Please cite this article by multiplying the 50% probability that Megan Wu authored this post by the 50% probability that Tori Qiu authored this post. A 25% citation will therefore result. The other 70% should be filled using the brain cells we lost while multiplying infinite quantities by zero.
In contemporary high school Lincoln-Douglas debate, tricks are the scourge upon those who prefer to remain philosophically ignorant. Defeating these arguments unfortunately requires logical thinking skills and rigorous framework comparison. Conventionally, LD judges operate under an assumption of epistemic confidence, which is a model where the judge first determines the winning framework and then votes for the debater who won more offense under that particular framework. For the epistemically insecure, another Promised Land exists: epistemic modesty compels the judge to multiply the probability of each framework being true by the size of impact each debater has under the framework and then vote for the debater with the largest product.
From two framework-averse debaters to another, here are our expert tips to skirt philosophical clash and restore LD debate to its humble plan text origins. The following arguments will equip you with the facts and logic necessary to send tricks debate back to the Midwestern sewer it crawled out of.
Framework
- Read five blippy frameworks with one piece of offense under each framework and say that since you have 100% impact under each individual framework, the aggregate of all the probabilities of those frameworks being true and their impacts outweighs your opponent’s offense.
- Winning one piece of offense under an epistemic humility/relativism/pluralism framework is an auto-win because it entails the development of infinite moral frameworks. For instance, if negating promotes epistemic humility in the public sphere, the impact of deliberation in the public sphere will eventually lead to infinite frameworks, so as long as you win a nonzero risk of your framework being true, then you auto-win.
- Every conceded independent justification for a framework is a reason why it is 100% true. Imagine the following scenario. You stand up in the 2AR and deliver the game-over ballot story: “There are 3 conceded independent justifications. My framework is tautologically true, consistent with the meta-ethic, and is the only binding moral theory — this means there is a 300% probability that my framework is true.”
- What’s the difference between epistemic modesty and agonism, pragmatism, or any other procedural framework that embraces epistemic clownery? Depends on your perspective! This means you can read a particularism framework and argue that it’s functionally equivalent to epistemic modesty, because both claim we should apply contextual moral rules instead of being confident in an overarching ethical theory. If epistemic modesty has already been established in the round, then particularism is necessarily true. Any seasoned statistician knows that probability is a zero-sum game; if your framework is 100% true, then your opponent’s is 0% true and you auto-win.
- Concede to your opponent’s framework so that it has a 100% probability of being true and win one piece of offense under it. Since you and your opponent are both winning impacts under the framework and probability can’t exceed 100%, it means that the product of your opponent’s impacts and the framework’s probability are tied and the judge must vote on presumption.
- Kantians and external world sceptics unite! Under Kant, nothing outweighs a violation of freedom because moral agents have infinite worth, so any violation of freedom yields an infinite impact. Further, if a maxim is universalizable, it is valid for all agents at any moment in time, which proves that your impact is infinite and you auto-win.
Ks
- In a K vs. K debate, read an impact of endless violence and argue that endless violence has an infinite size of impact, so you auto-win under epistemic modesty (5% citation to Kyle Lleras).
- Defend epistemic modesty, read an impact-justified framework, and argue that the framework is 100% true because the impact is true. This is self-referential, because the truth of the framework and the badness of the impact justify each other. If the framework is true, then the impact is true and vice versa, creating a positive feedback loop where the framework and impact are both infinitely true because they keep justifying the truth of each other. I believe an auto-win is in order.
Tricks
- After justifying epistemic modesty, use de Finetti’s argument to prove that it’s impossible for probability to be discerned subjectively. Since the judge is subjectively uncertain of probabilities, they cannot evaluate the probable truth of you and your opponent’s frameworks and have no choice but to vote on presumption.
- A prioris auto-win under epistemic modesty, as they have infinite impact by tautologically proving or disproving the resolution. This means that if you use epistemic modesty between truth-testing and comparative worlds, you would automatically vote on an a priori.
- Winning a NIB amounts to automatically winning the round under epistemic modesty. NIBs can only be won or lost, and a NIB has 100% size of impact because you can’t mitigate a NIB. And, NIBs matter under any framework, so they will always outweigh other offense under the winning framework.
- Epistemocrats beware! Indexicals may be used by Floridian swamp monsters (the phrase “epistemic humidity” comes to mind) to take out epistemic modesty. Underneath indexicals, you only have to win that contention offense links to the standard, so it’s irrelevant whether you win a 0% or 100% risk of your framework.
LARP
- Suppose a debate requires meta-weighing between probability and magnitude. Epistemic modesty on the metaweighing debate means the judge has to use the probability that probability is true (and so forth), but epistemic modesty already assumes that probability is true. This means consequentialism and epistemic modesty fail, because they are contingent on the truth of the other.
- Winning that fiat is illusory means that consequences have a 0% chance of happening. This means consequences are incoherent under epistemic modesty and all util impacts are moot. However, offense under a deontological framework is derived a priori, meaning only deontological offense has 100% strength of link even if fiat is illusory.
- The probability of every argument and impact is infinitely regressive because you can calculate the probability that it has been measured correctly, ad infinitum. But when probabilities that are <1 are multiplied against each other, they can only get smaller. This means that the size of any impact is 0 and the judge must vote on presumption when epistemic modesty is applied.
Theory
- Epistemic modesty necessitates using competing interps to adjudicate the theory debate. Each debater has to win the comparative strength of offense under their interp (which determines the probability that their interp is true), but reasonability does not allow this.
- Using epistemic modesty between fairness and education voters means you should evaluate the theory debate based on strength-of-link weighing instead of deciding which voter outweighs and then only evaluating offense that links back to that voter.
- Use epistemic modesty between theory and substance, which means that the judge should multiply the probability of the framing on each layer being true by the size of impact under each framework. This means that if the theory debate is at all close, it’s only fair for the judge to completely disregard the theory debate and vote on a random substance extension.
- Read a descriptive standard, read AFC, and grant epistemic modesty in the 1AC. When your opponent inevitably reads AFC bad, respond with a counterinterp that says “I can read AFC if I grant epistemic modesty” and say that it solves all their offense. This means you automatically win 100% size of impact and the framework can be abusive/nearly uncontestable so you win a huge impact.
- If the affirmative reads an AFC spike or shell with an interp phrased along the lines of “The negative debater must concede the affirmative framework” or “The negative debater must not contest the affirmative framework”, read an alternate framework, justify epistemic modesty, and claim you don’t violate the shell because you didn’t technically argue against their framework.
In Conclusion
Sounds like you should really just use epistemic confidence.