Why doe stupid arguments win?

Why does it sometimes seem that there is an inverse relationship between how stupid an argument is and how successful it is? For the purpose of this discussion I will define argument as a complete position, thus things that count as a stupid argument are things like

-politics
-most K's
-consult or condition cp's

Things that are no doubt stupid but I am not referring to here include
-multiple perms are a voter
-dispo bad
-being aff


Few people would say, in all honesty, that any of the arguments above are objectively good (with the exception of some K debaters probably) and yet many people rely on all or some of them for the majority of their neg debates. Why?

I think it's because these arguments are so flawed in 1 or 2 ways that the neg can sit on those flaws, bury them with a million arguments, and get the aff so far of course that they are conceding crucial issues. I call this the "web of stupidity". Basically the idea here is to make an argument that has 3 or 4 points, one of which is overwhelmingly stupid. The aff will rightly focus on this part of your argument. Then in the block, you extend that argument by reading 10+ arguments in support of it, many of which are in and of themselves stupid. Then the 1AR will zero in on these new stupid arguments , but in the process will drop the original stupid argument and many of your non stupid (relatively) extension arguments. They have become caught in the web of stupid.

What do I mean by this? Let's take consult for example. The aff makes the argument that we should consult but do the plan anyway (lie). The neg reaches into their magic bag of stupid and makes the following arguments

1. This is severance- plan is done now, the perm delayes, that severs now
2. Intrinsic- netiher the plan includes a lie but the perm does
3. Leaks- they will find out we lied, they will be very angry
4. Lying is immoral- so you know, don't do that
5. Multiple perms are a VI- you can't have more than one
6. Prior binding consultation is key to restructure the alliance (card)
7. Default neg on the perm- aff has the burden to prove a net benefit, if we win they say yes there is no reason to risk it
8. The perm violates resolved- proves you aren't super sure

That is quite a bit of stupid. However, there are 2 (maybe 3) arguments in there that compared to the rest are almost gaussian in thier genius. They are the perm fwork arg (default neg) and the substance that prior binding is key (which may rely on leaks, which is stupid but when compared to the others is not so bad). Here is what a 1AR I once saw did in response to these arguments

"Group the perm, its not severance or intrinsic- and if it is reject the argument not the team. Bush is leakproof- nothing he does that he doesn't want to be known publically ever gets out. And lying isn't immoral- its key to prevent war- card"

This is a slightly less wordy version, but with the card this took them about 45 seconds. They have become caught in the web of stupid. They have ignored the only credible arguments in favor of answering absurd nonsense. The fact is you will never beat a consult CP if it takes you almost a minute to extend that argument because at the end of the day most judges say "eh, risk" and vote neg. Unless you do a lot more this fate will befall you because no matter how stupid the neg's args are YOUR STRAT IS ALSO STUPID, both in the arguments you chose to go for and the way you are going about it.

So how do you handle stupid? You don't lower yourself to their level, you just blow through it intelligently.

I once saw a debate where the following happend
-the 1AC read a 6 minute advantage about why uranium was harmful to the environment
-the neg read 1 card that says environmentalists are prone to doomsaying
-the 2AC said this doesnt talk about our advantage -uranium- and moved on
-the 1NR spent 4 minutes reading more generic evidence about environmental doomsaying but didn't read any cards about uranium

What did the 1AR do? I will remember it for as long as I live, he said verbatim "They say doomsaying, I say nay saying".

That was it. Pure genius. I have never ever in my life made an argument that at any point approached this level of astounding awesomeness. What on earth could a judge who decided to vote on this argument explain in their rfd? By brutally blowing their stupidity off the 1AR demonstrated just how dumb the neg's arg was.

When people say things like "lying immoral" the proper response is not to read a 30 second card, its to blow them off with a glib/witty remark a la James Bond. Something along the lines of "Lying good- Santa, Easter Bunny, no you don't look fat in those pants" thats it.

The response to this will be "but what if you have a super strict line by line judge, you have just dropped an argument". Well yes and no- you did not actually engage the substance of an incredibly stupid argument- true. But you did cleverly make the point "this is stupid". I don't know a lot of judges who are anxious to vote on lying immoral and the like when they are responded to in any fashion.


Caveat - in order to pull this off, you must have a minimal amount of "stupid cred". By this I mean, if you are a total joker and all your other arguments in the debate are stupid, odds are you wont be able to get away calling the other team out on a stupid argument for obvious reasons.