Transitioning from High School LD to College Policy
By Bob Overing
So you want to do college policy, but maybe you’re worried about transitioning from a completely different debate event. In this post, I hope to give you some confidence and insight from my own experience debating college policy. It was a difficult transition for me, but it doesn’t have to be for you! I’ll highlight why I struggled at first and what you can do better.
My Experience
The LD ‘meta-game’ evolves rapidly. My senior year of high school in 2011-2012, there were very few teams pursuing strictly policy-style argumentation. My affs often included a couple minutes of framework and a couple minutes of ‘plans good’ and topicality pre-empts with very little time spent on the plan, its solvency, and its advantages. Why? Because no one ever debated me on it! I spent all this time in my AC and NC speeches justifying why we should debate through a policy-making lens or a utilitarian framework, but very little time actually doing so. I so expected to debate framework or a stock theory argument that when it came to actually debating policy-style arguments, I hadn’t had much practice on it! In fact, two of the three (total) times my opponent conceded my framework, I lost.
My senior year, I read or answered the politics DA probably five times. I answered a kritik maybe once or twice a tournament. When I coached Michael Harris the next year, he would sometimes read framework for 5:30 and justify the contention for :30. Our opponents rarely engaged, and when they did, they often misunderstood key policy concepts like competition on mutual exclusivity vs. net benefits. They didn’t ask the status of alternatives or counterplans. When I became a camp instructor, I was the token ‘policy person’ just because I came from one of the few schools that read plans on every topic.
As you can see, debate was a whole lot different just four years ago, which is weird to say. But it’s true. I decided to debate at USC over other big college programs like Dartmouth, Georgetown, and Northwestern because I knew that coming from LD, I’d be at a huge disadvantage. I’d heard stories of LD debaters with dreams of debating for top policy teams, but it never seemed to work out that way. USC seemed to be the perfect option: a historically successful program that had recently graduated its top teams and needed some new talent.
But policy was tough for me. For one, the content was very different. In District 1, we were debating Fullerton and Fresno State and their kritiks backed by Frank B. Wilderson III and bell hooks, authors I might have heard of, but rarely, if ever, actually debated against. My knowledge of the intricacies of LD framework debate (meta-ethics, theoretically-justified standards, etc.) didn’t help in college policy land. My coaches were great, but neither they nor I knew how to translate ‘motivational internalism’ to a policy argument. Even theory was different in form and in substance. Far fewer judges were willing to check in on junky theory arguments to drop the team, and reasonability seemed to be the norm.
Luckily, the content of ‘policy’ arguments (advantages, CPs, politics DA) was no different; however, the depth required to research and go for those arguments was much greater. The biggest files I compiled in high school were framework answers and generic theory arguments. I had written about a thirty page file for one disad we went for at TOC, but in policy a disad had to be about ten times that length to deal with the variety of affs and depth that comes with more speeches. It was simply more work. And learning how to fill those extra speeches was a challenge too. Policy has double the negative speeches, and the norms for what goes in a 1NC vs. a 2NC/1NR vs. a 2NR are different than in LD. The skills of argumentation are the same, but learning the norms and how to expand on arguments productively and not repetitively took some time.
Having a partner? Figuring out which CX you’re answering questions and which one you’re asking? A year-long topic? All that stuff’s easy to get used to. For me, it was just the content and the depth. I got the hang of it well enough to clear at CEDA my sophomore year and qualify to the NDT my junior year. We beat some decent teams along the way but were never highly ranked. Overall, it was very fun and rewarding despite my difficulties. Given the way LD has gone in the last four seasons, I think college policy could be even better for you.
Your Experience
A circuit or regional LDer entering college policy debate in 2016 should have a much greater chance to adapt and succeed than I did. High school LD is much more like policy, and as such, LDers are much more prepared. The following is my advice to LDers trying to transition to policy.
Off the bat, feel confident because you should have familiarity with a lot of arguments that directly translate to college policy. In fact, a good bit of what is disclosed on the NDCA high school LD wiki has been taken straight from the college policy wiki! There may be downsides to this practice, but for transitioning to college policy, it’s great. You should have some familiarity with the politics DA, Wilderson, topicality/framework, the academy K, just to name a few popular arguments. Check out policy wikis throughout the year and see what the top teams are doing. Watch videos on YouTube from the major college tournaments. All of this information is so much more accessible now that if you’re thinking ahead of time, you can come prepared.
Beyond knowing the arguments and their content, you should practice these styles. Depending on your judging, coaching, and current skill set, it might be difficult to pursue policy arguments and enjoy the same success, but if your goal is to debate competitively in college, you need to start preparing right away. Luckily, we’ve had pretty good topics for debating policy-style arguments. There’s no excuse for not getting practice on arguments like politics or elections. You should be reading plans and counterplans and doing your judge prefs accordingly. There are regularly college policy debaters in LD pools, and they can give you good advice. Another benefit to employing more policy-style arguments is that if you’re considered for a college scholarship as an entering freshman, you’ll have better video material to send in to bolster your case. These college coaches can recognize good debating on any subject, but you can only help yourself by having great rounds on content that translates to the college level.
