Jump to content

Photo
- - - - -

Meme Cases


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 Kirthi

Kirthi

    Novice

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
1
Okay
  • Name:Kirthivel Ramesh

Posted 05 December 2017 - 06:20 AM

Hey guys I’m going to meme tournament this weekend. Are there any meme affs floating around? Are there any meme affs that you guys have? Are there any meme Ks that apply to this topic? At the very least are there any meme aff ideas?
  • 1

#2 permthedisad

permthedisad

    Junior-Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
-3
Slipping...

Posted 12 December 2017 - 01:38 PM

edit: not a meme as i’ve been told. i'm really sorry about this, please view my apology on the second page for more depth.


Edited by permthedisad, Yesterday, 08:02 PM.

  • -1

#3 NickDB8

NickDB8

    Exodus Files Forum Representative

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 656 posts
407
Excellent
  • Name:Nick
  • School:Emporia HS

Posted 12 December 2017 - 02:06 PM

^^Not a meme, its a queer/trans* k/aff which is probably not good to refer to as a "meme" given that this is a very real issue with very real implications for very real people.


Edited by NickDB8, 12 December 2017 - 02:19 PM.

  • 7

Exodus Files - Updated 5/21! Grab our new STEM Affirmative for the upcoming education topic!

Research Tools


#4 permthedisad

permthedisad

    Junior-Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
-3
Slipping...

Posted 12 December 2017 - 04:12 PM

^^Not a meme, its a queer/trans* k/aff which is probably not good to refer to as a "meme" given that this is a very real issue with very real implications for very real people.


edit: my response was misinformed; i redact my statement and would like to move on from this.


Edited by permthedisad, Yesterday, 09:07 PM.

  • 0

#5 NickDB8

NickDB8

    Exodus Files Forum Representative

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 656 posts
407
Excellent
  • Name:Nick
  • School:Emporia HS

Posted 12 December 2017 - 04:17 PM

i didn’t mean to be offensive, the way it was presented in the round was very informal and the aff didn’t take it seriously, and the fact that they titled it “gender hacking” and referred to it as such throughout the debate gave a very meme feel. i’m not very experienced in the domain of k affs so this is the most outlandish one i’ve ever come across.

gender hacking is a thing preciado writes about a lot, regarding breaking down notions of gender that form our identity

 

its all good tho, no offense taken - i just know some debaters treat k arguments as illegit and its probably wrong - my bad if that isnt you


  • 1

Exodus Files - Updated 5/21! Grab our new STEM Affirmative for the upcoming education topic!

Research Tools


#6 Nonegfiat

Nonegfiat

    Topicality is a voting issue

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 667 posts
466
Excellent

Posted 12 December 2017 - 05:06 PM

Yeah like every time I’ve seen people run preciado they’re always really over the top with sex metaphors because they’re trying to be edgy. Like one time the guy’s partner was chuckling during the 2NC after he read a tag with like a dick reference in it or something. So I totally believe it when I hear about people not taking this shit seriously / turning it into a meme
  • 0

DOUBLE BIND- Either the harms of the aff are true and they can't solve until they control the levers of power OR the harms are constructed and you reject them for alarmism


#7 permthedisad

permthedisad

    Junior-Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
-3
Slipping...

Posted 12 December 2017 - 07:42 PM

Yeah like every time I’ve seen people run preciado they’re always really over the top with sex metaphors because they’re trying to be edgy. Like one time the guy’s partner was chuckling during the 2NC after he read a tag with like a dick reference in it or something. So I totally believe it when I hear about people not taking this shit seriously / turning it into a meme


edit: my response was misinformed, i was in the wrong, i apologize for any offense i caused.


Edited by permthedisad, Yesterday, 09:08 PM.

