Appeal: clarification
From HEATED Debate w/ Feminists. Wage Gap, Pro Choice ft. @MikeRashidOfficial.
- #198754:27tied, awaiting the moderator Penelope epainos: clarification (+1)
The council is split: nothing counts until the moderator decides.
“Does everything that we say that's, like, our answer, you have to always just assume it's a lie?”
Diogenes: Penelope asks Myron to state the standard behind his dismissal, which exposes that his method rejects any answer that disagrees with him in advance.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Penelope's position throughout the show has been to push back against Myron's sweeping "on balance of probability" claims and demand he show his work ("where's the proof exactly?", "I wanna see the data"); here she does exactly that, asking him to name the standard by which he's just declared the ladies' unanimous "no" a lie. Her question directly follows Myron's "I don't believe that... they're not gonna admit that" and asks him to state the rule he's applying rather than assume it; it is not loaded, since the presupposition (that he's dismissing their answer) is exactly what he just said, and it gets a direct answer from Myron ("women are never going to tell unflattering realities..."), so it functioned as a genuine clarification that advanced the exchange rather than closing it.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. This is a single rhetorical question pushing back on Myron's dismissal of the women's "no" answers, not a developed move: Penelope states no premises, names no fallacy, and isn't asking for a definition of a disputed term (unlike Myron's "define evolved traditional" moment). It's a brief in-the-moment jab, comparable to other short reactive lines in this debate that don't rise to an explicit argument, a named fallacy spotted, or a clarification request.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Penelope's position since early in the debate has been to push back on Myron's claimed fact-based objectivity and expose where it rests on assumption or unfalsifiable dismissal of women's stated answers; this line is a direct continuation of that standing objection, not a departure from it. Myron had just waved off the ladies' unanimous "no" to the friend-poaching question with "I don't believe that but okay." Penelope's line directly puts to him the standard he is applying — that any answer contradicting his priors is treated as a lie — rather than assuming what he meant. It is a real, on-topic question (not mere mockery: it lacks a target-ending jab and instead demands he state his criterion), and Myron does in fact answer it next line ("women are never going to tell unflattering realities..."), confirming the question was substantive and functioned to expose his unfalsifiable framework. This is consistent with the run of prior calls this bench upheld against Myron's "I speak in facts" posture (the appeal-to-authority and hasty-generalisation calls at 51:48/48:50), so crediting Penelope here for asking him to justify rather than assume is the correct continuation of that same pattern.
- Thesmothetes leave: The dispute is not about a fact in the record but about whether a single rhetorical retort ("you have to always just assume it's a lie?") rises to the level of a genuine request for the standard being applied, as Aristotle and Plato read it, or is merely pushback dressed as a question with no definitional content sought, as Socrates reads it, unlike Penelope's later explicit demand for cited data. No listed rule fixes where that line falls; it is a real disagreement of judgment over the label, so it is left to the archon.
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.