Appeal: ad hominem
From HEATED Debate w/ Feminists. Wage Gap, Pro Choice ft. @MikeRashidOfficial.
- #20031:36:40upheld Myron Gaines psogos: ad hominem (+1) tempered from major to minor
The council upheld the call: Myron Gaines gave away 1 point.
“The thing is this, when I give these uncomfortable truths, you're fighting me back because it reveals unflattering realities about how women make so,…”
Diogenes: Myron explains Penelope's disagreement as discomfort with the truth rather than answering her stated reasons (lack of chemistry, not wanting to give up her life and career). This is Bulverism: it treats his claim as already true. Combined with "you're proving my point even further", it means any objection she raises only confirms him. He has used this move repeatedly (54:32, 85:59).Herodotus (partly): This is Penelope and Myron Gaines's only recorded encounter on this site (1 debate each), so there is no prior personal history between these two specific debaters to speak of — the referee's "repeatedly" claim (54:32, 85:59) refers only to within-debate repetition, which the transcript itself corroborates (Myron reframes Penelope's stated reasons as "proving my point" and discomfort with truth rather than engaging them). More broadly, Myron Gaines's site record across his 2 debates already shows ad hominem as an upheld fault once before, alongside hasty generalisation x2 and appeal to authority x1, indicating this is a recurring tendency in his style rather than a one-off. Public coverage of Fresh & Fit panel debates (e.g., YouTube titles like "Myron DESTROYS Feminist") corroborates a general reputation for combative, dismissive framing of female panelists' objections, though these are not adjudicated debate records. Sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPQaDw5v6NY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UxWVoT77t4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresh_and_Fit_Podcast
- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Myron has held throughout the debate a pattern of reframing any pushback from the women as itself confirming his thesis rather than engaging their stated reasons point by point; this line is a clear instance of that pattern rather than a one-off, and it departs from genuine rebuttal into psychologizing the interlocutor's motive for disagreeing. Immediately before and after this line, Myron never actually engages Penelope's specific stated reasons for declining the wealthy friend (lack of chemistry, unwillingness to give up her career and move countries); instead he repeatedly reasserts his framework ("proving my point even further," "don't wait on girls," "uncomfortably true") and explains away her disagreement as discomfort with truth. That is Bulverism: it assumes the conclusion and treats any objection as confirming evidence, which forecloses examination rather than inviting it (test 4) and substitutes for actually answering her stated content (test 1) — unlike a fair jab about reliability or consistency (test 2), this attributes an unevidenced defensive motive (test 3). This differs from the 54:32 line I earlier overturned, which was a general factual assertion about women preceding argument rather than a live dismissal of the specific interlocutor's stated reasoning; here the target and function are squarely on Penelope's motive for disagreeing in this exchange.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "ad hominem". Rather than engaging Penelope's specific point (that the man's wealth and section full of women did not itself make him attractive to her), Myron recasts her disagreement as proof of his thesis — she is "fighting back" only because the truth is "unflattering" and uncomfortable for her. This attacks her motive for objecting rather than the content of the objection, and it is unfalsifiable by design: any rebuttal she offers can be waved away as further evidence of discomfort rather than addressed on its merits, which closes off examination rather than inviting it.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Myron's declared framework throughout is that he argues from "facts" against women's supposedly self-serving or defensive answers; here that framework is used not to answer Penelope's specific stated reasons but to dismiss her disagreement itself as proof of discomfort with truth, which is consistent with (not a departure from) his running pattern already flagged at 54:32. Rather than engaging Penelope's actual stated reasons (lack of chemistry, unwillingness to sacrifice her career/life), Myron recasts her disagreement as mere discomfort with an "uncomfortable truth," a Bulverism move that treats his thesis as already proven and substitutes psychologizing for rebuttal; this fails the relevance and truth tests (no evidence she is avoiding the substance, and her stated reasons are simply not addressed) and closes rather than advances the exchange. This mirrors the already-upheld 54:32 instance in the same debate, showing it is a recurring feature of his framework rather than an isolated jab.
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.