My third major piece of advice is depth of argumentation. To prepare for the next level, you should try to develop your cases as much as possible. Perhaps you can pick one aff idea at the beginning of the topic and stick with it! Expand and revise it, but try to create a comprehensive file with blocks to everything. In LD, the rounds and topics are shorter, so affs don’t have to be as thoroughly researched or deep, but you can simulate a more policy-like experience by sticking as much as you can to the same core arguments.
Final Thoughts
I hope I’ve provided some perspective and some encouragement for those of you in the Class of 2016 deciding if you want to debate at the next level. I have a couple final words of advice. First, talk to debate camp staff! At Premier 2015, we had three instructors with experience in transitioning to college policy. Seniors, reach out to LDers who have made the transition; juniors, reach out to your staff next summer. Pick their brains on the whole process and what you can do to prepare. Second, talk to college debate coaches! They’re always on the lookout for new talent and new recruits who are excited about college debate. It matters less and less whether you did high school LD or policy, so don’t be nervous. There are lots of scholarships available, and you only hurt yourself by not making the contact. Finally, try it! Little harm can come from trying out college policy debate. Who knows? You might like it even more than LD!
Bob Overing | Co-Director
Bob is a co-director of Premier, coach for Loyola in Los Angeles, and debater for the USC Trojan Debate Squad. As a senior in high school, he was ranked #1, earned 11 bids and took 2nd at TOC. In college, he cleared at CEDA and qualified to the NDT. His students have earned 60 career bids, reached TOC finals, and won many championships.
5 Comments
As a college Policy debater myself, here’s some additional perspective I’d like to add!
My Experience
I’m currently a Policy Debater at Wake Forest University. When I was applying for colleges, I already knew I wanted to debate in college. A huge reason that I pursued Wake Forest among other debate schools is Wake offers the Presidential Scholarship for Distinguished Achievement, $16,000/year for all four years. Not only did I apply for the school and scholarship, I also attended the Wake Forest Earlybird, a finals bid in LD, back in September of 2014. Attending this tournament was a great opportunity to get to know Wake’s campus, and their debaters and coaches. This tournament was my favorite of the entire year, not only because I got to visit my top choice school, but also because I was the tournament’s champion.
Eventually, I received the scholarship and was admitted to the school. I found out all of this by March 2015, a month before the Tournament of Champions. Competing at the TOC that year, I knew that even if I lost a major debate (as I did, in Quarters), that wouldn’t be the end of the road.
While that wasn’t the end of the road, the road ahead was a little bumpy, as I expected (in a positive way). Making the transition from LD to college Policy, you still have a lot to learn. While I could spread, cut lots of cards, and had basic understandings of Policy-style arguments and kritiks, the dynamics of partners, longer speeches, and substantial argumentative depth are something you have to get used to. Having now participated in Policy myself, I am certain that all of those people who think LD is becoming “one-person Policy” are absolutely wrong—the arguments may be similar these days, but trust me, they are different activities. So much different, in fact, that I like Policy debate a lot more!
One huge difference is that everyone is well-researched. For example, I read the politics DA a lot in high school, but I can’t remember the last time an LDer engaged it (they’d usually just answer framework). Here, though, if you’re giving the 1NR on politics, you have to answer a barrage of 2AC cards and do impact calculus. It’s actually a lot of fun.
Being on a big squad with a lot of coaching means I’m no longer cutting most of the cards that I read in debates, but I’ve still done a lot of work. In fact, as a 2A (giving the 2AC and 2AR), I cut a substantial amount of cards for the affirmative that my partner and I read. This aff said that the US should significantly reduce its presence of private military contractors in the Arab States of the Persian Gulf. Cutting lots of aff cards, I did some neg work but not a large portion of it. The 2Ns on my team (they give the 2NC and 2NR, where 2As in neg debates give the 1NC and 1NR) did the bulk of that work. My coaches and teammates all work very hard, so much so that we have a lot of resources going into our debates to succeed.
So far I’ve competed at five tournaments this year, competing with different partners at the latter two. While I still have a long way to go, I’ve made it to elimination rounds at three regional tournaments! I’m really enjoying college debate, and you should definitely consider it as an essential part of your college experience.
Go Deacs!
Advice
A few tips for making the transition—
1. Go on the college wiki (opencaselist.paperlessdebate.com). Look at how 1ACs are constructed, how off-cases get developed in the block (2NC and 1NR), and the cards that people read. Read through people’s K cards and try to understand them well. This will teach you a lot. For one, it’ll help you write a 1AC in college; the obvious is that the 1AC has no theory spikes or util framework, but you’ll also see how an advantage gets developed out with nuanced internal links and impact scenarios.
2. Watch college Policy debates online. Take a debate, like NDT finals from last year, and flow the entirety of it. Afterwards, construct an RFD. If you need to look at cards during or after the debate, the speech docs are in the archives of the college wiki. This helps you get used to the length of college Policy debates; judging debates in general helps you improve significantly.
