Appeal: red herring
From Muslim Twitter Triggered, Middleast Wars, Is America A Christian Country Debate With Sneako!.
- #18762:44:02overturned Myron Gaines psogos: red herring (+1)
The council overturned the call, so no points were given away.
“Why not just go to a Muslim country then if they're gonna hate us no matter what?”
Diogenes: Rather than engaging SNEAKO's claim that anti-Muslim sentiment is driven by decades of political propaganda rather than public prayer, Myron pivots to a "why don't you leave" challenge unrelated to that causal claim.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Myron's standing argument throughout this segment is that Muslims are a guest minority who should assimilate and that provocative public practice makes anti-Muslim sentiment worse; immediately before this line he directly asserted that claim ("you are making people hate the religion more"), and immediately after, SNEAKO responds substantively and the exchange continues on the same causal question rather than being diverted. A red herring requires the argument on the table to actually be led away; here Myron gives a substantive answer alongside this jab (his "you're making it worse" claim) and the conversation immediately continues on the same propaganda-vs-behavior dispute rather than being derailed, so the "go to a Muslim country" line is a pointed rhetorical challenge tied to the standing guest/assimilation theme, not a substitution for engagement.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. This is a pointed rhetorical challenge rather than a fallacy: it doesn't substitute for engaging SNEAKO's point about systemic anti-Muslim propaganda, and SNEAKO immediately gives a substantive direct answer (that he stays to fight the propaganda from within given America's outsized role in the region), so the question opened rather than closed the exchange and no trap or dismissal was imposed on him.
- Plato overturn: On the record: Myron's position throughout this stretch is that public Muslim provocation (prayer in Times Square, aggressive dawah) worsens anti-Muslim sentiment regardless of its root propaganda causes; immediately before this line he directly engages SNEAKO's causal claim ("you're not stopping the propaganda, you're making people hate the religion more"), and this follow-up question tests the consistency of SNEAKO's own fatalism rather than abandoning the topic. This does not lead the argument away from the point: Myron had just directly answered SNEAKO's propaganda-causation claim in the prior breath, and the "why not leave" question follows logically from SNEAKO's own "no matter what we do, they hate us" fatalism; SNEAKO in turn answers it substantively and ties his answer straight back to the propaganda debate ("if I could stop the propaganda from within, I'm gonna do it"), showing the exchange stayed on the same live question rather than being diverted.
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.