Appeal: explicit argument
From HEATED Debate w/ Feminists. Wage Gap, Pro Choice ft. @MikeRashidOfficial.
- #20141:49:27upheld Isla epainos: explicit argument (+1)
The council upheld the call: Isla earned 1 point.
“But that's because it's 2021. Women are using toys. Women are more educated. Women make more money. Women are into women now.”
Diogenes: Isla accepts Myron's data point, that young men report less sex, and offers competing causes (sex toys, education, income, more same-sex relationships). That challenges his hypergamy/preselection explanation of the data rather than the data itself.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Isla's position throughout this stretch of the debate has been to press for causal accuracy rather than accept Myron's hypergamy/preselection story wholesale (seen again in her later "you're speaking in absolutes" and STEM-choice exchanges); this line continues that same posture by offering an alternative set of causes for the same data point rather than disputing the data itself. Though compressed, the line lists identifiable competing causal factors (contraceptive/toy substitution, rising female education, rising female income, more same-sex relationships) offered as an alternative explanation to Myron's hypergamy account for the same accepted data point, which is a real if minor counter-argument rather than a bare assertion.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found "hasty generalisation". Isla answers Myron's stat with a string of confident, unqualified claims about "women" collectively — using toys, more educated, making more money, "into women now" — offered as settled explanatory fact with no evidence or source, the same unsupported sweeping-claim pattern already flagged repeatedly against Myron's own assertions in this debate (e.g. 54:32, 54:52, 55:36).
- Plato uphold: On the record: Isla's position through this stretch of the debate has been to press Myron for precision and to supply competing explanations rather than accept his causal story at face value (as in the 105:33 and 112:32 exchanges already on record), and this line continues that same pattern by accepting his underlying data point on declining male sexual activity while offering rival causes. Myron attributes men's reported decline in sexual activity to hypergamy and social-media-enabled female mate selection; Isla does not dispute the underlying statistic but lists several alternative, checkable causal candidates (contraceptive/toy substitution, rising female education and income, more same-sex relationships) that would produce the same data without his preferred mechanism — a genuine competing-causation argument rather than a bare denial or a dodge.
- Thesmothetes uphold: By the rule: even if: granting the claim and showing the conclusion fails. Isla does not dispute Myron's data point that men report less sex; she grants it and immediately supplies rival causal candidates (contraceptive substitution, education, income, more same-sex relationships) to defeat his hypergamy/preselection explanation, a move she makes explicit moments later at 109:37 ("It's because... women are doing their own thing. It's not because... women like men who are way better than them"). That is the "even if" pattern — granting the premise and showing the speaker's conclusion doesn't follow — not a bare or hasty generalization, since the point of the move is competing causation rather than an unsupported sweeping claim relied on as established fact.
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.