Appeal: fallacy spotted
From HEATED Debate w/ Feminists. Wage Gap, Pro Choice ft. @MikeRashidOfficial.
- #20221:55:07upheld Isla epainos: fallacy spotted (+1)
The council upheld the call: Isla earned 1 point.
“You're, like, literally speaking in absolutes. Like, that's what blows my mind. It's like, you're speaking in absolutes. That's not true.”
Diogenes: Isla correctly identifies the overgeneralisation running through the hosts' case. The transcript backs her up ("every single time", "period", "don't give a fuck about your careers"), and the charge leads straight to Myron retreating to "balance of probability".- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Isla's position throughout this stretch has been to press the hosts on the difference between anecdote/absolute assertion and demonstrated fact; this callout is a continuation of that same scrutiny, applied correctly to language the hosts actually used. Isla's line comes directly on the heels of Fresh's unqualified claim that wealthy men "don't give a fuck" about a woman's career "deep down," which follows a string of absolute language from the hosts throughout this segment ("period," "every single time," "he really doesn't care"). Her charge accurately identifies a hasty generalisation that was actually made, not one she invented, and it visibly forces a retreat: Myron immediately walks it back to "we never said all... we said most... balance of probability," confirming the overgeneralisation was real and was just spotted.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "fallacy spotted". Isla correctly identifies the pattern running through Myron's claims — flat, unqualified universal statements ("men don't care about your career," "looks come first... period") — as speaking in absolutes, i.e. hasty generalisation. When Myron denies it ("we never said all, we said on a balance of probability"), she backs the charge with the transcript itself, noting he did say "all" and only reduced it to one example after being pressed, which is accurate to what he in fact said earlier in this same exchange.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Isla has held a consistent position throughout this stretch of demanding precision and evidence rather than accepting Myron's sweeping "fact"-based claims (as in the 105:33 and 112:32 exchanges); naming the absolutism directly here continues that same challenge rather than departing from it. Isla's charge tracks the transcript precisely: Myron had just used absolute language ("every single time," "period," "don't give a fuck about your careers") to describe what "men" want, and her callout of "speaking in absolutes" is accurate rather than a strawman. It also produces an immediate effect on the exchange — Myron retreats to "we never said all... we said most... balance of probability" — which is the mark of a fallacy actually spotted in what he said, not merely asserted.
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.