Jump to content
MrMango22

Give feedback on a card

Recommended Posts

I recently made a card, I'd love to get feedback on it, such as about the tag, evidence, and also whether this argument is even a good idea. If you want to take a look at the card and want to figure out what the card is saying on your own, then read no further, because I'm now going to give a rundown of it. Also, I intend for it to go against k affs and certain policy affs, depending on if their plan mentions a particular group of people. The link to the card is at the bottom of this post. Thank in advance :))))

 

This card is basically a "representing/speaking for others bad" card. I'm aware that I would have to ensure that the opponent is speaking for others, and not about experiences similar to theirs, because then it wouldn't make sense running this card. Anyways, the card is about a painting of Emmitt Till, a black boy who was murdered during the Jim Crow Era, is in his casket, and has sparked backlash because the artist who created this painting is white. From this card, I can make two arguments.

 

1: Creating a world for the betterment of a certain oppressed group won't work because in order to create an oppression-free world for that group, the suffering of this group must have been endured by the creator, aka the aff proposing their plan/advocacy

 

2: The type of plan/advocacy applied to this card would create backlash by the community of the group that the aff is solving for. for example, if an aff plan were about blood quantum laws in the US, because these laws are about Canadian/American natives, if the aff aren't natives, then the native community would publicly protest against it, because the ones behind all this just aren't native so it isn't their place to advocate for the natives. It isn't really speculation or assumption that the natives would protest, it's more a prediction based off of the situation revolving the painting. This argument works because I can compare the painting of Emmitt Till to the aff proposal, and the backlash from the black community to backlash from (insert whatever group the aff wants to help).

 

If there are any misunderstandings or confusion, I'd be happy to clear up anything.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/16crUOllT2jgA_3uwjIOGv5fLKrPXkrltWAkyvJB9k_I/edit?usp=sharing

Edit: I'm constantly editing the card to my liking, so if any older comments are made about something that has already been changed, it is most likely because I have changed the card.

Edited by MrMango22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a cool real world example of the argument, but altogether not a very solid card imo.

 

1. It has very few warrants, and the logic behind some of the arguments made in the card is pretty simplistic, and doesn't really go very deep. A better card would be one that has more warrants and is more nuanced, while using this singular example as an analytic in round instead of a full fledged card.

2. The tagline makes a couple of statements that would be problematic to defend without more warrants/more explanation, such as  "_____ group not allowed to exist". This requires a thesis level argument on the nature of being, and probably some phenomenological explanation of the relationship between bodies and the spaces that they inhabit in order to defend it.

ARGUMENT 1:

It definitely does not support your first point - that's a massive stretch that really you can't assume. An advocacy is a finicky thing - although a white person might advocate it, what if the theory is created by a black person? Does a white person advocating for it destroy all of the inherent value of the theory, and prevent it from success? If so, than a white person can derail any movement simply by advocating for it. At the end of the day, you need to have way more warrants in the card explaining answers to some of these questions.

ARGUMENT 2:

I highly doubt a Canadian Native immigrant that wants to get into the US would say "nah lol, fuck this law bc a white person advocated for it". It's not practical at all, and trying to apply the thoughts of one artist on a painting to a law that can potentially benefit people is pretty ridiculous. The idea of "if a white person did something, whatever they did definitely sucks" is definitely a bad argument with very little merit. This doesn't mean you can't argue that representations are worse for other reasons, like for example white people spearheading a POC movement orients POC around whiteness and creates a dependency on white people to solve problems for them, which is net worse than the plan itself because it destroys the value of a POC movement.

You should also probably get an article written by someone who is more knowledgeable about the fundamental arguments made in the cards.

Good luck with finishing your argument!

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OutKantTheKant offered some really helpful insight - so I also upvoted.

I like the idea of finding a card focusing on the warrants, because in my mind this card speaks of a very specific artistic instance.  Whereas, as a team who cares about the public good -- are we supposed to ignore the exploration of improving immigration policy?

My thoughts reading the card is that you'll need to be prepared to answer the racial integration of movements in the past (white civil rights protesters in the 1960's for example).  I would also be weary of saying that the example from the African American community here is universally applicable to all other social groups.  The K could be reversed by arguing why ____group (probably an ethnic immigrant group) should be viewed as distinct from African Americans and why it's inappropriate to make such a sweeping generalization.

Additionally, I would include some kind of warrant that highlights even though the case is written with good intentions, because of the inability to relate to the suffering of ____group means that the evidence cannot be properly evaluated as accurate and true.  Supplementing your public backlash with a misrepresentation warrant.  This would be in support of your broader turn. In the context of your card as it is, the painting of Emmitt Till could be an accurate one -- it's just not appropriate that a white artist is profiting and portraying this event.  The misrepresentation warrant would eliminate that possibility of accuracy.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/2/2018 at 1:59 PM, OutKTheK said:

ARGUMENT 2:

I highly doubt a Canadian Native immigrant that wants to get into the US would say "nah lol, fuck this law bc a white person advocated for it". It's not practical at all, and trying to apply the thoughts of one artist on a painting to a law that can potentially benefit people is pretty ridiculous. The idea of "if a white person did something, whatever they did definitely sucks" is definitely a bad argument with very little merit. This doesn't mean you can't argue that representations are worse for other reasons, like for example white people spearheading a POC movement orients POC around whiteness and creates a dependency on white people to solve problems for them, which is net worse than the plan itself because it destroys the value of a POC movement.

3

Although it isn't practical, this has definitely happened in the past. During the time when women (and men) were advocating for women's rights to vote, there were also a surprisingly large amount of women who were against the idea of it, although it was considered (and still is) common sense that these rights would empower women, and make the inequality gap smaller. My argument is supposed to say that there will also be those who will protest against it, no matter how impractical it is to do so. It's not like these women who were against the idea of voting weren't educated, some of the leaders behind this movement were even wives of politicians. The reason I bring this  argument is to say that people will protest against it. I'm pretty sure that if I word it right, I can make this argument seem a lot bigger, and worth not dropping. I'd just need to be an english pro xd

As for the poc movement feedback, I am not saying that a noncolored person destroys a poc movement by advocating for it, I meant to say that if they're the ones leading the poc movement, it would cause backlash. I'm pretty sure the way I described the blood quantum example was misleading to my main point, so my bad. I just meant to say that a nonindigenous person can't be the one leading an indigenous movement/cause, which is what I'd accuse the aff of doing if they apply to the card, of course.

Thank you for all the feedback by the way. I'm going to find an article that hopefully has this Emmitt Till painting controversy with more warrants. It kind of sucks that a lot of the articles I've found just quote the article my card is from because it's from NBC.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×