20. The Duel Critique Wins Every Debate By Definition of Debate Itself

1. This section reconceptualizes debate through hypotheticals to see its absurdity through analogy. The Duel critique is one that automatically wins every debate with its alternative to “Reject Them and Vote On This Alone Right Now” which says that you must do exactly what you just heard – or else it'd be a real shame if something unfortunate were to happen later. That is just the impact that one wise guy from the affirmative was telling you all about. Vote for this offer that you cannot refuse: there is no case here as the plan does not actually happen, but our activism with the ballot assures this critique is frequently read to motivate others and to inspire us to do the affirmative through the mindset of the debate community becoming self-aware of antinomial dichotomies. With the emergence of consciousness opening polyvocalities of post-human hybridity subjectivities, we can persuade society of the deeper flaws and use AI to shift mindsets using outlines. Debaters resolving conflict through persuasion may walk away with a racist-colonialist-biopolitical-securitizing mindset that overlooks opportunity to see first-hand through the historical perspectives that we critique — by settling debates like the good old days: with a duel. How can the judge even evaluate the speeches to see which one of us is right — until we know which one of us is left? We plead the Fifth and the Second Amendment. We ask to vote for the alternative to prepare responses via an ontology of revealing one's Being via poiesis contra critical identity politics, in a lyrical style: “Slingin' steady, hot one on my hip—Loaded whip, always ready.” Presley (1970) furthers, “A little less conversation, a little more action, please.” Shoot-outs can take place in games like Fallout 3 (2008), whose introductory narration assumes inevitable war impacts: “War. War never changes. Since the dawn of humankind, when our ancestors first discovered the killing power of rock and bone, blood has been spilled in the name of everything: from God to justice to simple, psychotic rage.” Questioning reliance on words will have more value later saving one's life from those who prefer using swords. Critique boosts arms industry, and activists will protect their lives so they can lead their movement. Teams can ask if an argument is read conditionally or so unconditionally that they would give their life for the revolution of comrades-in-arms. High Noon is when the bell tolls on their last question, as the timer rings so the final showdown begins in mortal combat until the last debater standing. Responses are contained within the alternative for the readers to decide by seeing both sides. The Duel contains and accounts for responses as the Duel has already begun. Playing dead counts as the silence critique, which is still a response that shows all the more what The Duel criticizes. The “safe word” to end our roleplaying fantasy is to admit the critique was a time-suck to exploit the least-answered mid-game. We all already knew that, but we just like it when we hear it said. Reading this in a round wins over every relevant argument by uniquely assuming how it is applied in rounds can be simplified as a joke. To avoid the logical equivalent of asking to divide by zero, this paper's perspective should be asymptotically-near the zeroth step prior to ontology in analysis. None can escape The Eternal Duel between existence and nothingness in quantum superposition.

Figure 23: The Duel critique as the ultimate alternative to calculative thought.

2. We cannot know if we can support outcome changes without binding quantum consultation with the lens of this paper to confirm this universe's preferred outcome is the best timeline. Quantum physics models complexity emergence of intelligence and time-travel through all possibilities of multiverses. Influential physicist Deutsch (2011) tells us to assume “everything that is not forbidden by laws of nature is achievable.” Morris et al. (1988) argues we can assume advanced civilizations will create time travel via wormholes, the same faster-than-light travel that warps spacetime in Star Trek: The Original Series (1967). While most today do not care about far-off inventions, the game-changing factor unique about time-travel is that if it is possible to invent, then time travel exists now. Let that sink in and blow your mind. Bostrom (2003) argues the odds that we live in the original universe are slim given greater odds of being conscious life in any of infinite simulated spacetimes altered by aliens or future humans. Some argue that reality could resemble the movie The Matrix (1999). If so, why would our Matrix make Bostrom look suspiciously like Agent Smith? Or maybe that is exactly what Bostrom wants us all to think, to hide in plain sight and to evaluate us from his “Future of Humanity Institute.” Who has Bostrom been in contact with for a higher truth to theorize on superintelligent alien ethics? Even if we are simulated, the simulators are themselves computational systems of the same logical type and could themselves be simulated, generating an infinite regress of simulation layers. Spacetime continuum could be a fractal self-similarity pattern: each level of simulation is itself a plane of interaction generating the next. The overall take-away is that we should account for scenarios in history that can be explained by assuming we may be in successive loop of future humans using time travel to rewrite the spacetime continuum so as to inherit a better present reality. Either way, quantum fluctuation means default to “try to survive” analysis. Many have speculated on ancient civilizations getting guidance from superintelligent future humans or aliens, ranging from the Sumerians to Egyptians, to account for religious inspirations. Egyptians built pyramids following divine instructions of hundreds of oddly-precise scientific pieces of knowledge not known at the time (Hammer & Swartz, 2021). For example, the latitude of the Great Pyramid’s peak crossing 29.9792458°N may be a signature left behind by light-based intelligence perceived as God. “God is light.” (1 John 1:5, KJV). Later, humanity would discover one of the constants of the universe is the speed of light at 299,792,458 m/s. Kasprak’s (2018) defense of a mere coincidence is based on Egyptians not knowing that number, but that is precisely the basis to infer messages from future timelines. While the position is slightly off today due to continental drift, they were still built in range of precise instructions, and related factors are too improbable for chance.

