This House Would Tinder

The 15th ordinary meeting of the 166th Session of the Literific took place on the 19th of February in the Senate Room and was attended by 32 members.

Presidents questions were heard from Mr James McAlister and Miss Alex Philpot before the House played a special valentines version of Just Three Minutes Speed Dating in honour of the evenings motion. Not gonna lie, it was crazy awkward. Now we’re not aware of any romances that may have resulted from our match making, but if there are any secret Literific couples out there, Tara and I would like to chair the wedding ceremony. Not that any Literifican would ever hook up with another literifican, I mean, the very thought of this being an incestuous society…… Well….

Madam President then opened the evenings debate announcing the motion THW Tinder and welcomed the first speaker from the proposition, Mr Robbie Whitehurst.

Mr Whitehurst waxed lyrical about the WB Yeats one true love who he proposed to three times, three times being rejected before moving onto the woman in questions daughter… who also rejected him. Mr Whitehurst concluded that from this historical torrid love affair, the house must realise that WB Yeats in fact had no game and that for him, Tinder would have been amazeballs. Mr Whitehurst encouraged the opposition to acknowledge that for once, there could be no arguments over the wording of the evenings motion. He explained that in this day in age, we all understand the power of a swipe. Describing himself as the spiritual microcosm of the house he revealed his research methods for this debate. The boy got tinder. He reassured the house that as a representative of Queens and the Literific, any lady with a bio including certain three little letters would be met with an instant swipe left… UUJ. Continuing the search for his Tinderella he gave the house a lesson in how he wooed the ladies of South Belfast, enquiring as to the effect that 2 fat penguins might have. Insert colossal cringe here. He argued that Tinder is used for fun and also gives the user a brilliant sense of self-awareness. Mr Whitehurst reminded the house that relationships that begin online are becoming more and more common, and that perhaps old time hook ups are obsolete and after all, online dating makes it easier for the more shy amongst us.  He concluded that if everything went horribly wrong we could always click the un-match button and then sit and sob over a tub of ben and jerrys. Mr Whitehurst urged the house to emerge from the bushes of shyness and embrace tinder as the future of dating.

Miss Rosie Waterson then opened the case for the opposition stating that after what she had just heard, she had no idea what was going on. She argued that Literificat has no face and so is unfairly discriminated against in the world of tinder. Miss Waterson urged the house that tinder encourages objectification and that this house, the academic and astute model of society that we are, shouldn’t subject ourselves to such deprecation. She clarified that being opposed to objectification was not to say that attractiveness isn’t important, after all, apparently this society would be screwed if looks were everything. Don’t worry ladies and gentlemen, you’re all beautiful to me. She argued that tinder only cares about your face, not your education, not your wit, not your amazing sense of humour. Miss Waterson stated that as a house on tinder, our drunken recklessness is forgotten about for the sake of a faceless cat. She contended that we are indeed worth more than a photo. Miss Waterson also stated the potential dangers of using tinder: putting ourselves in the hands of people we don’t know to be real, subjecting ourselves to potential maltreatment. Apparently we are strong and independent, and we don’t need no tinder hook up to validate us. Mmmmmmhmmmmm. Miss Waterson urged to house

to vote with the opposition as tinder does not up hold the values of the house.

Mr Ciaran Gallagher then continued the case for the proposition suggesting that those who are suspicious of tinder are those who haven’t used it, or are perhaps incapable of doing so implying that the oppositions arguments are slightly disproportionate to the problem, should there in fact be one at all. He questioned the thought that tinder is moving us backwards in the dating game, after all, biologically we are all hardwired to prize attraction, in reality, we

all swipe. He argued that comments, both malicious and complimentary, happen everywhere and so Tinder cannot be blamed for this nor should is it the appropriate battleground for such complaints. He argued that a conversation that starts with liking how a person looks can do no harm but admitted that the lad culture that the opposition were talking about needs to be exposed. If nothing else, let’s look to tinder to reveal the creeps among us! To say that online meetings are not genuine, well that’s what they originally said about the love note back in the day. He concluded with the idea that Tinder does not move us away from relationships, but simply modernises the process.

Mr Graeme Rice then continued the case for the opposition stating that, in rebuttal to mr Whitehursts point regarding WB Yeats, born in 1889, Hitler was also born in 1889 and he killed loads of people, so obviously mr Whitehursts point was invalid…. He urged the house to judge him on a purely physical basis, and the general consensus was that the house was totally ok with doing this. He of course understood the propositions defense that tinder made allowances for the socially inept, but that he himself favoured the pub. He argued that there was a disconnect between Tinder and other dating sites as tinders main characteristic is its judgement based solely on a picture. He argued that a real life rejection, although unpleasant can be constructive unlike using tinder, grindr, or cuddler, which apparently is similar to tinder but for hugging…. Social experiments involving people pretending to be someone they’re not he argued was morally wrong and referenced some film about surrogates or something. I got a bit confused. Hiding our true selves away and presenting a glossy facade, is that how dating works? Not according to Mr Rice, in fact in this way, he likened tinder to racism. He argued that to hide our flaws was dishonest and that tinder encouraged us to become obsessive about our self image and urged the house that what we need is transparency.

Miss Marie Louise Synnott then closed the case for the proposition by rebutting Mr Rice’s rebuttal of Mr Whitehurst by stating that i Hitler had had tinder, maybe he would have loosened up. She argued that catfishing happens in real life also, and that tinder is a victimless app, also that Literificat does in fact have tinder. She reminded the house that tinder is a bit of craic and that everyone knows the score. She concluded by listing some anthropological research that she herself had carried out using tinder. I’m not quite sure that the messaged she read out are fit for the minutes but if you want the punchline to ‘What’s the difference between me and my sofa?’ you’d better ask Miss Synnott, but at least buy her a drink first.

Miss Katy Waller then closed the case for the opposition and so the debate. She reminded the house that we are all clearly lonely people, well at least Mr Whitehurst, and we all surely just want to find true love. Her rebuttal lasted just a minute, ironically the same amount of time as the average one night stand. She argued that tinder is not victimless, but hurtful and painful and encouraged narcism and laziness but that like a chubby butterfly, the house should spread its wings and enter the real world. She stated that if you are a classy beast, you will in fact land a relationship on your won but that all tinder does is to encourage objectification. She stated that the proposition team are all photogenic creatures and as such, they just don’t get it! Using a microsecond judgement, tinder prizes looks over what is really important. She reminded us that this house is not about looks and cocktails, but about what people say and so tinder is simply not what this house is about.

The debate then moved to the floor where questions were heard from Miss Christine Flemming, Mr James McAlister, Mr Craig Miller and Miss Emma Chadwick.

An opinion based vote read 18 ayes, 8 nayes and 2 abstentions and a casting vote based on speakers performance meant that the motion was carried with 10 ayes, 6 nays and 2 abstentions.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s