Appeal: ad hominem
From @deanwithrs Gets DESTROYED In Heated Debate On God Then RUNS.
- #194323:32upheld Cooley psogos: ad hominem (+3)
The council upheld the call: Cooley gave away 3 points.
“That's you you got the mindset of a woman. Women believe in intuition.”
Diogenes: Dean had just stated phenomenal conservatism (intuitions give prima facie justification that can be defeated); the host answers with a gendered sneer and a dating anecdote instead of engaging the epistemology, and it bears on nothing and plays to the chat.Herodotus (unknown): Web searches turn up no prior encounters between Cooley and Dean Withers outside this one livestreamed debate — the only related hits are Cooley's own follow-up/reaction clips about this same exchange (e.g., "Dean Withers RUNS AWAY After Getting Humiliated Mid-Debate"), not a separate prior meeting. Dean Withers' broader public debate record is with figures like Charlie Kirk, Ben Shapiro, and Jubilee's "Surrounded" guests, none involving Cooley or gendered remarks. So there is no external history to corroborate or refute a pattern of Cooley using gendered ad hominem against Dean Withers specifically or generally; this appears to be an isolated remark within their sole documented meeting, and the site's own tally (ad hominem x3 already upheld against Cooley "over 1 debate(s) here") likely already includes this same incident rather than reflecting a separate track record. Sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMhmkdBK2Vo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Withers
- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Cooley has held throughout a pattern of substituting insult for engagement when substantive answers are given (already upheld at 05:20, 18:40, 28:01, 29:47); here, responding to Dean's stated epistemology (phenomenal conservatism: intuitions give prima facie, defeasible justification), Cooley answers with a gendered stereotype and an unrelated dating anecdote before pivoting back to a question about intuition's ontological status. The gendered sneer and anecdote bear on nothing about the truth or coherence of phenomenal conservatism, are backed by nothing specific, and function to mock and dismiss rather than engage the epistemic content on offer, satisfying the relevance and truth failures needed for the label; its demeaning, extended, stereotype-based form supports flagrant severity, consistent with the pattern already recognized elsewhere in this debate, and the absence of external corroborating history does not bear on a judgment made from the transcript alone.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "ad hominem". Dean has just explained that he is a phenomenal conservatist who takes intuitions to provide prima facie justification; Cooley's reply is a gendered slur — "you got the mindset of a woman. Women believe in intuition" — that bears nothing on whether phenomenal conservatism is a coherent epistemic framework. It fails relevance and truth (no specifics, just a stereotype) and matches the pattern already flagged at 29:47 of demeaning Dean's atheism/epistemology through gendered mockery rather than examining the intuition-as-justification claim on its merits.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S0 (Cooley) has repeatedly used personal denigration during this debate rather than engaging Dean's stated epistemology; here, immediately after Dean states his declared phenomenal-conservatism framework (intuitions as prima facie, defeasible justification), Cooley responds with a gendered stereotype and an extended mocking dating anecdote before circling back to a question, without ever addressing why intuition-based justification fails as an epistemic account. The remark substitutes for engagement with the substance of phenomenal conservatism (the anecdote is mockery, not an argument against intuition-based justification), is irrelevant to that epistemic claim, is unsubstantiated stereotyping, and is aimed at the chat/crowd ("you're getting cooked right now") rather than continued examination — it fails all four tests and is a sustained, blatant instance central to derailing this exchange.
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.