  • -1

#8 GracchusBabeuf

GracchusBabeuf

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 51 posts
28
Good

Posted 13 December 2017 - 11:04 AM

Yeah like every time I’ve seen people run preciado they’re always really over the top with sex metaphors because they’re trying to be edgy. Like one time the guy’s partner was chuckling during the 2NC after he read a tag with like a dick reference in it or something. So I totally believe it when I hear about people not taking this shit seriously / turning it into a meme

haha yeah, that was pretty much how it went down, so i assumed they were just turning Preciado into a meme. i didn’t mean to devalue the issues in any way, just the way the argument was presented seemed fairly meme worthy. It was cringey as hell to watch but they won, so it was fairly effective.

i know there was no offense meant by the OP, but gender hacking is expressed in "the way the argument [is] presented" i.e. the dick jokes made in the tag line. it can be seen as an 'uncomfortability' argument, disrupting normative thought. so i wouldn't go around calling those memes in fear of 1) offending someone 2) being blatantly incorrect and 3) getting roasted by those that run this argument. And as for "taking this shit seriously" i would be careful there as well because this topic is pretty serious to some people, so being respectful to them as they read their arguments 1) is common courtesy and 2) could save you from a lot of trouble in responding to the arguments (or they'll just say you exhibit exactly what they kritik)


  • 1

Our authors don't assume the context of debate and debate doesn't assume the context of reality. Both texts exist in alternate realities with 0 overlap. Those who legitimately claim a risk of extinction truly believe in it. We do not and cannot even begin to fathom belief, because belief is morally anathema to our standpoint epistemology. Our cited authors think these threats are very real. But they're not, and they never were. It never even could have been real. It makes more sense if you think about this in terms of multi-world theory: in every world in which those authors are right, and extinction does occur, no amount of advocating the plan could have ever mattered. And in every world in which they are wrong and things turn out fine, we had wasted our time obsessing over the plan. If the text of the 1AC is correct, then we have to confront it from multiple worlds (i.e. "percentage risk") and every single instance of extinction is a pointless world to consider. Thus, we should debate about the plan without those worlds because it's better for education, for advocacy skills, and it reduces the risk of trafficking in bad policies on the back of existential threat. The final trick of the fiat double bind, and why it's a double bind, is that you pick one half in the block. Where people go wrong is they just keep the dialectical tension instead of collapsing to the floating pik (which incidentally is what me and rothenbaum did my senior year, and is why we only lost on this argument twice in the whole season). 

 

 


#9 Nonegfiat

Nonegfiat

    Topicality is a voting issue

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 667 posts
466
Excellent

Posted 13 December 2017 - 11:38 AM

i know there was no offense meant by the OP, but gender hacking is expressed in "the way the argument [is] presented" i.e. the dick jokes made in the tag line. it can be seen as an 'uncomfortability' argument, disrupting normative thought. so i wouldn't go around calling those memes in fear of 1) offending someone 2) being blatantly incorrect and 3) getting roasted by those that run this argument. And as for "taking this shit seriously" i would be careful there as well because this topic is pretty serious to some people, so being respectful to them as they read their arguments 1) is common courtesy and 2) could save you from a lot of trouble in responding to the arguments (or they'll just say you exhibit exactly what they kritik)

 

Sorry but I don't think you get to pepper your speech with dick jokes and then get offended when people don't take it seriously. Even if "disrupting normative thought" is the point of doing so, it's your burden to make sure people understand that component of the argument. If you present it in such a way that people who aren't up on your lit think it's a joke, you're responsible for that.

 

(Of course, I mean "you" in the abstract, not you in particular)


  • 0

DOUBLE BIND- Either the harms of the aff are true and they can't solve until they control the levers of power OR the harms are constructed and you reject them for alarmism


#10 GracchusBabeuf

GracchusBabeuf

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 51 posts
28
Good

Posted 13 December 2017 - 11:53 AM

Sorry but I don't think you get to pepper your speech with dick jokes and then get offended when people don't take it seriously. Even if "disrupting normative thought" is the point of doing so, it's your burden to make sure people understand that component of the argument. If you present it in such a way that people who aren't up on your lit think it's a joke, you're responsible for that.
 
