Jump to content
yuhboy

Kritiks v. Baudrillard Affs

Recommended Posts

Had questions on what to run against Baudrillard as the negative. Obviously framework and case would be smart, but what would be good kritiks to run against it that link hard into Baudrillard? I literally have no idea if there are any strong Kritiks to run against it, so I'm asking you guys. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cap

 

there's links to fem on analysis about how Baudrillard is sexist as heck

 

There's links to race K's because of analysis about how Baudrillard is racist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Settler colonialism has the most direct links I've seen. Baudrillard relies heavily on "radical alterity" or "Otherness" in his theories, which almost always is symbolized by ingenious groups. There are a bunch of cards by Li that explain this, and it attacks the heart of the theory. You could also do antiblackness and try to win that gratuitous violence can't be explained by semiotics, which is very doable but there's less direct comparison. 

All of the links people think they have to fem are off Baudrillard's theory of seduction, which any competent team should be able to explain away. Cap is kinda doable but there's a lot more ev from the other side comparing warrants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, seanarchy said:

All of the links people think they have to fem are off Baudrillard's theory of seduction, which any competent team should be able to explain away.

I heard of a cx against Baudrillard aff that was pretty much

"is meaning static?"

"of course not"

"so does that mean no means no?"

 

I always assumed this would be a better link, but I'm not a baudrillard debater

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2018 at 12:02 PM, NickDB8 said:

"is meaning static?"

"of course not"

"so does that mean no means no?"

I mean, this is a massive oversimplification of the theory but ok. "Meaning isn't static" is more complicated than "we literally can't understand anything whatsoever." No one says that. Its about how meaning shifts depending on historical, social, and literary context. It's also not the same as the "all communication is impossible" stuff, which is a simplified, hyperbolic way to say that we can't totally communicate our lived experience through the medium of language. 

No competent team would answer in that way either, bc there's almost certainly not a shared meaning of that question for both teams, which actually demonstrates the point you're trying to disprove.

Edited by seanarchy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, seanarchy said:

I mean, this is a massive oversimplification of the theory but ok

 

On 9/24/2018 at 2:02 PM, NickDB8 said:

I'm not a baudrillard debater

just bouncing ideas around lol 

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...