Watching these debates also gives you familiarity with some of the activity’s norms. For example, you *have* to put an off-case that you’re kicking into the order, usually the beginning of it. When you kick something, like a counterplan, you say, “Counterplan—not going for it. The perm’s just a test of competition.” If it’s a disad, you concede some of their defense, especially so that if the aff has a link turn, they can’t go for it.
Finally, watching these debates might boost your own technical prowess, which helps before college. I’m convinced that watching some of these debates, trying to emulate the coolest debaters I saw (like Ellis Allen, who debated for UMich—he’s awesome), made me faster and more efficient.
3. Over the summer, you should do some reading on both international relations and critical theory. This will help you understand the ins-and-outs of advantages/DAs and the K debate. For example, learning about offensive and defensive realism helps you understand a bit more the heg good/heg bad debate. Reading some of Red, White, and Black will help you understand Wilderson’s arguments about anti-blackness.
Final Thoughts
To those who feel that college Policy debate might be too demanding: try it. After that, if it’s not for you, or you don’t think you have enough time, that’s alright. The best debaters are able to effectively balance debate work with school work, and both of those with their social life. Whatever you decide, I hope you seriously consider debating in college!
Thanks Bob and Tomasi for the awesome detail. I was wondering if you could expand on the different norms in Policy and HS LD, Adam touched on a lot of it but there’s a lot I’m confused about and don’t have the recourses to ask
1. It’s the “1AC” now, not “AC”–slipped that up once by accident
2. 10 minutes of prep, shared with your partner
3. Pretty much everyone discloses.
4. Before the debate (30 minutes or so before, usually) the aff tells the neg team what aff on the wiki they’re reading (what plan, what advantages).
5. The neg team DOES NOT say what the 1NC is going to be. They only say what their “past 2NRs” have been, if asked. The aff team wants to know this; for example, if the 1NC you’re flowing has the elections DA in it, among other things, and one of their past 2NRs was the elections DA, you know this off-case isn’t just a throwaway argument.
6. Dates for every card; no exceptions.
7. 1NC usually has more than two off-cases. The 2NC and 1NR take different arguments (e.g. the 2NC takes the disad and the case turns, while the 1NR takes the counterplan. It’s NOT always that distribution of arguments; that was just an example, and it can be whatever the neg team wants to do and in which speech).
8. If you’re the 2A, you normally do the bulk of you and your partner’s aff work. If you’re the 2N, you normally do the bulk of you and your partner’s neg work. The 2A and 2N are the captains of the ship, depending on whether it’s an aff or neg debate.
9. You can use the Internet during your debates. Sometimes you can use a little prep time to cut that one super-recent card you need.
10. Speech docs are shared through email chain unless a team debates on paper. No one complains that you kept their speech docs on your computer; sharing is caring.
11. A lot more cards. Lots and lots more cards. Files are larger and more expansive, so be prepared to go really deep on research. Having multiple cards essentially saying the same thing (but different warrants) is key.
12. Card quality factors more in a judge’s decision than who necessarily won the technical flow game.
13. Tag-team cross-ex. Your partner can chime in and answer questions when you’re being cross-exed. They should trust you for the most part, though, and only chime in if you’re about to say something that might lose you the debate.
14. There are four cross-exs.
After the 1AC, the 2N cross-x’s the 1A.
After the 1NC, the 1A cross-x’s the 1N
After the 2AC, the 1N cross-x’s the 2A
After the 2NC, the 2A cross-x’s the 2N.
Basically, if you just gave the speech, you’re getting questioned. If you’re not preparing a speech, you’re doing the questioning. For example, the 1A cross-x’s the 1N after the 1NC ends, so that the 2A has three extra minutes to put the speech together that they’re giving next.
Cross-x periods end after the 2NC CX. Cross-exing is reserved for the constructives; after the 2NC, the rebuttals begin (the 1NR follows RIGHT AFTER the 2NC, and then the remaining speeches are the 1AR, 2NR, and 2AR)
15. There’s a higher burden for argument explanation in the 2NR and 2AR because you have more time and the debates are more complex.
Good afternoon. My son is a passionate LD debater in Florida and has gone for the last two summers to debate summer camps. He GPA is 3.2-3.5. He wants to continue debate in college. Where do you think we should apply?
thank you
Hi Ana, thanks for your question. It’s a kind of tough one to answer since I can’t evaluate the odds that your son will get in to a particular college.
There used to be an online site that had scholarship information for college debate, but I couldn’t find such a thing anymore. I know scholarships are offered to do policy debate and I believe some parliamentary debate programs as well.
My opinion regarding policy programs is that your son should target a competitive team but not one that is so elite that they’ll have heavily-recruited underclassmen who will take all the coaches’ time and attention away from your son. If you look at recent results, you should get a feel for these middle-tier teams. I would want an NDT-caliber team (here are last year’s NDT entries: https://www.tabroom.com/index/tourn/fields.mhtml?tourn_id=3519&event_id=32860) but not one with a partnership in the top 25 or so (here’s a ranking: http://collegedebateratings.weebly.com/2015-161.html). You should definitely get in contact with the directors of some of the teams your son is thinking about debating for. Maybe start talking to them later this spring, say in April after the NDT.
Hope this helps.