Jump to content
Atrix20

How would one begin to write a Baudrillard Affirmative

Recommended Posts

So I understand the points Baudrillard makes pretty well, on Disney Land at least, but I can't find a way to structure the affirmative side of things. Can anybody give me just an outline of what it would look like? Also how do you framework this correctly so as a judge will vote for it? Because it's super not-topical.

 

Thanks a bunch. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I understand the points Baudrillard makes pretty well, on Disney Land at least, but I can't find a way to structure the affirmative side of things. Can anybody give me just an outline of what it would look like? Also how do you framework this correctly so as a judge will vote for it? Because it's super not-topical.

 

Thanks a bunch. 

http://hspolicy.debatecoaches.org/bin/CE+Byrd/Gustavson-Nabors+Aff

 

Read the word doc.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I understand the points Baudrillard makes pretty well, on Disney Land at least, but I can't find a way to structure the affirmative side of things. Can anybody give me just an outline of what it would look like? Also how do you framework this correctly so as a judge will vote for it? Because it's super not-topical.

 

Thanks a bunch.

 

Read the lit.
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Step 1: debate is hyper-real

Step 2: your framework interp is hyper-real

Step 3: the Gulf War never happened

Step 4: Vote Aff

Step 5: Profit??????

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can someone explain their aff to me? like.. i get it but at the same time i don't? i understand how it works but i don't exactly understand how they can win on it

 

edit: never mind i read the st marks version and have a much better understanding. really, really great affirmative, especially since they're such good baudrillard debaters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a specific Baudrillard aff, but I run it almost every round on the neg, so I will try to hash out his theories as they appear in debate.

The first thing you need to know about Baudrillard is that all of his theories revolve around the idea that we no longer live in the real but the hyperreal.  First I would like to give a warrant for why we are hypperreal.  As we have accelerated into modernity the relationship between signs and signifiers - e.g. descriptions like words and pictures and what they describe - has exponentially increased and images have begun to place themselves over reality.  Here is a J.L. Borges fable that sums the thesis of this up (loyala read this):

 

. . . In that Empire, the Art of Cartograhy attained such Perfection that the map of a single Province occupied the entirety of a City, and the map of the Empire, the entirety of a Province. In time, those Unconscionable Maps no longer satisfied, and the Cartographers Guilds struck a Map of the Empire whose size was that of the Empire, and which coincided point for point with it. The following Generations, who were not so fond of the Study of Cartography as their Forebears had been, saw that that vast map was Useless, and not without some Pitilessness was it, that they delivered it up to the Inclemencies of Sun and Winters. In the Deserts of the West, still today, there are Tattered Ruins of that Map, inhabited by Animals and Beggars; in all the Land there is no other Relic of the Disciplines of Geography.. . . In that Empire, the Art of Cartograhy attained such Perfection that the map of a single Province occupied the entirety of a City, and the map of the Empire, the entirety of a Province. In time, those Unconscionable Maps no longer satisfied, and the Cartographers Guilds struck a Map of the Empire whose size was that of the Empire, and which coincided point for point with it. The following Generations, who were not so fond of the Study of Cartography as their Forebears had been, saw that that vast map was Useless, and not without some Pitilessness was it, that they delivered it up to the Inclemencies of Sun and Winters. In the Deserts of the West, still today, there are Tattered Ruins of that Map, inhabited by Animals and Beggars; in all the Land there is no other Relic of the Disciplines of Geography.

 

Baudrillard thinks that there is so much meaning and so many images proliferating themselves that it is now impossible to engage in any real or meaningful action.  A great example of this is when the US requested Exonn give it a summary of its dealings and Exonn gave them 12 1,000 page volumes - how is that helpful.  He thinks that the constant searching for meaning (even within the self) is ultimately vacuous and just a frenzied race around the Mobius strip.  We attempt to invent meaning so we can graft it onto the crumbling reality principle (the belief that we aren't hyperreal), but even that is nothing more than cloning of past systems which have long lost their own meaning.   

 

Let me say this: BE VERY VERY CAREFUL - Baudrillard hates education and a bunch of other nice things, so don't stick with traditional impacts.  If anyone read Nayar or DSRB with this i might just have to die - he is the whole lit base (though he does have 30 books).

 

On the aff, you want to start off by giving reasons as to why debate uniquely causes overproduction of meaning and plunges us into the hyperreal.  Baudrillard thinks that the excess of any system leads to its violent collapse and reversion, so once you establish this (i kid you not) you want to read some Borges fables, maybe write a poem, and then read a couple of his cards talking about why that is good.  

