Baudrillard Parts 10-12 (Final)
These are the last three parts in the 12 part video series that Nae created on Baudrillard. This Baudrillard series is a part of a larger series on postmodernism that Nae did that I’ll be releasing throughout the rest of 2021.
In part 10, Nae continues from part 9 talking about how to more effectively read Baudrillard on the aff. Nae stresses that you should watch the other videos in this series and watch them in order because it really does help. In this video, Nae talks about how to answer to best answer criticisms, counterplans and disads while reading Baudrillard. Using identify formation (race/gender/class/etc) is really useful to question how Baudrillard functions in the debate. You should focus on what role debate plays in the debate - for instance, what role does the judge play? Framing the relations of the world and what role debate has in the world. Being able to weigh the value of your thesis is really important because it creates net benefits for you, specifically on the perm. Many Baudrillard team create fancy plan texts, especially the mimicry style of aff, that can leave them struggling with how to answer disadvantages. A good way to answer disads is to indict the value of their impacts in the debate because a lot of teams aren’t prepared to defend the philosophical justifications for their impacts.
In part 11, Nae talks about how to answer Baudrillard affirmatives which can be particularly difficult to answer especially at the high school level. This video focuses on answering Baudrillard affs on the case page and on topicality/framework. Answering the case page is important because it answers their thesis of the world. For critical teams, the case page shouldn’t be about why winning Baudrillard is wrong, but rather figure out the affirmative’s relationship to the status quo. The case page is a good place to make arguments about the material function of the world. When going for framework/T, it is important to explain the (procedural) value of debate as a space where we agree on norms and the game value of debate as necessary to test theories. Some examples of the efficacy of debate in politics more broadly are important to answer the sign/signifier thesis arguments the other side makes. A lot of the earlier videos talked about this. TVAs (Topical Version of the Affirmative) can be useful against the planless Baudrillard style of teams.
In part 12, Nae wraps up talking about Baudrillard by talking about answering Baudrillard affirmatives. For criticisms, Nae recommends focusing the debate around materiality. A lot of Baudrillard affs don’t talk about creating material action and material existence. Nae recommends having a competitive theory that focuses on race, class, or gender, to challenge the sign/signifier impacts/violence that people within these marginalize communities face. The framing portion of the criticism is a great place to do this and winning that you have an alternative world that can address violence is a great way to be successful against Baudrillard. Nae talks about how a double bind between CPs/DAs and framework can be strategic for negative teams trying to answer Baudrillard and gives some tips for these style of debates.
If you enjoyed this series, stay tuned for more in Nae’s series on postmodernism!
