Baudrillard Parts 1-3

These are the first 3 parts in a 12 part video series that Nae did on Baudrillard that is part of a broader series on postmodernism. The other parts will be released in the coming days. If you’re unfamiliar with Baudrillard, Nae did an introduction to Baudrillard video as a precursor to this series.

In part 1, Nae talks about Baudrillard as a negative strategy against policy teams. One of the purposes for reading Baudrillard is to try to make it so that the affirmative can’t talk about their offense. Nae posits that Baudrillard is a really good strategy when you can flush out how war and other impacts are represented. Baudrillard is often hard to run because judges aren’t flexible, but that can be overcome. Negative teams should try to translate examples from how debate works and how that relates to culture outside of debate. It helps you at a thesis and a link level and one of the most important parts of the debate because it frames what the debate is about.

In part 2, Nae continues to talk about Jean Baudrillard and how to use his ideas in debates at the negative. Nae discusses why the thesis level of the debate is so important when reading the Baudrillard K and also a good place to start when answering Baudrillard. On the link level, Nae discusses how to use the 1AC’s justifications and representations to create link arguments against policy affirmatives. Nae also gives some tips for link arguments against soft left affs such as taking up a discussion of charity cannibalism. The permutation component of the Baudrillard K is one of the places that Nae says teams reading Baudrillard should excel. Baudrillard is really good at an impact level for affirmatives that take up a fear of death or utilitarianism because it essentially impact turns these arguments because it questions how life is valued. There are various alternative possibilities, but it is probably the least important part of this criticism.

In part 3, Nae flips the discussion to how policy teams can answer Baudrillard. Postmodernism and Baudrillard in particular can be tricky to answer and this video helps demystify what your priorities should be in these debates. It is really important to use the thesis of the argument to create other arguments and points of offense on the flow. Framing the debate so that you get some potential access to your impacts is really important procedurally for the judge evaluating the debate.