Appeal: ad hominem
From HEATED Debate w/ Feminists. Wage Gap, Pro Choice ft. @MikeRashidOfficial.
- #20231:54:50upheld Fresh psogos: ad hominem (+1)
The council upheld the call: Fresh gave away 1 point.
“… the reason why they tell you that is because one, they want to sleep with you, one.”
Diogenes: Fresh throws out Isla's counterexamples (millionaires who value an educated partner) by assigning those men a hidden motive and claiming "how they feel deep down" is the opposite. He has no evidence for this, and it means no counterexample could ever count against the hosts' claim.Herodotus (no): The callout is against Fresh (S1), not his co-host Myron Gaines. The site's own ledger shows this is Fresh's only recorded appearance here, currently scored Philosopher 1 / Sophist 0, with no prior faults of any kind logged against him — so there is no established pattern of ad hominem attributable to Fresh specifically. It is Myron Gaines (S0) who carries a repeat record on this site (ad hominem x3 among other upheld faults across 2 debates), and public sources likewise describe the Fresh and Fit Podcast's general 'red-pill' debate style and controversy but document no specific pattern of personal-motive attacks tied to Fresh as an individual rather than the show collectively. Since the accusation as framed targets Fresh, and neither this site's history nor public coverage bears out a personal pattern for him, the single minor ad hominem here should be judged as an isolated first instance rather than part of a demonstrated pattern warranting escalated severity. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresh_and_Fit_Podcast https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/podcaster-racism-antisemitism-misogyny-college-campuses/
- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Fresh's role throughout the debate has largely been Myron's supporting second, echoing and reinforcing the hosts' generalizations rather than personally attacking the women; this is his one clear instance of dismissing a specific counterexample by assigning its source a hidden, unfalsifiable motive rather than engaging its substance. Isla's point on the table was that she personally knows millionaires who value an educated, business-minded partner; instead of engaging that testimony, Fresh substitutes an assumed hidden motive ("they want to sleep with you... deep down they don't give a fuck") with nothing specific to back it, structured so that no counterexample could ever count against the claim — this satisfies substitution, unsupported truth, and closing-off-examination, the marks of ad hominem (or, on an equally defensible reading, no true Scotsman, since it immunizes the generalization from any counterexample by redefining what men "really" feel).
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "begging the question", on the same ledger as the callout. Isla's counter-example was that men she knows insist on wanting an educated, business-minded partner. Instead of engaging that testimony, Fresh explains it away by asserting the men are lying to get sex — but that explanation only works if the very point in dispute (that men don't really care about a woman's education/career) is already true; he uses the disputed conclusion as the premise for discounting the only evidence offered against it, rather than giving an independent reason to doubt the millionaires' sincerity.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Fresh has generally co-hosted alongside Myron's "facts not feelings" framework without asserting many claims of his own in this vein; this line is a first venture into the same move this bench has already upheld against Myron at 54:32 — dismissing testimony as insincere by attributing an ulterior motive with no evidence, so as to make it unfalsifiable. Rather than engaging Isla's counterexample (millionaires who state they want an educated, business-owning partner), Fresh dismisses it wholesale by claiming their stated preference is a cover for wanting sex and that "deep down" they feel otherwise — an unevidenced attack on the reliability of the very testimony offered as evidence, structurally identical to the ad hominem this bench already found in Myron's parallel dismissal of women's stated preferences, and it substitutes for rather than accompanies an answer to Isla's point.
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.