Lincoln-Douglas debate was formed in the 1970's by John Copeland as a response to the increasingly academic and technically obsessive style, also known as "progressive," that had manifested in policy debate, and is therefore seen to be more of a rhetorically inclined event than policy. On the other hand, the relative depth of focus and emphasis of logical analysis LD demands makes it more technical than PF. Contemporary coaches and LD critics disagree on which influence should (or rather, ought to) be more important.
The odd-ball of the debate family, LD attracts criticism from CXers who don't understand its conspicuous lack of cards, or evidence, and its prioritization of speaking style--though some have come to grudgingly appreciate it. PFers, who carry a significant aversion to the mention of philosophy, a critical part of the LD debater's repertoire, opine that the event is "too open-ended"--roughly translated, "too smart"--for their tastes, and only jokingly claim that they will enter it. Fortunately, nobody cares what PFers think about debate, if anything.
"Well, I dropped his second attack on my criterion, but he totally bungled his defense on my subsumption of his value--I managed to turn it so hard I used it as a voter. I refuted the warrants on both of his contentions, and he never really brought them up again...did you want to see my flow?"
"No, thanks. How'd the CX's go?"
"I still have blood on my penis."
"yeah, he's like one of the awesomest people ever. He gets tons of females, he's super cool, and he speaks at normal speeds"