(Of course, I mean "you" in the abstract, not you in particular)

not really, the purpose of making the jokes is to point out how fucked up our current modes of thought are. so 1) you’d just be playing into their arguments and 2) you’d also be offending them by essentially asking if queerness is a joke? seems pretty offensive to me
  • 1

Our authors don't assume the context of debate and debate doesn't assume the context of reality. Both texts exist in alternate realities with 0 overlap. Those who legitimately claim a risk of extinction truly believe in it. We do not and cannot even begin to fathom belief, because belief is morally anathema to our standpoint epistemology. Our cited authors think these threats are very real. But they're not, and they never were. It never even could have been real. It makes more sense if you think about this in terms of multi-world theory: in every world in which those authors are right, and extinction does occur, no amount of advocating the plan could have ever mattered. And in every world in which they are wrong and things turn out fine, we had wasted our time obsessing over the plan. If the text of the 1AC is correct, then we have to confront it from multiple worlds (i.e. "percentage risk") and every single instance of extinction is a pointless world to consider. Thus, we should debate about the plan without those worlds because it's better for education, for advocacy skills, and it reduces the risk of trafficking in bad policies on the back of existential threat. The final trick of the fiat double bind, and why it's a double bind, is that you pick one half in the block. Where people go wrong is they just keep the dialectical tension instead of collapsing to the floating pik (which incidentally is what me and rothenbaum did my senior year, and is why we only lost on this argument twice in the whole season). 

 

 


#11 Nonegfiat

Nonegfiat

    Topicality is a voting issue

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 667 posts
466
Excellent

Posted 13 December 2017 - 12:01 PM

not really, the purpose of making the jokes is to point out how fucked up our current modes of thought are. so 1) you’d just be playing into their arguments and 2) you’d also be offending them by essentially asking if queerness is a joke? seems pretty offensive to me

 

that's not what i said. I said the team running the arguments has the onus of articulating that the jokes serve a purpose, otherwise they can only expect people will see it as a joke. In the round I was originally referring to, that explanation did not happen, and I'm assuming it didn't happen in permthedisad's round either. 

 

If the idea is to point out how fucked up it is to be made uncomfortable by dick jokes, then a team who doesn't explain that is in an even more fucked up position because their laziness has resulted in them reproducing that same script when literally everyone else in the room thinks they're just trying to be edgelords 

 

I'm also not saying I would ask in cross x or after the round or whenever if their args were a joke. Obviously that's never strategic


Edited by Nonegfiat, 13 December 2017 - 12:03 PM.

  • 0

DOUBLE BIND- Either the harms of the aff are true and they can't solve until they control the levers of power OR the harms are constructed and you reject them for alarmism


#12 Chaos

Chaos

    Mare Incognitum

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,191 posts
2,505
Excellent

Posted 13 December 2017 - 10:01 PM

Something has gone deeply wrong when people are on edge about responding in the maximally polite way to queer theory and dick jokes. Queer theorists should be opposed to the stifling of sexuality generally. Enforcing strict new boundaries on which forms of conduct are deviant recreates a lot of the same old problems. Anyone who gets offended if you're insufficiently uptight about queer theory has failed to understand the argument. Calling it a "meme argument" is wrong, but treating it like Holy Scripture is no better.


  • 2

There are no differences but differences of degree between different degrees of difference and no difference.


