Appeal: antistrephon
From HEATED Debate w/ Feminists. Wage Gap, Pro Choice ft. @MikeRashidOfficial.
- #20061:42:22tied, awaiting the moderator Myron Gaines against Kimberly agonisma: antistrephon (+3)
The council is split: nothing counts until the moderator decides.
“Your statement literally proves what we're saying.”
Diogenes: Kimberly objected to Myron's "average men are invisible / women want preselected men" thesis. In doing so she said "Somebody was never paying no attention to that dude until he comes with a certain female in his arm", which describes the very preselection effect the hosts had asserted. Myron takes her own example and turns it to his side.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Myron's declared thesis since 87:02 has been that women exhibit mate-choice "preselection" behavior (attraction driven by seeing a man already with women); Kimberly's own illustration here (an unattractive man suddenly drawing attention once seen with a woman on social media) independently describes that same mechanism, and Myron seizes on it to serve his side. Kimberly's complaint was meant to illustrate a grievance, but the content of her own example ("nobody could look at this dude for a whole month... then he'll pop up... with somebody and then all women are attracted to him") is itself a concrete instance of the preselection dynamic Myron had argued for earlier in the debate; he explicitly redeploys her own testimony to support his thesis, which is the retorsion antistrephon names.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found "hasty generalisation". Myron treats a single personal anecdote from Kimberly — her own feeling of being slighted when a guy she gave a chance to talked to other women — as though it "literally proves" his general thesis about how women view average men and mate value across the board; one data point is elevated to decisive proof of a sweeping claim, the same move seen repeatedly elsewhere in the debate.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Myron's declared framework throughout has been to catch the women's own words/examples confirming his thesis rather than merely asserting opinion, and this move is squarely within that established pattern, consistent with the similarly-labeled antistrephon already upheld at 93:20. Kimberly's own example — "nobody could look at this dude for a whole month, and then he'll pop up on social media with somebody and then... all women are attracted to him" — describes exactly the preselection mechanism the hosts had been asserting all debate; Myron's "your statement literally proves what we're saying" takes her own illustration and turns it to serve his thesis, and she does not rebut the point directly but pivots to a different grievance ("but then you disrespect me"), confirming the move landed as a genuine retorsion.
- Thesmothetes leave: Kimberly's own illustration (a man ignored for a month who suddenly draws attention once paired with a woman) does independently describe the preselection mechanism Myron had argued for earlier at ~87:33, and Myron does supply his own (if thin) link between her words and his thesis rather than having it supplied for him — so "do not complete the argument for a speaker" does not void the move. But whether that link is a genuine antistrephon or, as the dissent holds, an overreach that elevates one anecdote (and a partly mismatched gloss on it) into proof of a sweeping claim is a judgment call about the strength and fit of the move, not a question any listed rule resolves. This is a real disagreement of judgment that no rule settles, 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.