Appeal: distinguo
From HEATED Debate w/ Feminists. Wage Gap, Pro Choice ft. @MikeRashidOfficial.
- #20171:53:36upheld Isla against Myron Gaines agonisma: distinguo (+2)
The council upheld the call: Isla earned 2.4 points.
“But but that's dating because you want to have sex. That's not dating because I wanna marry you. Like, that's two completely different types of dating.”
Diogenes: Myron used the sugar-dating market as proof that men don't value women's careers in relationships. Isla splits "dating" into dating for sex and dating toward marriage. His example belongs to the first kind, while the claim at issue, which he confirmed covers relationships, belongs to the second, so the evidence no longer supports it.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Myron's position moments earlier (at Isla's prompting) was the unqualified claim that a successful man "really doesn't care" about a woman's career even in a relationship, evidenced by the sugar-dating market; Isla's split between sex-dating and marriage-dating denies that the sugar-dating evidence transfers to the relationship claim, and Myron's own next move (softening to "looks come first... career comes after," already found self-contradictory at 113:57) shows the distinction actually bit. Isla names the equivocation directly ("that's two completely different types of dating") and denies that Myron's sugar-baby example supports his marriage-relationship claim; the record shows this forced a real retreat from Myron immediately after (into the softer, and separately self-contradictory, "looks first, career after" formulation), which is the mark of a distinction that actually dissolved the point rather than a mere assertion.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument", on the same ledger as the callout. Isla catches an equivocation in Myron's "sugar dating" example: he offers it as proof that men don't care about a woman's career, but sugar dating is arranged around sex/money, not marriage, so it belongs to a different category of "dating" than the marriage-track relationships the original claim was about. She states this distinction plainly as a premise-conclusion move rather than just asserting disagreement, which is why Myron has to concede the terms ("You're talking about sugar babies versus men actually wanna date") rather than dispute the point.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Isla's position through this stretch has been to press Myron on the mismatch between his general claims and the evidence he offers for them (per this bench's own 113:06 and 115:07 rulings on this same exchange), and this line continues that pattern by catching a specific equivocation rather than raising a new objection. Myron's claim was about a woman's career/success mattering "even within a relationship," and he then offered the sugar-dating market as proof; Isla's line splits "dating" into the sex-for-money sense the sugar-dating evidence actually supports and the marriage-track relationship sense the original claim was about, showing the cited evidence doesn't reach the claim at issue — a clean distinguo, even though Myron does not formally concede it and instead pivots to a narrower "looks come first" restatement.
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.