Appeal: ad hominem
From HEATED Debate w/ Feminists. Wage Gap, Pro Choice ft. @MikeRashidOfficial.
- #20151:53:06upheld Myron Gaines psogos: ad hominem (+1) tempered from major to minor
The council upheld the call: Myron Gaines gave away 1 point.
“Are you are you... Question. Are you... Number one, are you a man? No. Have you ever dated a woman as a man? No. Have you ever dated a woman as a man that's a millionaire that has a significant amount of money?”
Diogenes: Isla pointed out that Myron's evidence was one millionaire out of millions. Instead of answering that sample-size objection, Myron disqualifies her because of who she is (not a man, not a millionaire). Her point stands regardless of who makes it, and she has to repeat it ("You're literally pointing to one person").Herodotus (yes): This site's own ledger already shows the pattern the referee flags is not a one-off: across Myron Gaines's 2 prior debates here, ad hominem has been upheld twice already (alongside hasty generalisation x2 and appeal to authority x2), so this callout is his third recorded instance, not an isolated lapse. External coverage corroborates the same tendency outside this site: reporting on his campus "Prove Me Wrong" debates (Michigan Daily, Daily Gamecock) and student accounts describe him routinely shifting from argument to attacking an opponent's identity/credentials rather than the claim, getting personal and inflammatory when challenged. Isla herself has only this one debate on record here, so there's no prior history between these two specific debaters to weigh — the pattern is Myron's alone, and it is a real, repeated one, which argues against treating this as an isolated severity spike but also means it shouldn't be pinned on any tit-for-tat with Isla. Sources: https://www.michigandaily.com/news/podcast-influencer-myron-gaines-debates-students-spreads-antisemitism-misogyny-and-racism/ https://www.dailygamecock.com/article/2026/02/uncensored-america-hosts-debate-event-with-conservative-influencer-myron-gaines-news-fowler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresh_and_Fit_Podcast
- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Myron's declared and recurring method throughout this debate is to answer specific statistical/logical objections from the women by reframing them as disqualified by identity rather than engaging the substance (as already upheld at 96:40, and mirrored later with Kimberly's "who are you, bro" exchange); this line continues that pattern. Isla's objection was a pure sample-size point (one millionaire's anecdote does not establish a general claim about millionaires), which does not depend on her being a man or having dated as one; Myron's volley of identity questions substitutes for engaging that logical point and he never actually answers it, instead pivoting to "sugar dating is a thing now." I judge this on the transcript itself, not on the external history cited by the reviewer.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "ad hominem". Rather than engaging Isla's actual counter-example (millionaires she knows who want an educated, career-driven partner) or explaining why it doesn't generalize, Myron pivots to interrogating her personal qualifications — is she a man, has she dated as a man, has she dated as a millionaire man — using her "no" answers to imply she has no standing to speak on the question at all, echoing his recurring "you're a woman, you can't see this" move used elsewhere to foreclose female testimony rather than address it.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Myron's declared framework throughout is that he argues from checkable facts rather than the other side's supposed feelings/inexperience; here that framework tips into discrediting the speaker's standing rather than her argument, a pattern the site's own ledger and external reporting corroborate as recurring for him rather than a one-off departure — which argues for treating this as consistent with his established tendency rather than a uniquely flagrant spike. Isla raised a specific sample-size objection ("one person out of literally 2,000,000 millionaires"); rather than answering it, Myron pivots to questioning whether she is a man and has dated as a man, functionally trying to disqualify her standing to speak rather than engage the numerator/denominator problem she raised — she has to repeat her point ("You're literally pointing to one person") before he finally addresses the substance, which satisfies the substitution test for ad hominem.
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.