policy debate is better than ld

"1) The ease of a type of debate in no way demonstrates how good it is; on the contrary, learning something difficult allows one to get more educational value by persevering to improve their skills early on."a) this argument is simply not true. The easier it is to get into something that's not exactly super simple (competitively debating isn't exactly a cake walk, I'm sure my opponent would agree to this if not I can certainly defend this point), the better off they are and the more enjoyable it will be for them.b) you can turn this argument because the more difficult it is, the less likely people will want to perservere and would rather go to something that they are better at and can succeed in, thus lessening the educational value of the activity. The easier it is for people to become immersed in the activity, the more likely it is that they will find the activity enjoyable and will want to stick with it, increasing the educational value of the activity. c) my opponent hasn't even refuted that LD is easier to get into, but rather made a comparison to the difficulty of getting started in Policy. This means that you can presume my argument is true, as my opponent is making the exact same presumption."2) Even if you do not agree with my first response, then, even by my opponent's logic, it will be harder for everyone to start, therefore leveling the playing field for all beginners." a) this argument is non-unique. Everyone who is beginning any sort of activity will always be on a level playing field with everyone else who is beginning any sort of activity. There's no offense being garnered off of this point.b) this point essentially concedes that Policy is hard to get into, meaning that he's biting directly into the turn I made against him earlier. He's not going to be linking out of it.So my first argument stands and can be extended across the flow."1) LD only utilizes a small fraction of Policy tactics and ideas, i.e. CP and Kritik, and some others while Policy has Stock Issues not in any way utilized by LD debate. Note: Policy debates would all agree that Stock Issues provide the high-intensity debate with some level of order and form." a) this is a fundamental misunderstanding of LD. LD doesn't just use CPs and Kritiks, but also plans, disads, theory, topicality, and many other cases that originated in Policy. Policy, however, uses none of the traditional value-critierion format commonly used in LD. If you're looking for a policy debate, presuming a policy judge or at least a judge that is okay with policy arguments, you'll find just as many policy debates in Policy as you will in LD.b) this argument is just drastically wrong. Stock issues are debated just as hard in policy as they are in LD. His argument there is non-uniquec) he doesn't respond to the fact that LD using more of Policy's cases while policy doesn't branch out at all. The only place he touches on it is in a later response, but I'll get to that in a second. This turns my opponent's argument for education, as more types of arguments are offered in LD, thus meaning more educational value as different types of arguments and information are being used and need to be researched."2) Policy debate is WAY more open-ended and diverse than LD:"LOL!a) this is so far from the truth. At best for my opponent, LD topics are just as open ended as Policy topics. More closer to the truth, however, and you can see that LD topics are far more open-ended and thus more debatable than Policy topics. While in policy stock issues revolve around one certain concept - such as transportation infrastructure - stock in LD can take many different forms. Both sides run philosophical arguments, so that's non-unique, although I'd say it's more common in LD than Policy.b) the rules in LD are just as much up for discussion as they are in Policy. Theory and topicality are used in LD just as much as they are in Policy, meaning that the rules and technicalities are constantly shifting. This is non-unique."Policy is more diverse and has more potential to expand its wings than the derivative debate called LD."a) there's literally no reason to believe this. This is just an assertion with not even a hint of analysis to back it up.b) you can turn this because LD has far more room to grow and is currently growing, via adapting to different styles of argumentation, while Policy is failing to adapt and is currently shrinking, notable by the decline in Policy debates at certain tournaments and the prevalence of Public Forum debate taking it's place. This means that LD has far more room to grow than Policy, which has clearly hit the wall and is currently in the process of dying.My second argument stands. Extend it."Education outweighs the ease of understanding for lay judges;"a) Even if you buy this, I've already given analysis and arguments as to how education is better in LD than in policy. This is a point in my favor as I provide both while my opponent provides little to none of both.b) My opponent has a worse link into education as they don't provide for the education of the judges, who still stand to gain from the debate, whereas LD takes the judges into consideration.c) My opponent again just makes a comparative argument while not touching on my original argument of judge adaptation, which allows for an increase of skill in debaters. His argument for education is non-responsive."Spreading increases education,"a) Spreading decreases education for all, as you hear and comprehend more arguments, which allows you to do more research and come up with better responses that go more in-depth than a skin-level understanding from hearing spread.b) Even if you buy his argument, both events have spreading, so it's non-unique at best. "Most varsity Policy rounds will have 3 judges, usually with only 1 lay judge, possibly none."a) Non-responsive, my point was talking about varsity, so the speaking speads of novice are irrelevant. b) Still non-responsive, as there's still a chance for a lay judge in policy debates.c) Misrepresentation of the debate. There's only panels in outrounds, whereas in prelims there is a single judge. The same style of judging is used in LD, so at best for him it's non-unique.All my arguments stand. This means you negate on a risk of offense at worst. But let's go to his arguments now."Policy topics are more diverse, open-ended, ambiguous,"a) already responded to this above.b) it's just false. The same style of kritiks and political/economical arguments are used in LD as in policy, and then some. This means that LD will always be more open-ended, and thus more educational."Policy resolutions last for a whole year; LD topics generally last for 2 months"a) He gives absolutely no warrant to it and just gives a bare assertion.b) Turn, more resolution are better for research and education as it forces you to switch tacts and research something completely brand-new, thus increasing educational value to the activity.c) Not true at all. There's little to nothing you wouldn't have researched by the end of four months on a topic, let alone a full blown year. Having topics change often allows people to be constantly researching, thus increasing education."More time for arguments- format, spreading."a) More time hurts the quality of arguments, as it lets people get side-tracked by meaningless matters and not hurt the round in general. Condensing speech times lets people focus on the important matters, and thus creates more in-depth discussions on what truly matters which means more education.b) His point about doing multiple events is non-unique at best, a crappy argument at worst. LDers can do more than one event just as well as a Policy debater can.All his arguments are refuted. All mine are standing. I think the debate is a pretty clear decision. Thus, I urge a con vote.