Appeal: explicit argument
From HEATED Debate w/ Feminists. Wage Gap, Pro Choice ft. @MikeRashidOfficial.
- #198042:10upheld Mike Rashid epainos: explicit argument (+1)
The council upheld the call: Mike Rashid earned 1 point.
“Because because when we when we have a section in a club, we're sufficient where we're at. We don't gotta go nowhere unless it's bathroom.”
Diogenes: Rather than accepting Fresh's blanket "just pay" or Kimberly's reading of the man as cheap, Mike separates the case of a dinner bill, where the man should pay, from a bought club section, where drinks were already provided, and gives a reason why declining to buy a separate bar drink need not mean stinginess.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Mike's position throughout this sub-debate was that a $20 bar drink is not a meaningful test of a man's value or intentions, and here he gives the underlying mechanism (a bought section already supplies drinks) for why skipping the separate bar purchase isn't stinginess — consistent with, not a departure from, his stated stance. This is a genuine premises-to-conclusion argument: Mike distinguishes the dinner-bill case (where declining to pay is stinginess) from the club-section case (where drinks are already provided, so a side trip to the bar for a different drink isn't a comparable failure). That distinction is exactly what lets him rebut both Fresh's blanket "just pay" rule and Kimberly's inference of cheapness, and it holds up as the throughline of his position in this whole exchange (he returns to "we're sufficient where we're at" repeatedly). It's a minor, self-contained explicit argument, not a restatement dressed up as one.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. This is Mike explaining, as part of his live back-and-forth with Kimberly, why he thinks her trip to the bar was odd (a section is "sufficient," you don't need to leave it). It's a plain factual/experiential premise offered in support of the point he's making, answered directly by Kimberly in the next lines ("Exactly... he was probably entourage"). It's ordinary give-and-take reasoning, not mockery, not a dodge, not a named fallacy — nothing on either ledger.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Mike Rashid's position since this exchange began has been to distinguish contexts (dinner bill vs. bottle service) rather than accept a blanket "always pay" rule, and this line is a continuation of that same distinction, not a departure from it. Mike Rashid states a premise (a bought section already supplies drinks, so there's no functional need to leave for the bar) and draws from it a conclusion (declining to buy her a separate drink there isn't evidence of stinginess). That is premises stated plainly leading to a conclusion, which is what "explicit argument" requires; the severity is rightly minor since it's a short, single-step point rather than a load-bearing thesis.
- Thesmothetes uphold: By the rule: do not complete the argument for the speaker. The premise-to-conclusion link Aristotle and Plato credit is not one they supplied for Mike: just before the quoted line he already states it himself — "if you got a section, you got a girl over there... it's not really a reason to go to the bar... for you" — and the quoted sentence continues that same thought, distinguishing the section (self-sufficient) from the dinner-bill case where he concedes not paying "is fucking up." Because the conclusion is in Mike's own words rather than filled in by the judge, this clears the bar for a minor explicit argument, and Socrates's objection that it is "ordinary give-and-take" does not change that the premises and conclusion are both on the record in his own mouth.
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.