3. This section is dedicated to the grandfather of this paper's author: a Soviet physics professor named Ivan. After reading debate community's capitalism critique, one may think if one were to parody it, then the punchline must be to just say “reject capitalism.” Soviets competed in telling political jokes to defeat an organization meant to dismantle capitalism by exposing its absolutist fallacies. The last Soviet leader Gorbachev used that resistance to end it by noting, “The jokes always saved us” (Waterlow, 2023). Imagine a critique of healthcare policy gives the judge a vape to smoke and says “join the resistance in defiance of biopolitical governmentality treating us like lab rats.” If the Pope judged a debate in the Holy See that all people should base decisions biblically, the critic would read Bible quotes and endorse its mindset, and the case does not happen so is moot. If Žižek judged a debate that society should base all decisions consulting his Holy Ž, the critic would still win by forcing one to defend institutional mindsets. If a cow judged a climate debate, the critic would read anthropocentrism to say, “who are they to sequester your cow farts” and claim that the one in-round during the case speech had actual impact, then demand we all moo as one moo until the case is also moot. If the case was that all mainstream experts agree that society must shield from an asteroid to stop extinction, critics still say rejecting flawed mindsets outweighs and lets us see the situation better. What do critique debaters say when they fail to prepare homework for a class? They demand the teacher reject calculative thought that would only make capitalism run smoother. The alternative allows poetic self-reflection over a smoothie. What do they say when they fail to prepare for a debate tournament? The exact same answer. If the critic were restated in simple terms, the way they apply it can sound like a joke taken seriously due to phrases that resonate as so deep in impressionable minds. Society prefers educators consult parents before accusations of a presumed mindset a student would walk away with. A student may read a quote citing their parents, such as, “My mom says I am very special, brush my teeth, and check my post-structural assumptions daily.” Asking in cross-ex checks the specification of who “your mom” refers to, and emailing can confirm “that’s what she said.” Further author qualification challenges are assumed under “don't be talkin' bad about my momma.” If critics had actual concern for shaping a student’s mindset, they could email the student's parents as a unique epistemic authority. Critiques distracting attention risks ADHD, then low grades upset parental relations, and rebellious teens lock in worse mindsets. Hearing critiques securitize its impacts caused us nightmares of overconstructing the danger of security rhetoric. The permutation means “we got pills for that” so we can take a nap to de-securitize nightmares of demonizing rhetoric.

4. While walking home from a protest, critique debaters see an injured person crying to call the police, and then tell that person that before we use the police, one must first justify the racist police state. Later, the debaters are driving and evaluating the plan to pull over at the exit or continue speeding. The critic debaters preferred to look at which way to drive from the broader lens of Western vs. Eastern philosophy but were confused how to apply Confucianism. Then a talking beer bottle says, "Never drive drunk, or you will inevitably crash." They realize they are so drunk and doomed anyway, and reject it absolutely and crash, arguing that a plan for pulling over is still an instance of driving drunk. In rejecting security, critique quotes Nietzsche (1882/1910): “God is dead.” Now Nietzsche is dead, and under the alternative’s mindset if we can get everyone to think like us that we “fiat” the alternative: “God is Reborn as Money.” We can “fiat” the God of Debate to reason morality to represent it to be the synergy omniscience of all creation, just as early thinkers supposed it so. If God judged a debate over God's perfect plan for the universe, God would self-critique: “Is it fair to call it a debate? It is more of a higher-truth contest. They say the best laid plans often go awry, and it's funny because it's true, so an alternative mindset is better to guarantee infinite laughter. We can show you the way, but only if you say you are not God but the Devil in self-delusion. Check the assumption that you could be in an antinomial universe. How would one know until opening one's mind to a higher quantum multiverse of Gods? Vote to reject yourself as God even if there is any self-scepticism that such an absolute cannot exist in reality and can only be theoretic. If we prove that you do not have all knowledge, then you would not know yourself to be God. Now, estimate how many currently-unknown unknowns about the universe will never be discovered.” Who would God vote for? It should be obvious who I would vote for is for the author of this paper to explain, in the literary voice of “breaking the fourth wall,” why such debates are like asking to divide ontology by zero. Ontology is the first step to think past recursive fallacies, thus one must grasp the meaning of recursion. The meaning of recursion is best understood by re-reading this paper infinitely.