Appeal: motte-and-bailey
From HEATED Debate w/ Feminists. Wage Gap, Pro Choice ft. @MikeRashidOfficial.
- #19981:28:26upheld Myron Gaines psogos: motte-and-bailey (+2)
The council upheld the call: Myron Gaines gave away 2 points.
“Now, are there exceptions to rule? Maybe one in a 100 guys might actually be a platonic friend with you…”
Diogenes: Myron first asserted without qualification that friendship between men and women is "a lie. Every single time a guy is in a friend zone with you..."; when Penelope pushed back ("It's your opinion"), he dropped to "most guys" and "nine out of 10", and then let in exceptions. That retreat abandons the universal claim he was using against her male friendships, and he never acknowledges it.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Myron's declared and consistently held method throughout the debate is rhetorical hyperbole immediately cashed out in statistical/probabilistic terms ("on balance of probabilities," "most," "nine out of ten") — a pattern visible in the wage-gap exchange, the "women don't know what they want" line, and elsewhere; the friend-zone passage follows that same house style rather than departing from it. Motte-and-bailey requires the retreat to be concealed, with the speaker later exploiting the strong claim again as though the concession never happened. Here Myron himself poses and answers the exception explicitly — "Now, are there exceptions to rule? Maybe one in a 100 guys might actually be a platonic friend" — naming the very qualification the callout says he "never acknowledges." An openly self-flagged narrowing, in the same breath as the hyperbolic opener and consistent with his standing rhetorical tic of stating a hard line then immediately supplying the probabilistic version, is not the hidden bailey-retreat the label requires.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "hasty generalisation", on the same ledger as the callout. Myron's exception clause ("maybe one in 100 guys... some kind of social situation... brother-in-law") doesn't rescue the claim, it just repackages the same unsupported sweeping generalization I flagged at 55:36 and 54:32: an absolute-sounding empirical claim about how "most guys" universally behave, asserted with zero evidence and only a token, almost-unfalsifiable carve-out. When actual counterexamples are later offered by Vanessa and Penelope, he doesn't treat them as data against the rule but reclassifies them ("they're platonic, not by their choice but by yours") to keep the generalization intact — showing the "exception" was rhetorical cover, not a real qualification.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Myron's declared framework since early in the debate is to speak in absolute "facts," and specifically on the friend-zone question he first asserts an unqualified universal ("It's a lie. Every single time..."); when Penelope immediately pushes back ("It's you being a[n] opinion"), he downgrades within the same breath to "most guys," "nine out of ten times," and even names an explicit 1-in-100 exception category, yet later in the same segment (and again near the debate's end with Zendaya and Penelope's specific friends) he reverts to treating their particular platonic claims as certainly false ("they are platonic by your choice... not theirs") without ever flagging that he'd retreated from the universal to the majority claim. The quote sits exactly at the point where a challenged universal claim ("every single time," "it's a lie") is walked back to a hedged "most/nine-out-of-ten... with exceptions" claim in direct response to Penelope's pushback, and Myron goes on to apply the original all-or-nothing framing to her and Zendaya's specific named friends without ever acknowledging the retreat — the textbook bailey-then-motte-then-bailey-again pattern.
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.