facts bad-no real warrants and doesn't contextualize to debate because it's mainly about "fun facts" like the example it gives of 5 presidents eating fish for breakfast-those aren't the type of facts that people talk about in debate
white privilege-no real link to the aff and it's not a reason the aff should lose even if your conversation is important so it probably loses against the perm. This is just an overcomplicated structural unfairness argument that doesn't really add anything valuable.
bullying k-no link to the aff except that they want to win, which you also do, so it's a nonstarter. What your link cards describe is not really what happens in most debates. This mainly seems like trying to portray yourself as a victim to get judge sympathy when there's no real violation. There's also not really an internal link to your impacts even if you win a link, because the round probably doesn't spill over and this is more of a procedural argument. Your tokenization of actual violence is pretty egregious in this argument, when you have all caps tags saying "BULLYING LEADS TO THE VICTIMS HAVING LOW SELF-ESTEERM, DEPRESSION, MALADJUSTMENT, SUICIDAL IDEATION, OR RETALIATION. THINK COLUMBINE!" because there is obviously no internal link to school shootings from them saying they deserve to win, and your claim that there is probably quite messed up. I would have a very low threshold on voting against you and giving you horrible speaks for a short aff theory argument against this. Just don't throw around suicide. Your alt and ballot arguments about bystanders are basically just poorly reasoned guilt-tripping. Also, literally 0 of your evidence talks about debate.
Rosa Parks-another quite bad argument. Pretty damning when the first card says "vote him down so we can legitimately solve them by spurning action." There's a lot of amazing women in debate and you probably shouldn't ignore them by assuming everyone you debate is a dude. It's also pretty violent to use the language of martyrdom here, since the first line of the shell is instructing the judge to kill your opponents. The Wedgwood card doesn't say anything relevant to debate it's jut an example. Low risk version-again, don't assume you're debating a dude. This is also the exact same argument with more words. They're both "high risk" because you will lose the theory debate. Saying the judge should martyr them to "provide a point of community and mutual indignation" and calling the judge an "overlord" is particularly dissuasive because you're telling the judge to act as an oppressor and become hated to spur action, and nobody wants to assume that role. You also have exactly 0 solvency, since all your evidence is in the context of actual martyrdom, not losing a debate round, and losing a debate round is a much smaller thing that probably won't really have any effect unless you're in a late elim which, based on the quality of these arguments, I'm guessing you won't be. The bataille card is probably the high point of this file, but it's a totally different argument. Also, calling it "Rosa Parks" then having no discussion of that is quite tokenizing. In general, this argument has no warrants, no clear articulation of the ballot, no evidence in the context of what you're talking about, no evidence specific to debate, no real link, an unrealistic role of the judge, and some blatant sexism issues.
Don't read these arguments. They are bad, and you should (and will) lose.