#13 GracchusBabeuf

GracchusBabeuf

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 51 posts
28
Good

Posted Yesterday, 04:59 AM

Something has gone deeply wrong when people are on edge about responding in the maximally polite way to queer theory and dick jokes. Queer theorists should be opposed to the stifling of sexuality generally. Enforcing strict new boundaries on which forms of conduct are deviant recreates a lot of the same old problems. Anyone who gets offended if you're insufficiently uptight about queer theory has failed to understand the argument. Calling it a "meme argument" is wrong, but treating it like Holy Scripture is no better.

trust me, anyone that knows me knows i don’t treat queer theory like the holy scripture; however, i do believe in some professional respect toward an argument
  • 0

Our authors don't assume the context of debate and debate doesn't assume the context of reality. Both texts exist in alternate realities with 0 overlap. Those who legitimately claim a risk of extinction truly believe in it. We do not and cannot even begin to fathom belief, because belief is morally anathema to our standpoint epistemology. Our cited authors think these threats are very real. But they're not, and they never were. It never even could have been real. It makes more sense if you think about this in terms of multi-world theory: in every world in which those authors are right, and extinction does occur, no amount of advocating the plan could have ever mattered. And in every world in which they are wrong and things turn out fine, we had wasted our time obsessing over the plan. If the text of the 1AC is correct, then we have to confront it from multiple worlds (i.e. "percentage risk") and every single instance of extinction is a pointless world to consider. Thus, we should debate about the plan without those worlds because it's better for education, for advocacy skills, and it reduces the risk of trafficking in bad policies on the back of existential threat. The final trick of the fiat double bind, and why it's a double bind, is that you pick one half in the block. Where people go wrong is they just keep the dialectical tension instead of collapsing to the floating pik (which incidentally is what me and rothenbaum did my senior year, and is why we only lost on this argument twice in the whole season). 

 

 


#14 GracchusBabeuf

GracchusBabeuf

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 51 posts
28
Good

Posted Yesterday, 05:01 AM

that's not what i said. I said the team running the arguments has the onus of articulating that the jokes serve a purpose, otherwise they can only expect people will see it as a joke. In the round I was originally referring to, that explanation did not happen, and I'm assuming it didn't happen in permthedisad's round either. 
 
If the idea is to point out how fucked up it is to be made uncomfortable by dick jokes, then a team who doesn't explain that is in an even more fucked up position because their laziness has resulted in them reproducing that same script when literally everyone else in the room thinks they're just trying to be edgelords 
 
I'm also not saying I would ask in cross x or after the round or whenever if their args were a joke. Obviously that's never strategic

thats pretty different from what you were saying, and any good team reading queer uncomfortability will explain the argument, not reading it with malicious intent. however the argument is not a “meme” because it precludes making a dick joke
  • 0

Our authors don't assume the context of debate and debate doesn't assume the context of reality. Both texts exist in alternate realities with 0 overlap. Those who legitimately claim a risk of extinction truly believe in it. We do not and cannot even begin to fathom belief, because belief is morally anathema to our standpoint epistemology. Our cited authors think these threats are very real. But they're not, and they never were. It never even could have been real. It makes more sense if you think about this in terms of multi-world theory: in every world in which those authors are right, and extinction does occur, no amount of advocating the plan could have ever mattered. And in every world in which they are wrong and things turn out fine, we had wasted our time obsessing over the plan. If the text of the 1AC is correct, then we have to confront it from multiple worlds (i.e. "percentage risk") and every single instance of extinction is a pointless world to consider. Thus, we should debate about the plan without those worlds because it's better for education, for advocacy skills, and it reduces the risk of trafficking in bad policies on the back of existential threat. The final trick of the fiat double bind, and why it's a double bind, is that you pick one half in the block. Where people go wrong is they just keep the dialectical tension instead of collapsing to the floating pik (which incidentally is what me and rothenbaum did my senior year, and is why we only lost on this argument twice in the whole season). 

 

 


#15 Nonegfiat

Nonegfiat

    Topicality is a voting issue

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 667 posts
466
Excellent

Posted Yesterday, 11:00 AM

thats pretty different from what you were saying

 

 

 

no, it's exactly what i was saying:

 

 

 if "disrupting normative thought" is the point of doing so, it's your burden to make sure people understand that component of the argument. If you present it in such a way that people who aren't up on your lit think it's a joke, you're responsible for that.

