Appeal: red herring
From HEATED Debate w/ Feminists. Wage Gap, Pro Choice ft. @MikeRashidOfficial.
- #20241:56:32overturned Chris psogos: red herring (+1)
The council overturned the call, so no points were given away.
“Did you make any Cash App money showing your feet earlier, just now, like, thirty minutes ago?”
Diogenes: Isla had just pointed out the double standard ("you're using one person" against her own single example). Chris changes the subject to a joke about feet pictures and Cash App, and her point about the hosts' one-millionaire evidence is never answered.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Chris's role throughout the show has been producer/moderator/backup arguer (reading super-chats, sometimes chiming in with pro-Myron points like "exception does not make the rule" and "who are you to say that" defenses of Myron, and frequent joking asides to the panel); this line continues that same joking-interjection pattern rather than departing from it. The quote is addressed to Fresh (S1), not to Isla ("No, I did not. You showed your feet"), so it is banter between co-hosts rather than an answer substituted for Isla's point; and critically, Isla's "you're using one person" charge is in fact answered moments later by Fresh ("Your point of origin is an exception... the majority... has to be widespread"), so the referee's premise that the point was "never answered" is contradicted by the record.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. This is crosstalk banter among the hosts themselves (Myron starts "Did you make," Chris finishes it, and Fresh answers "No I did not, you showed your feet" turning the joke back on Fresh) — a callback to earlier chat jokes about feet/Cash App, not a jab lobbed at Isla to answer her wage-gap argument. Myron goes on to actually engage Isla's point immediately after ("the wage gap myth, I'm gonna debunk that for you too"), so nothing on the live question was displaced; this is off-topic banter that scores on neither ledger.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Chris has served mostly as producer/moderator (reading super-chats, enforcing show rules) but has repeatedly stepped into the substantive argument on the hosts' side when it suits him (e.g. "he waited thirteen years... it's not the man" at 125:43, and immediately before this quote, "It doesn't make the rules" at 116:25, engaging Isla's "one person" example directly); having just engaged her point, he does not return to it here. Isla had just turned the "one person" criticism back on the hosts ("you're using one person") right after Chris told her the exception doesn't make the rule; instead of engaging that turnabout, Chris pivots to an unrelated jab about Cash App and feet pictures, and the thread never returns to answer her point (the conversation moves instead to Fresh restating the same "exception" line as if her rebuttal hadn't been made). That is a live point on the table being abandoned for an irrelevant aside, which is the substitution and relevance failure the red-herring label requires.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: use, not mention: describing a fault is not committing it. The quoted line is a joint bit ("Did you make" — Myron, "...any Cash App money showing your feet..." — Chris) answered by Fresh, not Isla; it is banter among the hosts recalling an earlier moment in the show, never turned into a move against Isla's live point, so under the rule it scores on neither ledger. It also fails the red herring test on its own terms because the argument was not actually led away: seconds later Fresh directly answers Isla's "you're using one person" charge ("Your point of origin is an exception... the majority... has to be widespread"), contradicting the referee's stated premise that her point was never answered.
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.