Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

1 Follower

About MrMango22

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Name
    Rodolfo E.
  • School
    New Designs Charter High School

Recent Profile Visitors

535 profile views
  1. MrMango22

    New Case

    It depends on if you want a traditional, soft left, or maybe even a k aff. If you just want a case that's anything policy related, you can make a straightforward refugees aff and use advantages such as economy, moral compass, etc. it can be a bit hard to defend a plan like this currently if you don't fiat anything immigration related, because of the midterms results.
  2. 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.
  3. some affs that have piqued my interest: blood quantum (my partner and I are running this one) syrian refugee crisis employment-based visas (probably the most popular aff, at least in my high school) climate change migration happy trails
  4. 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.
  • Create New...