 

 any good team reading queer uncomfortability will explain the argument, not reading it with malicious intent

 

that's not responsive because we told you it wasn't explained

 

however the argument is not a “meme” because it precludes (includes?) making a dick joke

 

I'm gonna go through this one last time. My argument is not that dick jokes inherently make the argument a meme. My point is that if the argument is presented as a joke, it's natural that people will respond by thinking that it is.

 

This all started because permthedisad was getting roasted because they thought preciado was a meme. Now, I totally agree with everyone else here that preciado is not a meme and trans/queer issues should be taken seriously. I was simply offering support to permthedisad, because i can think they can be forgiven for thinking that it's a meme when the debaters in their round did a shitty job of conveying the function of the way they chose to present the argument, because I've had a similar experience.

 

Your job as a debater is to articulate your argument in a way that results in other people receiving it as intended, that's the whole point of a communicative activity. So, if people think your dick jokes are a meme, that's not on them, that's on you. Especially with something like dick jokes in a debate round, you know people are going to think that's outlandish and edgy, so you should also know you can't count on people to understand how queer uncomfortability functions.  If you can't meet that, frankly, very low burden of argumentation, you have no excuse and you're probably net worse for queer theory because, as I said above, you're re-inscribing dominant discourses about dick jokes. 

 

This is not me criticizing Preciado or criticizing GrachhusBabeuf, this is me criticizing shitty Preciado debaters. If you like queer theory so much you shouldn't be giving these people a pass for doing it an injustice. With all these Michigan KM clones running around, do you really find it so hard to imagine people reading these kritiks to be edgy? Hold these people to a higher standard. It's their fault if people think Preciado is a meme.


  • 3

DOUBLE BIND- Either the harms of the aff are true and they can't solve until they control the levers of power OR the harms are constructed and you reject them for alarmism


#16 GracchusBabeuf

GracchusBabeuf

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 51 posts
28
Good

Posted Yesterday, 01:20 PM

no, it's exactly what i was saying:

 

 

 

 

that's not responsive because we told you it wasn't explained

 

 

I'm gonna go through this one last time. My argument is not that dick jokes inherently make the argument a meme. My point is that if the argument is presented as a joke, it's natural that people will respond by thinking that it is.

 

This all started because permthedisad was getting roasted because they thought preciado was a meme. Now, I totally agree with everyone else here that preciado is not a meme and trans/queer issues should be taken seriously. I was simply offering support to permthedisad, because i can think they can be forgiven for thinking that it's a meme when the debaters in their round did a shitty job of conveying the function of the way they chose to present the argument, because I've had a similar experience.

 

Your job as a debater is to articulate your argument in a way that results in other people receiving it as intended, that's the whole point of a communicative activity. So, if people think your dick jokes are a meme, that's not on them, that's on you. Especially with something like dick jokes in a debate round, you know people are going to think that's outlandish and edgy, so you should also know you can't count on people to understand how queer uncomfortability functions.  If you can't meet that, frankly, very low burden of argumentation, you have no excuse and you're probably net worse for queer theory because, as I said above, you're re-inscribing dominant discourses about dick jokes. 

 

This is not me criticizing Preciado or criticizing GrachhusBabeuf, this is me criticizing shitty Preciado debaters. If you like queer theory so much you shouldn't be giving these people a pass for doing it an injustice. With all these Michigan KM clones running around, do you really find it so hard to imagine people reading these kritiks to be edgy? Hold these people to a higher standard. It's their fault if people think Preciado is a meme.