 

-Sources: me running this almost every 2NR

I know this is kinda a lot, so if anything doesn't make sense PM me I can explain more.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a specific Baudrillard aff, but I run it almost every round on the neg, so I will try to hash out his theories as they appear in debate.

The first thing you need to know about Baudrillard is that all of his theories revolve around the idea that we no longer live in the real but the hyperreal.  First I would like to give a warrant for why we are hypperreal.  As we have accelerated into modernity the relationship between signs and signifiers - e.g. descriptions like words and pictures and what they describe - has exponentially increased and images have begun to place themselves over reality.  Here is a J.L. Borges fable that sums the thesis of this up (loyala read this):

 

. . . In that Empire, the Art of Cartograhy attained such Perfection that the map of a single Province occupied the entirety of a City, and the map of the Empire, the entirety of a Province. In time, those Unconscionable Maps no longer satisfied, and the Cartographers Guilds struck a Map of the Empire whose size was that of the Empire, and which coincided point for point with it. The following Generations, who were not so fond of the Study of Cartography as their Forebears had been, saw that that vast map was Useless, and not without some Pitilessness was it, that they delivered it up to the Inclemencies of Sun and Winters. In the Deserts of the West, still today, there are Tattered Ruins of that Map, inhabited by Animals and Beggars; in all the Land there is no other Relic of the Disciplines of Geography.. . . In that Empire, the Art of Cartograhy attained such Perfection that the map of a single Province occupied the entirety of a City, and the map of the Empire, the entirety of a Province. In time, those Unconscionable Maps no longer satisfied, and the Cartographers Guilds struck a Map of the Empire whose size was that of the Empire, and which coincided point for point with it. The following Generations, who were not so fond of the Study of Cartography as their Forebears had been, saw that that vast map was Useless, and not without some Pitilessness was it, that they delivered it up to the Inclemencies of Sun and Winters. In the Deserts of the West, still today, there are Tattered Ruins of that Map, inhabited by Animals and Beggars; in all the Land there is no other Relic of the Disciplines of Geography.

 

Baudrillard thinks that there is so much meaning and so many images proliferating themselves that it is now impossible to engage in any real or meaningful action.  A great example of this is when the US requested Exonn give it a summary of its dealings and Exonn gave them 12 1,000 page volumes - how is that helpful.  He thinks that the constant searching for meaning (even within the self) is ultimately vacuous and just a frenzied race around the Mobius strip.  We attempt to invent meaning so we can graft it onto the crumbling reality principle (the belief that we aren't hyperreal), but even that is nothing more than cloning of past systems which have long lost their own meaning.   

 

Let me say this: BE VERY VERY CAREFUL - Baudrillard hates education and a bunch of other nice things, so don't stick with traditional impacts.  If anyone read Nayar or DSRB with this i might just have to die - he is the whole lit base (though he does have 30 books).

 

On the aff, you want to start off by giving reasons as to why debate uniquely causes overproduction of meaning and plunges us into the hyperreal.  Baudrillard thinks that the excess of any system leads to its violent collapse and reversion, so once you establish this (i kid you not) you want to read some Borges fables, maybe write a poem, and then read a couple of his cards talking about why that is good.  

 

-Sources: me running this almost every 2NR

I know this is kinda a lot, so if anything doesn't make sense PM me I can explain more.

on what you were saying about an explosion of meaning, is there some kind of link here to spreading (I'm thinking in the direction of a kritikal spin on spewing bad). I'm not saying it's a fantastic argument, I'm just curious if that's what he's talking about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on what you were saying about an explosion of meaning, is there some kind of link here to spreading (I'm thinking in the direction of a kritikal spin on spewing bad). I'm not saying it's a fantastic argument, I'm just curious if that's what he's talking about

 

His links are technically to any overaccumulation (for example i read a paperless PIK - write the plantext on paper - based off of some of these cards), so yes it can work like that.  However, if you want to criticize speed I would suggest looking into Paul Virilio - a kritikal spin on this (maybe with some Spanos evidence) would be to say that the way that our educational praxis has become centered around the acceleration of cards and meaning and how that creates a training ground for the disaster ptx and inability to compromise in squo politics.  You could also read some Schlag stuff about how we should analyze where we are standing (epistomologies of policy) rather than just dashing madly into the future.  Interesting idea actually.  

 

A good Baud quote that sums this up: "We are living in a world where there is more and more information, and less and less meaning." e.g. we are continually producing meaning in the hope that anything will happen but in our acceleration we have paralyzed ourselves.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...