Appeal: ad hominem
From HEATED Debate w/ Feminists. Wage Gap, Pro Choice ft. @MikeRashidOfficial.
- #20592:31:56upheld Myron Gaines psogos: ad hominem (+1) tempered from major to minor
The council upheld the call: Myron Gaines gave away 1 point.
“It's just like, you just wanna be right to the point that you don't... You will go to any extent no matter how dumb you look on on air.”
Diogenes: Isla's same-hours question is still unanswered. Myron replaces an answer with an insult to her intelligence and an attribution of motive ("arguing with me just to argue"), aimed at the audience to close the question rather than to keep examining it. This fails the substitution, relevance and aim tests.Herodotus (yes): The site's own ledger already shows Myron Gaines carrying 3 upheld ad hominem faults across just 2 prior debates here, alongside repeated self-contradiction, straw man, hasty generalisation and appeal-to-authority findings — so insult-in-lieu-of-answer is a recurring, not isolated, pattern for him on this platform. Public record corroborates it: coverage of a Fresh and Fit campus debate at University of Michigan describes Gaines telling a student "Stop being a bitch, I'm not gonna hurt nobody," and a Fresh and Fit vs. H3 Podcast debate is separately flagged online for "more ad hominem attacks," matching the substitute-insult-for-answer move seen here against Isla. Isla herself has no upheld faults on record (1 prior debate, Sophist 0), so this exchange fits an established Myron pattern rather than a mutual habit — the accusation is borne out and should weigh toward, not away from, a major severity finding on him. Sources: https://www.michigandaily.com/news/podcast-influencer-myron-gaines-debates-students-spreads-antisemitism-misogyny-and-racism/ https://rumble.com/v4j2cw3-fresh-and-fit-vs.-h3-podcast.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresh_and_Fit_Podcast
- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Myron's declared method throughout the wage-gap exchange is to press "facts not feelings," but he has repeatedly (as already found at 96:40, 113:06, 122:26, 148:32) answered sustained pushback from the women by attacking their motives or credibility rather than the substance; this line continues that same pattern. "No matter how dumb you look on air" targets Isla's public image/persistence rather than the truth of her wage-gap claim, and comes attached to an unsupported motive-attribution ("you just wanna be right") rather than a substantive rebuttal, aimed at the 10,000-viewer audience to close rather than continue the exchange — it fails relevance and aim even though the underlying "she hasn't cited sources yet" observation has some basis.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "ad hominem". Isla has just restated her substantive rebuttal ("Women earn less money than men by choice. That's not true"), and rather than engaging it, Myron dismisses her as merely wanting "to be right" and willing to "look dumb no matter how" — an attack on her motive/character in place of any answer to the wage-gap claim on the table, the same substitution-for-argument move already flagged at 96:40.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Myron's declared framework throughout the wage-gap stretch is that he argues from "facts, not feelings," and this bench has already found him departing from that framework into character attacks at 96:40, 113:06, and 130:43 when pressed hard by the women; this line is another instance of that same recurring pattern rather than a one-off. In place of continuing to engage Isla's substantive pushback, Myron here attacks her motive ("you just wanna be right") and her appearance to the audience ("how dumb you look on air"), which is irrelevant to whether the wage gap exists and is aimed at the crowd/chat rather than at keeping the examination going, satisfying the substitution, relevance, and aim tests for ad hominem; I do not weigh the reviewer's citations to the speaker's conduct in other, unrelated debates, since my judgment rests on this transcript and my own prior rulings within it.
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.