Tag Archives: alternatives

Another Interesting Quote re: The K

there is a difference between epistemological rationality and instrumental rationality. epistemological rationality relates to discovering what is and is not true about reality given the available evidence. instrumental rationality, on the other hand, relates to finding the best strategy given your goals and the rules of the game you’re playing, and very often will require you to abandon beliefs that are epistemologically rational.

(continued)

most people do not know what decisions or decision-making processes (“intrapsychic institutions” or “self-regulations”) are in their long-term best interest. they don’t know how decisions made today will affect tomorrow’s preferences, or how a series of goals achieved will affect their internal reward systems and future well-being. there is ample evidence that human beings aren’t very good at managing their internal ”pleasure economies” or ”well-being marketplaces” due to the inherent uncertainty of great complexity. we seek our own happiness (much of the time) in the dark.

with that in mind, what makes anyone think they’re in a position to advocate alternative social institutions that will (ostensibly) increase the well-being of the entire population? what evidence is there that having no government accomplishes the weighted goals of the population better than having government (most evidence, including its very existence, strongly suggests otherwise)? how do we know that unregulated markets produce more desirable (tricky word) outcomes than regulated markets? how would you even answer the god damn questions (well-being isnt measurable; the relative importance of diff utility functions isnt determinable; the goals are constantly changing, but some goals may not be in the long-term best interests of those defining them, etc.) ? like, words fail me. we cant even define the problems we’re trying to solve with any degree of precision.

it’s funny: the best at assessing what is and is not true are very rarely among the best at convincing others of their assessment. this is almost always the case in any domain where the truth or falsity of statements cannot be precisely determined (convincing people we dont know very much spoils the fun by forestalling the signalling games that inevitably spring up around the unknown; it is actually, i think, in everyone’s best interest to ignore/fight those who advocate neutrality, but this would be a curious place for such a tangent), and it is frequently the case even in areas where we can.

PB is basically saying ACists dont have solutions because they dont know what they need to know to have solutions. he isnt saying he has solutions: he’s saying no one has solutions. that is a very reasonable position because it is obviously true. whether or not believing it is in your best interest is best left to.. you (although, if you ask me, it probably isnt)

There Are In Fact Stupid Questions

And stupid people who ask them.

1. What does dispositionality mean? If you are asking this question, or are answering with anything other than “if you make a permutation or a theory argument other than dispositionality bad we can kick the cp” you are stupid. I don’t know when or where someone had the idea that it was ok to just make this mean whatever you want it to mean like “if you read only offense” or “if you straight turn the net benefit” but I would bet it happened in stupidville.  The meaning if dispo is logical- it stems from the idea of opportunity cost. Since competition is the link to the cp, if you challenge the link we can kick it just like if u challenge the link to a disad and then impact turn it. So from now on, if someone asks “what is the status of the CP” instead of saying “its dispo” say “its stupid and arbitrary nonsense-acality”.

2. “What is the status of (any part) of the K”. Once someone reads a K it should be obvious that they are a sneaky trickster and you should be making theory arguments anyway. Even if the alternative is “unconditional” that doesn’t mean anything because even though they are stuck going for “it”, the “it” they go for in the 2NR will bear little/no resemblance to the “it” of the 1NC cx. Please stop wasting all of our lives. I did some math:

I judge around 130 debates a year (excluding camp which would make this ridiculous).

50% involve a K= 65.

I would say at least 1 minute is spent in those debates cxing or asking during prep time about the alternative, so say 65 minutes (this is conservative).

Things I would rather do with that hour

-watch an episode of Golden Girls and Keeping up with the Kardashians back to back

-Have my tonsils removed sans anesthesia

-be hunted by another human a la the most dangerous game

-be warmed by the innards of a tonton while Han set up the shelter, and I thought they smelled bad on the outside…

That means every year I am wasting an hour of my life listening to inane cross x questions that are totally unnecessary. So for everyone out there, I will answer them all now

“Does the alternative solve the case?” -Obviously not chuckles, but we will make a string of stupid arguments about why it does and you will drop them

“who is the agent of the alternative”- I can’t tell you till the 2NR because I don’t know what the alternative will be untill then- but probably everyone on earth holding hands, so I would say all hands.

“what is the status of the alternative” -Its “dropisitional”- if at any point you drop a 2 word argument about the alternative we will then claim u dropped our floating pic/fiat world peace/make war impossible alternative”

/discussion

3. Does your link assume….- no , it obviously doesn’t assume anything let alone your plan. This applies to all disads/anything with a link. If links assumed things we could just insta sign all ballots neg and dispense with the silly debates. Obviously no cards talk about anything becasue debate is contrived and stupid.

4. “what does your 1NC have to say about this 2AC argument”- no explanation needed.

5.  Silly rhetorical questions used to begin a K- again, no explanation needed.