Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'big questions'.
Found 2 results
I've created a Baudrillard negative for Big Questions (not that I'll ever find a judge who can understand it), and since I'm pretty new to Baudrillard in general I'm wondering whether it would work. Keep in mind that I'm a policy debater and that it's structured much like a policy neg would be structured, and since BQ is basically just the antithesis of policy, this probably isn't a great neg to run. I decided to write it because I'm interested in Baudrillard and I really want to understand his arguments so I can run and beat Baudrillard args in policy. Basically, I cut the Animals, an entire chapter of Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulations. What he says (or what I think he says rather) is humans consider animals to be inferior and different to humans because of their endorsement of the hyperreality. More specifically, they use the fact that animals are unconscious as a reason that humans are better than animals, when in fact we used to be unconscious too. He cites the Levi-Strauss experiment, which had the result of pointing out human and animal brain structures are remarkably similar, if not almost the exact same. How I'd use Baudrillard's arguments is as both a critique and an actual case neg. It basically just shits on the sample affirmative given, which literally just cites a bunch of arguments centered around human reasoning. I'm gonna write a role of the ballot argument in the constructive which says that BQ is inherently pointless and the ballot has only ever been used to quench the debaters' thirst for the ballot. I say that the the role of the judge is to use the ballot as a catalyst for change. So, instead of saying we have any hope of solving the real world impacts of hyperreality, going for the impact that we can at least influence the minds of the debaters and the judge in the round, and the ballot should be used as a sort of endorsement for change, and that the judge should use the ballot to say "Fuck the evils of the affirmative, the negative is right and the aff logic is racist (animalist?) as shit." In the BQ tournament im going to there will be a few policy/circuit LD debaters that can understand Baudrillard, so I didn't just write this case for my own satisfaction. Yeah, I 100 percent wrote it for my own satisfaction. If you want the negative, just dm me and I'll link it to you. Keep in mind that my wording is probably trash and probably doesn't work, and the 1 card in the neg is most likely cut terribly.
My team is doing a big questions tournament for the NSDA grant. The resolution is "Humans are primarily driven by self-interest." I don't typically debate big questions, although I have in the past. I'm curious about what non-typical aff and neg arguments there are? It seems to me that the debate will ultimately be the neg providing examples of good deeds and the aff saying everything is psychologically about self interest. Are there any other ways/ contentions to make the debate interesting?