Baudrillard Parts 7-9
These are parts 7 through 9 in a 12 part video series on Baudrillard that Nae created. This Baudrillard series is a part of a larger series on postmodernism that I’ll be releasing throughout the rest of 2021. The last 3 parts in this Baudrillard series will be released tomorrow. I highly recommend you watch the introduction to Baudrillard video Nae did as a precursor to this series and parts 1-6 before watching these specific videos.
In part 7, Nae talks about how critical teams can best answer Baudrillard. Nae stresses it would definitely be helpful to start with the other Baudrillard parts (1-6) first (I agree). Critical teams being able to answer Baudrillard is important because other arguments like Semiocap and the Academy K draw from similar concepts. Nae says the first thing you should do is start with the form/content distinction part of the kritik because it sets up a lot of the Baudrillard team’s offense. Nae also recommend pushing the impact comparison and framing that allows you to weigh your impacts because it lets you access your offense. You should make arguments why debate as a form talks about different strategies potentially using examples of how debate has been used politically to create change. You should use the thesis portion of the debate that uses your affirmative’s stance on representation and/or strategy as offense in the debate.
In part 8, Nae continues talking about how critical teams specifically can effectively answer Baudrillard in a debate. For the link debate, you should focus on answering link arguments based on framework because if you think you’re winning framework that’s an easy place to also win. Using impact outweighs style arguments make these type of link arguments particularly useful in the debate. Nae recommends pushing the materiality portion of the debate because it is useful in the framework and impact debates. When answering refusal type alternatives, you could argue your perm is the best middle ground between the status quo and Baudrillard. The impact comparison debate is really important because you need to win why your aff is an important discussion in the world, the debate, how we think about the resolution, and possibly being seduced by liberation. Pre-empting their kritiks of representation by talking about how we talk about violence as a whole can be necessary.
In part 9, Nae talks about how aff teams can better read Baudrillard as an aff which can also help you answer Baudrillard as an aff. Typically these affs talk about how debate or the resolution function. Specifically, on the water topic, how we produce ideas what is scarce and how to manage those resources. How we know these things is filled with sign and signifiers and mirrors the kritik about debate and the world more generally. If you get ahead on why your thesis of the world is true, it becomes hard for the negative team to beat you. Nae says the case page is a create place to do this work because it allows you to develop better, more nuanced examples. When answering framework, it’s really important to create a focused story based on specific offense rather than choosing everything. Your kritik of debate and how it functions is a good starting point because that frames the value of debate for the framework debate. Answering questions about what the process of debate looks like for the judge can be particularly useful for weighing arguments outside of a traditional impact calculus.