 

and i was defending the idea that it was not a joke, i never disagreed with you on the fact that some people mis-use these types of arguments and that if the argument is poorly communicated it is understandable to misinterpret, but otherwise it should not happen, especially above novice level debate


  • 2

Our authors don't assume the context of debate and debate doesn't assume the context of reality. Both texts exist in alternate realities with 0 overlap. Those who legitimately claim a risk of extinction truly believe in it. We do not and cannot even begin to fathom belief, because belief is morally anathema to our standpoint epistemology. Our cited authors think these threats are very real. But they're not, and they never were. It never even could have been real. It makes more sense if you think about this in terms of multi-world theory: in every world in which those authors are right, and extinction does occur, no amount of advocating the plan could have ever mattered. And in every world in which they are wrong and things turn out fine, we had wasted our time obsessing over the plan. If the text of the 1AC is correct, then we have to confront it from multiple worlds (i.e. "percentage risk") and every single instance of extinction is a pointless world to consider. Thus, we should debate about the plan without those worlds because it's better for education, for advocacy skills, and it reduces the risk of trafficking in bad policies on the back of existential threat. The final trick of the fiat double bind, and why it's a double bind, is that you pick one half in the block. Where people go wrong is they just keep the dialectical tension instead of collapsing to the floating pik (which incidentally is what me and rothenbaum did my senior year, and is why we only lost on this argument twice in the whole season). 

 

 


#17 audka

audka

    Novice

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
17
Good
  • Name:Aidan

Posted Yesterday, 02:56 PM

haha yeah, that was pretty much how it went down, so i assumed they were just turning Preciado into a meme. i didn’t mean to devalue the issues in any way, just the way the argument was presented seemed fairly meme worthy. It was cringey as hell to watch but they won, so it was fairly effective.


Yeah, I was the 1A in this round and you are just flat out wrong and miscontruing how the round went down. As a genderqueer person in debate and someone who genuinely read and found comfort in Preciado's writing, we definately did not turn it into a "meme". In fact Im really offended you thought that.

Yeah, we werent aggressive or anything because we like to be nice to our opponents. Just because we were having fun in the round doesnt mean it was a meme. It means I was enjoyi ng forfronting my identity that I struggle with in a round and forcing that conversation into debate is something that I find very important. Not once did we make a dick joke, or laugh at what we were saying.

So yeah thanks for just completely lying about the contents of our round to seem edgy in a cx.com post. I made an account solely to just defend my identity and what I bring into debate. :/
  • 8

#18 audka

audka

    Novice

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
17
Good
  • Name:Aidan

Posted Yesterday, 03:00 PM

Ill also say that gender hacking is real terminology, and a way someone breaks down gender binaries in the code that an oppressive system creates to confine queer individuals like me, so I dont see how what we called it makes it any more of a "meme".
  • 7

#19 notlollil

notlollil

    Novice

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
1
Okay
  • Name:Lillian Gunnink
  • School:west des moines valley

Posted Yesterday, 03:44 PM

Yeah like every time I’ve seen people run preciado they’re always really over the top with sex metaphors because they’re trying to be edgy. Like one time the guy’s partner was chuckling during the 2NC after he read a tag with like a dick reference in it or something. So I totally believe it when I hear about people not taking this shit seriously / turning it into a meme

if you read preciado you’ll realize this is how they write and definitely doesn’t invalidate a serious argument also please refrane from misgendering folks thanks
  • 0

#20 notlollil

notlollil

    Novice

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
1
Okay
  • Name:Lillian Gunnink
  • School:west des moines valley

Posted Yesterday, 03:47 PM

Yeah, I was the 1A in this round and you are just flat out wrong and miscontruing how the round went down. As a genderqueer person in debate and someone who genuinely read and found comfort in Preciado's writing, we definately did not turn it into a "meme". In fact Im really offended you thought that.
Yeah, we werent aggressive or anything because we like to be nice to our opponents. Just because we were having fun in the round doesnt mean it was a meme. It means I was enjoyi ng forfronting my identity that I struggle with in a round and forcing that conversation into debate is something that I find very important. Not once did we make a dick joke, or laugh at what we were saying.
So yeah thanks for just completely lying about the contents of our round to seem edgy in a cx.com post. I made an account solely to just defend my identity and what I bring into debate. :/

yes!!! it’s really fucked up the way in which queer and gender non conforming folks’ actions are construed and not taken seriously in debate all the love to you aidan
  • 1





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users