Jump to content

Photo
- - - - -

Big Questions Baudrillard Negative

baudrillard big questions negative

  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 OutKTheK

OutKTheK

    Junior-Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
3
Okay

Posted 07 November 2017 - 09:00 AM

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.


  • 1

#2 TheSnowball

TheSnowball

    Hall of Fame

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,640 posts
1,038
Excellent
  • Name:Ryan

Posted 07 November 2017 - 09:51 AM

I think it would be fun to run a K in big questions debate, and then have a framework debate over whether the rules of big questions debate should really determine who wins. Gradually invade it and turn it into policy.


  • 2

Daily Evidence Card!
Exodus Files!

This cross-ex is taking too long.

Kafka 25 (Franz, Novelist, Translated by David Wyllie, "The Trial", 1925) //Snowball

K. was informed by telephone that there would be a small hearing concerning his case the following Sunday. He was made aware that these cross examinations would follow one another regularly, perhaps not every week but quite frequently. On the one hand it was in everyone’s interest to bring proceedings quickly to their conclusion, but on the other hand every aspect of the examinations had to be carried out thoroughly without lasting too long because of the associated stress. For these reasons, it had been decided to hold a series of brief examinations following on one after another. Sunday had been chosen as the day for the hearings so that K. would not be disturbed in his professional work. It was assumed that he would be in agreement with this, but if he wished for another date then, as far as possible, he would be accommodated. Cross-examinations could even be held in the night, for instance, but K. would probably not be fresh enough at that time. Anyway, as long as K. made no objection, the hearing would be left on Sundays. It was a matter of course that he would have to appear without fail, there was probably no need to point this out to him. He would be given the number of the building where he was to present himself, which was in a street in a suburb well away from the city centre which K. had never been to before.


#3 OutKTheK

OutKTheK

    Junior-Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
3
Okay

Posted 07 November 2017 - 10:40 AM

I remember last topic our seniors made a really cool Heidegger kritik. I want to turn it into policy because it has so much potential as a kritikal debate format, but I can't do that without judges that know their shit, and I'm pretty sure circuit BQ (what a meme) has even worse judges than circuit PF. I think it's a massive problem that this format was made by such a conservative grant issuer. In order to change BQ we would have to have a whole bunch of policy debaters doing BQ at the tournaments that are piloting it, and I don't know if that's very likely.


  • 0

#4 Nonegfiat

Nonegfiat

    Agambabe

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 649 posts
448
Excellent

Posted 07 November 2017 - 10:57 AM

Rebelling against BQ, nice. I wish you luck. In case you didn't know, big questions is funded by an evangelical think tank (I guess it's a think tank?) that has a very specific vision of how debate should be. It's the standard sort of conservative/classical idea that debate exists solely for the purpose of communication and dialogue on the "big questions" of humanity. Basically, they embody the attitude of all those dumbasses you find in the comments section of policy videos on YouTube ("How is this debate??? Someone needs to teach these kids how to get their point across!"), or this guy who has no idea what he's talking about.

 

As a result, they're very anal about making sure people stick to their model of debate. There's even, I believe, a form on their website for people who host BQ tournaments to report to the Templeton Foundation if anyone tries anything innovative in BQ. If you couldn't tell, I think the whole thing is stupid because debate is a competition so "dialogue" can never be the priority. I mean, SSD is a thing people, come on. Outside of like certain forms of identity K debate, how you feel about a given issue has no connection with how you debate.

 

So, I can't help you on Baudrillard, but all that is to say, if you get away with this "BQ is stupid" framework, I will be very, very pleased. Best of luck.


  • 4

DOUBLE BIND- Either the harms of the aff are true and they can't solve until they control the levers of power OR the harms are constructed and you reject them for alarmism


#5 Nonegfiat

Nonegfiat

    Agambabe

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 649 posts
448
Excellent

Posted 07 November 2017 - 10:58 AM

Patrick, Ian, Chaos, Nick, Ryan, remember when we tried something like this?


  • 0

DOUBLE BIND- Either the harms of the aff are true and they can't solve until they control the levers of power OR the harms are constructed and you reject them for alarmism


#6 NickDB8

NickDB8

    Exodus Files Forum Representative

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 633 posts
385
Excellent
  • Name:Nick
  • School:Emporia HS

Posted 07 November 2017 - 12:00 PM

Patrick, Ian, Chaos, Nick, Ryan, remember when we tried something like this?

Remind me?


  • 0

Exodus Files - Updated 5/21! Grab our new STEM Affirmative for the upcoming education topic!

