Appeal: explicit argument
From Muslim Twitter Triggered, Middleast Wars, Is America A Christian Country Debate With Sneako!.
- #18722:33:00upheld SNEAKO epainos: explicit argument (+1)
The council upheld the call: SNEAKO earned 1 point.
“The difference is Times Square is public, and it's meant for demonstrations, and people of all different shapes and sizes and colors go there and gather. You're saying my home, this is a private place where random people can't come in compared to the country that I belong to.”
Diogenes: SNEAKO directly rebuts Myron's private-home/guest analogy by identifying the disanalogy between a private home and a public square open to demonstration.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: SNEAKO's declared method emphasizes evidentialist, textualist precision, and this line — carefully distinguishing the public/private disanalogy rather than accepting Myron's framing — is consistent rigorous argumentation within that broader habit of pressing for exact terms rather than a departure from it. SNEAKO states a plain premise (Times Square is a public space for demonstration open to all, unlike a private home) and draws the conclusion that Myron's guest/private-home analogy fails to map onto the situation — this is a straightforward premises-to-conclusion argument, satisfying the explicit argument criterion.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". Responding to Myron's private-home/cigarettes analogy for why Muslims shouldn't be "imposing" in Times Square, SNEAKO states the disanalogy plainly: Times Square is a public space designated for demonstrations open to everyone, unlike a private home where an owner controls entry, and concludes the guest analogy therefore doesn't transfer. Premise and conclusion are both laid out clearly to dissolve the force of Myron's comparison.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2's constant method is to press for precise definitions and draw distinctions that dissolve his opponent's analogies (as with "Christian country" vs "majority Christian"); this line continues that pattern by drawing a clear premise-to-conclusion distinction between a private home and a public demonstration space. The quote states plain premises (Times Square is public and meant for demonstration, unlike a private home) leading to a conclusion (the guest/home analogy fails), which is a genuine explicit argument responding directly to Myron's analogy.
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.