Appeal: evidence
From HEATED Debate w/ Feminists. Wage Gap, Pro Choice ft. @MikeRashidOfficial.
- #20261:59:44upheld Myron Gaines epainos: evidence (+1)
The council upheld the call: Myron Gaines earned 1 point.
“Who is the victim of most violent crime in The United States? Men. Men, overwhelmingly.”
Diogenes: Isla offered feeling unsafe in public as a privilege men have and women lack. Myron answers with a specific claim that can be checked against crime-victimisation statistics, and he separates perceived risk from measured risk. His "every single time" overstates it, but the core claim is evidence rather than bare assertion.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Myron has held since the opening that his claims about sex/gender dynamics are fact- and study-backed rather than opinion, but has repeatedly asserted unsourced or overstated statistics throughout (parallel instances already ruled "false claim"); this line follows that same pattern rather than departing from it. Myron's opening and consistently held method is to present sweeping generalizations as "fact-based," "balance of probability" claims, frequently unsourced or oversold when checked (already correctly labeled "false claim" for parallel unsourced stats at 55:36, 87:46, 107:05, 107:17). Here he offers a bare, uncited assertion ("Men, overwhelmingly") without naming any study, and the verifier finds that broad violent-crime victimization data does not bear out the "most violent crime... overwhelmingly" framing (rates are now near-parity, and women dominate the rape/sexual-assault category); only homicide specifically supports a male majority, which is a narrower claim than the one made. Since the claim as stated is not borne out by the record, this is not "evidence" (no checkable source was even cited) but a continuation of his pattern of overstated, unsupported generalization — "false claim" fits better than "evidence," and "appeal to authority" does not fit since no authority or study is named in this specific line.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "direct answer", on the same ledger as the callout. Isla had just claimed a male privilege of physical safety ("I walk down the street, I feel like I'm gonna get killed," unlike men in a gym). Rather than dismissing or deflecting, Myron meets that specific point head-on with a concrete, checkable counter-statistic — that men are in fact the more frequent victims of violent crime — which, unlike his earlier bare gestures at "studies show" or "biologically proven," names a well-known, verifiable category of public data (BJS/NCVS victimization statistics) directly on point to the claim being contested.
- Plato overturn: On the record: Myron's framework since the opening is that he argues from "facts" and "studies" rather than feelings, but the record shows this cashes out two different ways: sometimes he actually names a source (Tinder studies, at 107:02, upheld as evidence), and far more often he simply asserts a sweeping claim as settled fact with no citation at all (32:29, 35:17, 55:36, 87:46, 107:05, 107:17, all upheld as false claim/hasty generalisation on this bench). The line at 119:44 falls in the second category. "Evidence" requires citing something checkable, not merely making a claim that a third party could later check. Here Myron names no study, survey, or source in the line itself — he just asserts "Men. Men, overwhelmingly," exactly the bare-assertion pattern this bench has repeatedly labeled false claim/hasty generalisation elsewhere in this debate. The verifier's check confirms the substance is unsupported as stated (true only for homicide, not "most violent crime" broadly), which under the rubric's own instruction ("unsupported... the evidence call is overturned") forecloses crediting it as evidence.
- Thesmothetes uphold: By the rule: bare assertion: nothing offered for the claim. Isla claimed a male privilege of physical safety; Myron met it with a specific, checkable category — "victim of violent crime" — which is more than the vague "studies show" gestures elsewhere in this debate. The dissenting judges overturn by running their own outside check on current victimisation-by-crime-type statistics and finding the claim overstated or wrong as stated, but the bare-assertion rule is explicit that "the test is not whether the claim is false but whether anything was offered for it"; something checkable was offered here, on point to the claim being contested, so it is not a bare assertion regardless of whether an outside verifier judges it accurate.
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.