Research Tools


#7 Nonegfiat

Nonegfiat

    Agambabe

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 649 posts
448
Excellent

Posted 07 November 2017 - 12:32 PM

Remind me?

oops my bad you weren't in that. almost a year ago, me ian paddy ryan and chaos tried to write a kritik for BQ because we were pissed once we found out about the whole templeton foundation thing, also because BQ is just stupid. sorry i wrongly remembered you being in that


  • 0

DOUBLE BIND- Either the harms of the aff are true and they can't solve until they control the levers of power OR the harms are constructed and you reject them for alarmism


#8 OutKTheK

OutKTheK

    Junior-Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
3
Okay

Posted 07 November 2017 - 01:09 PM

I think that there really isn't much of a space for kritik in BQ, especially because each speech is like 20 seconds long, and without blatant oversimplification, many kritiks need like 4-5 minutes of spreading (and even then, it will still be oversimplification). What I wanted to do was instead of write a critique of the topic, to write a case neg. A Baudrillard case neg would work much like any other one. It directly answers many of the affs on the topic (including the sample) and doesn't stray off the topic. Baudrillard works because he wrote definitively on the topic (however little he actually did write). Besides the nuance of the argument, the only radical part of the neg I wrote is the framework bit. It just felt wrong debating without impacts, and I wanted to stick it to the shitty format. I wrote it because I know the policy judges in our circuit will both understand it and think it's cool. I think because the topics aren't based on policy action, there's a space for philosophical arguments that don't function as critiques of the status quo, but rather function as topical on-case arguments that work. The only real barriers I can see are:

 

1. The no spread thing - not oversimplifying Baudrillard without spreading in 5 minutes is like asking a penguin to fly.

2. The fact that most judges won't be able to understand the nuances of radical social critique.

 

The fact that our circuit is lucky enough to have some judges that understand policy is a massive blessing for the future of BQ in our circuit. Hell, last year at this tournament in BQ I did an agamben kritikal policy round on the policy rez against one of our seniors who graduated, and the judge didn't give a shit, instead saying "whatever y'all agree on". I hope that BQ can eventually turn into a format where many of the debaters and judges are knowledgeable about a wide variety of philosophical arguments like circuit LD, but unfortunately under the current grant system with the damn templeton foundation it is VERY unlikely, lest they do something like cut off the grant money.

 

That being said, thanks for the comments on this thread. I want to say I saw the thread you are talking about before I made this account, and it's one of the reasons I got the idea to actually create a negative based around kritikal theory. Thanks!


  • 0

#9 Nonegfiat

Nonegfiat

    Agambabe

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 649 posts
448
Excellent

Posted 07 November 2017 - 04:14 PM

The fact that our circuit is lucky enough to have some judges that understand policy is a massive blessing for the future of BQ in our circuit. Hell, last year at this tournament in BQ I did an agamben kritikal policy round on the policy rez against one of our seniors who graduated, and the judge didn't give a shit, instead saying "whatever y'all agree on". I hope that BQ can eventually turn into a format where many of the debaters and judges are knowledgeable about a wide variety of philosophical arguments like circuit LD, but unfortunately under the current grant system with the damn templeton foundation it is VERY unlikely, lest they do something like cut off the grant money.

 

My feeling has always been that BQ will die out once the TF stops funding grants, because no one who's serious about competitive debate thinks that BQ is a good format. Do you / anyone else reading this agree with me or am I just being closed minded?


  • 0

DOUBLE BIND- Either the harms of the aff are true and they can't solve until they control the levers of power OR the harms are constructed and you reject them for alarmism


#10 NickDB8

NickDB8

    Exodus Files Forum Representative

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 633 posts
385
Excellent
  • Name:Nick
  • School:Emporia HS

Posted 07 November 2017 - 05:03 PM

oops my bad you weren't in that. almost a year ago, me ian paddy ryan and chaos tried to write a kritik for BQ because we were pissed once we found out about the whole templeton foundation thing, also because BQ is just stupid. sorry i wrongly remembered you being in that

I think I remember hearing about this


  • 0

Exodus Files - Updated 5/21! Grab our new STEM Affirmative for the upcoming education topic!

Research Tools


#11 OutKTheK

OutKTheK

    Junior-Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
3
Okay

Posted 07 November 2017 - 06:14 PM

My feeling has always been that BQ will die out once the TF stops funding grants, because no one who's serious about competitive debate thinks that BQ is a good format. Do you / anyone else reading this agree with me or am I just being closed minded?

I think you're probably correct the way it is now. BQ overall seems like a decent idea, but they need a new name, a less closed-minded outlook (it's literally the broadest topic to ever exist and they want it to be so closed-minded. Anyone else see the irony?), and a different speech layout. I mean 3 different rebuttals all called something different? Really? I think honestly it could end up something like a 2v2 LD, which would be pretty fun. It has potential, but they probably won't ever fill the potential. Once TF stops funding grants, BQ will unquestionably die out. It's a very restrictive format for the kind of open debate format it claims itself to be. That being said, it is fun to meme. Very fun. I wouldn't say you're being closed minded, and I highly doubt anyone will want to debate BQ. I have a list of improvements that would be cool to implement, though.

