideas and morals.
I know LDers get excited every time they use phrases like socio-economic impact, inherently valuable rights, or relative moral standards. They have their fancy vocab faults, too. But they should be making it simple, too. Intelligent, well-researched, but easily understood and adhering to common sense.
Bright line is cool...just don't call it Bright Line. Supererogatory is a no. It'll make the judge understand you and your opponent breath easier.

3. Asking for Opponent's Case
You should be able to flow everything down, but sometimes you can't. It's one of the hardships of LD. They usually cover this right away with transfers in-club, but I've seen it happen a few times. Your opponent most likely won't have an extra copy of your case, either, and it's unfair to make them look bad in front of an unexperienced judge.  Clarify in CX if you need to. Getting every detail, quote, and date down perfectly isn't necessary in LD.

4. Over-Emphasizing Dropped Arguments
Most experienced LDers know they have to say things like, "I'm grouping x, y, and z together." or "Since I de-linked a; b, c, and d do not stand." Often, though, we forget. Saying "my opponent dropped my third contention, which was Public Forums are Important, therefore it still stands, and the impact is..." Yeah, that's cool, that's encouraged." But saying, "My opponent dropped my third contention, my first second third and fourth applications definition and counter-argument number eight under that contention." and then not explaining the impact of those points individually? It doesn't work as well and tends to be a time suck. Especially if your opponent used on of the above mentioned disclaimers.

Overall, experienced TPers make some of the best LDers. I know plenty of seasoned competitors in TP who switched over one year and absolutely dominated. Some people switch over because they're made to, or because they couldn't find a partner. Whatever the reason, you're about to embark on a journey through my favorite event in forensics (next to DI).

Have fun and work hard!

Kylie