Appeal: explicit argument
From HEATED Debate w/ Feminists. Wage Gap, Pro Choice ft. @MikeRashidOfficial.
- #19951:22:51upheld Penelope epainos: explicit argument (+1)
The council upheld the call: Penelope earned 1 point.
“… if you're a valuable person to people, if you have something to offer them, it's not always just about sex. Like, I was there for him between [through] thick and thin for other things…” quote corrected
Diogenes: Myron flatly asserted "It's a fallacy" about cross-sex friendship. Penelope answered with a stated reason, that people offer value beyond sex, and a concrete instance from her own life.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Penelope has held since her first extended turn that men and women can be genuine platonic friends grounded in mutual value beyond sex, evidenced by her own thirteen-year friendship account; this quote is a direct restatement and application of that same position, not a departure from it. This is a plain instance of premises supporting a conclusion: value-beyond-sex (premise) plus a concrete lived instance (being there through thick and thin) offered as evidence for the conclusion that cross-sex friendship isn't reducible to sex. It directly answers Myron's bare assertion "It's a fallacy" with actual reasoning rather than mere assertion or mockery.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "evidence", on the same ledger as the callout. Against the hosts' running claim that a man's attention or waiting always cashes out to sex, Penelope grounds her counter-claim ("it's not always just about sex") in a specific, checkable-in-kind particular rather than a bare assertion: she names the concrete thing she actually provided him — being there through hard times, for reasons other than sex — consistent with the same lived-experience-as-evidence move she uses elsewhere in the debate (e.g. the section/spending counterexample at 91:39).
- Plato uphold: On the record: Penelope's declared position since the opening is that men and women can be genuine platonic friends grounded in mutual non-sexual value; this line restates and supports that exact thesis rather than departing from it. This is a direct continuation of Penelope's opening thesis that "women have value beyond sex" and that men and women can be real platonic friends "based on mutual value (business, knowledge, loyalty) rather than sex." Here she states the premise plainly (value to a person isn't always sexual) and supports it with a concrete instance from her own account (being there for him through thick and thin), functioning as a real premise-to-point argument rather than bare assertion — consistent with prior bench rulings crediting her for the same move at 91:39 and 145:15.
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.