 

1. More clash - their blatant rejection of LxL and clash is just ridiculous

2. Less emphasis on T - way too closed for the debate format it pretends to be

3. Cool new name - what kind of self respecting debater would debate in a format with such a meme name?

4. Import policy/LD judges - please leave lay judges, we don't want/need you.

5. Spreading - never gonna have in-depth debates in such a small time frame without speed, just not gonna happen.

6. Format change - Very awkward format. I would like them to do cross examination PF style - their method of cross would be cool with this format.

 

But in the hands of TF, this will never happen.

 

This is why we must burn down the state NSDA!

 

I say when the grants cease we protest and force them to change BQ into a policy k hack event.


  • 0

#12 Nonegfiat

Nonegfiat

    Agambabe

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 649 posts
448
Excellent

Posted 07 November 2017 - 07:53 PM

 

1. More clash - their blatant rejection of LxL and clash is just ridiculous

I agree

 

2. Less emphasis on T - way too closed for the debate format it pretends to be

I think calling it T is generous. T implies it has to be argued in round and won before it can be a voter. I'd just say they need to stop enforcing narrow interpretations of the resolution. I think it could work if it were structured to be like a sort of "moderated K debate" where people can bring in philosophical perspectives but there's a topic that encourages it rather than all the venom we get in CX that results from the irreconcilability of critical argumentation with the traditional emphasis on policymaking. In my mind that would be the ideal version of BQ but of course it would never happen. 

 

3. Cool new name - what kind of self respecting debater would debate in a format with such a meme name?

Uhhhh yeah. 100%. The whole thing is so annoying, especially with their pretentious slogan, "bringing life to debate." Come on.

 

4. Import policy/LD judges - please leave lay judges, we don't want/need you.

Yeah I think lay judges are universally bad for debate, unless your ideal model of debate is solely based on communication/persuasion skills, which mine, evidently, is not.

 

 

5. Spreading - never gonna have in-depth debates in such a small time frame without speed, just not gonna happen.

Maybe. I kinda think longer speech times would be a better solution. Maybe I'm just scarred by all the K rounds I've had where I've been forced to listen to people spewing philosophical jargon at a million miles per hour, wondering how my life ended up there. I believe very sincerely that most K debaters, at least on the high theory side, are out to confuse people. And I hate that.

 

6. Format change - Very awkward format. I would like them to do cross examination PF style - their method of cross would be cool with this format.

I think PF style cross is absolutely awful. It's awkward, unfocused, and doesn't flow well.


  • 0

DOUBLE BIND- Either the harms of the aff are true and they can't solve until they control the levers of power OR the harms are constructed and you reject them for alarmism


#13 OutKTheK

OutKTheK

    Junior-Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
3
Okay

Posted 08 November 2017 - 06:55 AM

1. More clash - their blatant rejection of LxL and clash is just ridiculous
I agree

2. Less emphasis on T - way too closed for the debate format it pretends to be
I think calling it T is generous. T implies it has to be argued in round and won before it can be a voter. I'd just say they need to stop enforcing narrow interpretations of the resolution. I think it could work if it were structured to be like a sort of "moderated K debate" where people can bring in philosophical perspectives but there's a topic that encourages it rather than all the venom we get in CX that results from the irreconcilability of critical argumentation with the traditional emphasis on policymaking. In my mind that would be the ideal version of BQ but of course it would never happen.

I really only called it T because I had no other name for it, and it seemed to fit well enough. But yeah, I agree.


3. Cool new name - what kind of self respecting debater would debate in a format with such a meme name?
Uhhhh yeah. 100%. The whole thing is so annoying, especially with their pretentious slogan, "bringing life to debate." Come on.

4. Import policy/LD judges - please leave lay judges, we don't want/need you.
Yeah I think lay judges are universally bad for debate, unless your ideal model of debate is solely based on communication/persuasion skills, which mine, evidently, is not.


5. Spreading - never gonna have in-depth debates in such a small time frame without speed, just not gonna happen.
Maybe. I kinda think longer speech times would be a better solution. Maybe I'm just scarred by all the K rounds I've had where I've been forced to listen to people spewing philosophical jargon at a million miles per hour, wondering how my life ended up there. I believe very sincerely that most K debaters, at least on the high theory side, are out to confuse people. And I hate that.

The absolute ideal is a longer speech time.
However, I've seen a massive divide in the debate community overall on speech time, so idk if anything would ever get done if we argued about that. Spreading is more of a procedural change than a format change, so I think it's more likely to happen.


6. Format change - Very awkward format. I would like them to do cross examination PF style - their method of cross would be cool with this format.
I think PF style cross is absolutely awful. It's awkward, unfocused, and doesn't flow well.

I just think that PF debaters just don't do CX well in general.
I think if it was more moderated it would flow much better. With the current speeches, I think that's the only real option. If they did a full format change policy CX is ideal.


Edited by OutKTheK, 08 November 2017 - 06:56 AM.

  • 0





Similar Topics Collapse


Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: baudrillard, big questions, negative

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users