Like with Ayn Rand, I share your conclusion for 100% opposite reasons.
A wise decisionmaker (hopefully you at least increase your abilities there in debate a little bit) looks at the whole picture and sees responsibilities, interlinkages, and long-term interactions when making decisions with limited authority. That's why limited authorities work with other limited authorities to coordinate together.
Net benefits are definitely a poor choice as aff, and sometimes as opp, though the entire debate can sometimes just fit into NB (yeah, of course the judge should vote for the "best" policy, but what's beneficial? Oh right, my unargued criterion). But at the end of the day, one has to make decisions based on some things being more important than other things.
Two symptoms of the usual debater's philosophy, in my opinion, are:
1. Over-expertization of everything. We see this in Halogen's post. "I'm responsible for this, b/c it's what I know and do". Results in a bunch of uncoordinated efforts and bad decisions. It's why Michael Lyden found that undergraduate liberal arts students can make more nuanced and at least as equally accurate predictions as National Intelligence Estimates by top experts in economics, culture, and history. http://scip.cms-plus.com/files/Resource ... alysis.pdf
2. Lack of clarity. People used to 15 arguments that can't distinguish between which ones are true and make sense and those that bizarrely equivocate to absurd conclusions (the amount of elections debaters SAID would result in nuclear war that DIDN'T is pretty staggering) struggle in the real world to lead, decide, and act.