Appeal: hasty generalisation
From Religion Debate: Islam vs Christianity.
- #11573:05:57upheld Daniel Haqiqatjou psogos: hasty generalisation (+1)
The council upheld the call: Daniel Haqiqatjou gave away 1 point.
“… a lot of these Christians, they don't have problems with their kids having a girlfriend or boyfriend or experimenting with sex at age nine, 10, 11, 12. That's happening rampant within Western society.”
Diogenes: Asked why Muslims do not marry at nine if the prophet is the model, he answers with an unsupported sweeping claim about Christian parents which neither addresses the question nor rests on anything offered in the room.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Daniel's standing method in the child-marriage exchange has been comparative-and-evidenced (citing Aquinas, Gratian, and specific canon-law dates); this line departs from that pattern by asserting, with no citation or data, a sweeping claim about "a lot of these Christians" and behavior "rampant within Western society.". Unlike his earlier points in this same segment, which were grounded in quoted canon law and named theologians, this specific claim about widespread Western Christian tolerance of pre-teen sexual experimentation is asserted with no evidentiary basis offered anywhere in the debate, extending a broad empirical conclusion about an entire society from nothing stated in the room — a genuine and uncharacteristic lapse into unsupported generalization rather than a repetition of his evidenced comparative argument, even though it appears alongside a more defensible "puberty, not fixed age" answer to the actual question asked.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "whataboutism", on the same ledger as the callout. The direct question was personal and pointed — why doesn't Daniel himself, or Muslims generally, follow the prophetic example of marrying a nine-year-old, and would he let his own daughter marry at six? Rather than answering that, he pivots to an unsupported, sweeping claim that Western Christian parents are broadly fine with their nine-to-twelve-year-olds "experimenting with sex" and that this is "rampant" — a bare assertion with no citation — deployed to discredit the questioner's society rather than to explain his own practice.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Daniel's sustained morality-round method has been a parity argument backed by specific, checkable citations (Aquinas, Gratian, canon law ages); this particular sentence departs from that evidentiary standard into an unsupported sweeping claim about Western parenting norms, offered as fact rather than as a claim needing support. The quoted line is an unsupported, sweeping empirical claim — "that's happening rampant within Western society" — offered with no statistic, study, or example, presented as an established fact to bolster the broader argument that Western society is hypocritical about child sexuality. Unlike the specific canon-law and Aquinas citations he gave moments earlier in the same answer (which were genuine evidence), this particular claim about what "a lot of these Christians" tolerate is asserted from nothing, which is the hasty-generalization pattern.
Appeal this callout
Appeals come only from the debaters themselves. Sign in with Google to start; you'll then prove which debater you are, once.