<p>Done, you may very well be right. My son enjoyed LD debate and was moved up from novice after his second competition, eventually going on to the state championship. It was just my gut feeling that he was winning on "technicalities" - not for the validity of his argument but by how well he could discredit his opponent's argument. I guess for some reason that bothered me (and I used to be a lawyer). I felt LD was about winning certain points in a very limited time frame that, to me, kept "real debate" from fully happening. That's why I thought Policy might be more interesting, because I thought it was more issue driven. But, for the OP, I should go on record saying my son did enjoy the LD debates (and the competition) very much.</p>
<p>My S is in his second year of LD debate. I'm just now learning the ins and outs of the various types of forensics activities. Having worked with him the past weekend to hone his "negative" argument, I would say that the LD requirements are extremely challenging both in terms of substance and in terms of structure requirements. I was quite amazed at the level of creativity that is required to do well. I would agree that the novice year does not really provide the best view of the potential. D (college freshman) tried LD for a few months as a junior and quickly realized that she would not be able to jump in and be competitive at that point. She encouraged her brother to start early if he expected to compete at the state level or beyond and she was right. </p>
<p>Irrespective of the potential value of the EC for adcom members, I would encourage any student with an interest to explore debate. The knowledge and skills that are developed will be of tremendous value in college and beyond. </p>
<p>Relative to other EC time commitments, I would say it is similar to a varsity sport or extracurricular music -- both farily heavy.</p>