Why do we need pomo

Postmodern philosophy seems more common in many rounds on the national circuit than the use of works from Rawls, Locke, etc. LD had certainly moved away from simple discussions of ethics. Then again, we did have the Sept/Oct topic this year, after all.

Anyway, my question is why arguments about postmodern philosophy belong in LD rounds. Frankly these positions often don't propose any mind-blowing ideas or indicts of utility or deontology or whatever. More frequently it seems like debaters who don't grasp the fundamentals take the easy way out by reading something that no one else in the room really gets. Is this not the way pomo is used in many rounds?

I don't know. I feel like postmodernism has many legitimate points to make, but I don't get why pomo is a crucial element of good LD debate. If judges were to paradigmatically reject these types of kritiks, would LD really be worse off?

I for one would not be very disappointed if I never heard Wittgenstein read in an LD round again.

If judges rejected any argument on face, LD would be a lot worse off. It's called intervention, and nobody thinks it's a good thing, whether or not they like the thing they're rejecting. I am not a fan of kritiks, but I absolutely would not want a judge who rejects them just for being kritiks.

I agree with the above post. Postmodernism is educational if the debater knows what he's talking about. If he doesn't know what he's saying, make an abuse story out of it. If he can't explain it to you or the judge, he obviously a) doesn't know anything so he shouldn't win and b) is running it so he can be confusing.

JohnnyFontane wrote:
Anyway, my question is why arguments about postmodern philosophy belong in LD rounds. Frankly these positions often don't propose any mind-blowing ideas or indicts of utility or deontology or whatever. More frequently it seems like debaters who don't grasp the fundamentals take the easy way out by reading something that no one else in the room really gets. Is this not the way pomo is used in many rounds?

i think this is the number one reason why postmodernism is popular. it's hard to understand and refute given the short amount of time your opponent has to prepare.

How about because it represents a break from traditional/enlightenment thought. Hell, Nietzsche (who is truly the first post-modern thinker) argued against almost all of philosophy that came before him. Pomo exists in debate as a way of challenging norms/ideas. Authors like wittingstein represent a small part of the pomo canon of philosophy and even they can be used productively (Jeff Merrill ran an aff at Lexington that used this genre of pomo as a framework. It was actually kinda cool). Pomo offers indicts of all sorts of things, and just because some of the most popular authors happen to make arguments that are not conducive to good debate doesn't mean that pomo in general causes poor debate

poneill wrote:How about because it represents a break from traditional/enlightenment thought. Hell, Nietzsche (who is truly the first post-modern thinker) argued against almost all of philosophy that came before him. Pomo exists in debate as a way of challenging norms/ideas. Authors like wittingstein represent a small part of the pomo canon of philosophy and even they can be used productively (Jeff Merrill ran an aff at Lexington that used this genre of pomo as a framework. It was actually kinda cool). Pomo offers indicts of all sorts of things, and just because some of the most popular authors happen to make arguments that are not conducive to good debate doesn't mean that pomo in general causes poor debate

i absolutely agree. i think postmodern philosophy is great for the activity and there are plenty of good debaters who run it well and actually understand what they are arguing. it's new, it's interesting, and it's engaging. from my experience, however, in the majority of cases, debaters run postmodern philosophy with the prime intent of confusing the opponent for an easy win.

Honestly, I don't advocate banning postmodern arguments. I am, more or less, thinking of what a debate world would look like if judges had a higher threshold for the arguments they will vote on. Seriously, you have to admit that there are a lot of rounds where a judge probably has no idea what Heidegger or Foucault are saying to, at best, the NR. When anything is used to purposely make the debate suck, it is bad for debate. I feel the same way about people who hide a bunch of junk in framework.

We don't need to get rid of philosophy or anything for that matter. I think people need to quit voting on things that the opponent obviously won't understand. Does that mean we ban complicated arguments and big ideas? No! Should we expect slower speeds in the cards and possibly a little analysis (in English maybe) in between pieces of evidence? I think so.

I just feel like the current trend of philosophy in LD is not a good one. Don't get rid of pomo, but I think we could change the way we evaluate arguments to promote better debate.

JohnnyFontane wrote: I am, more or less, thinking of what a debate world would look like if judges had a higher threshold for the arguments they will vote on. Seriously, you have to admit that there are a lot of rounds where a judge probably has no idea what Heidegger or Foucault are saying to, at best, the NR... I think people need to quit voting on things that the opponent obviously won't understand.

I believe the answer is to make this argument in round. I don't think it's too popular, but at camp I learned about term specification. The interpretation is something like "my interpretation is that they have to specify their interpretation of all the terms that carry technical significance in their evidence." To help with the violation, read really complicated crap out of their evidence during cross-x and ask them about it. A bunch of German and Greek words can appear in dense philosophy. Also, concepts like "ontological damnation" and the "other other" might be hard to explain if your opponent knows nothing. The standards aren't hard to come up with, and I think this argument is pretty persuasive if your opponent is really just trying to confuse you.

Old wrote:

JohnnyFontane wrote: I am, more or less, thinking of what a debate world would look like if judges had a higher threshold for the arguments they will vote on. Seriously, you have to admit that there are a lot of rounds where a judge probably has no idea what Heidegger or Foucault are saying to, at best, the NR... I think people need to quit voting on things that the opponent obviously won't understand.

I believe the answer is to make this argument in round. I don't think it's too popular, but at camp I learned about term specification. The interpretation is something like "my interpretation is that they have to specify their interpretation of all the terms that carry technical significance in their evidence." To help with the violation, read really complicated crap out of their evidence during cross-x and ask them about it. A bunch of German and Greek words can appear in dense philosophy. Also, concepts like "ontological damnation" and the "other other" might be hard to explain if your opponent knows nothing. The standards aren't hard to come up with, and I think this argument is pretty persuasive if your opponent is really just trying to confuse you.

Well the reason no one really gets foucault is because is a post-structuralist french philosopher

Anyways, the same is prolly true about most philosophy. People still make horrible args against util and deon, rawls and nozick are oversimplified to the point that their philosophy becomes pretty bad, the social contract is always explained so awkwardly, and kant's categorical imperative is almost as butchered as pomo. This is because some people don't read the literature behind the arg. They don't really get that you can't argue against kant with any of those situation justifies util args, or that Rawls's veil of ignorance is really just another formulation of util, or that Nozick isn't just some hippie who is obsessed with rights but is rather a central thinker in the libertarian field, or that the social contract doesn't really mean that the state can create a super army to conquer the globe (the stuff about obligations and service implies that the state is under a threat, and if in fact you really believe that to be the case in the 21st century, well you just earned yourself the easiest link into a security/threat con k). My point is that if you really think that any philosophy is that simple then you should go do some more reading on it. I've started reading Nietzsche's beyond Good and Evil, and it's probably the most fascinating yet difficult thing i've read in a while. The solution to the problem is that judges hold ALL arguments to a higher threshold of what constitutes a warrant/explanation of an argument.

Oh and if you're wondering how this would happen, if judges committed to not giving good speaks to kids who gave crappy warrants, we'd see the quality improve.

wittgenstein is not 'pomo'

secondly, it is a false binary to say that philosophy is either pomo or locke/nozick/rawls.