Appeal: steelman
From HEATED Debate w/ Feminists. Wage Gap, Pro Choice ft. @MikeRashidOfficial.
- #20402:11:22upheld Bianca epainos: steelman (+1)
The council upheld the call: Bianca earned 1 point.
“Although I do agree that it does take two to to make a baby, you... Like, the... I think the point that they're trying to prove is you have the choice.”
Diogenes: Bianca grants her own side's premise that it takes two, then restates the hosts' argument in its strongest, most defensible form: a woman who doesn't want a baby can refuse sex without contraception. That is fairer than the hosts' own "all authority, zero responsibility" framing.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Bianca has held a role throughout the debate of frequently agreeing with and elaborating the hosts' positions rather than contesting them (e.g., her earlier "I really like what you have to say... I have to agree with a lot of what you just said" on the friend-zone point), and this line continues that same pattern. Bianca accurately and charitably restates the hosts' scattered "your body, your choice" claims into their strongest actionable form (refuse unprotected sex if you don't want a baby) before going on to defend and elaborate that formulation against Isla's follow-up, which satisfies the steelman's requirement of restating before answering.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "steelman". Bianca first concedes the point working against the hosts ("it does take two to make a baby") and then accurately restates what she takes their actual claim to be — that the woman has the contraceptive choice — before going on to defend and elaborate that reading with the condom/birth-control point that follows. It's a fair, charitable summary of the opposing argument rather than a caricature of it.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Bianca has not declared a fixed framework of her own in this debate and has generally sided with the hosts on related points (e.g. "I really like what you have to say... I have to agree with a lot of what you just said," 89:53-90:59); here she opens by conceding the opposing side's point ("it does take two to make a baby") before restating the hosts' confused "authority without responsibility" argument in its clearer, more defensible form (refuse unprotected sex if you don't want a baby), which is consistent with her role as an even-handed clarifier in this exchange. The line does accurately and more charitably restate the hosts' point than their own "you allowed the semen in there" framing, and she goes on to answer/build on it when pressed by Isla, which is enough to defensibly earn the steelman credit even though the position restated belongs to her own side of the room rather than a formally opposing debater.
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.