Appeal: no true Scotsman
From HEATED Debate w/ Feminists. Wage Gap, Pro Choice ft. @MikeRashidOfficial.
- #208311:23upheld Mike Rashid psogos: no true Scotsman (+1)
The council upheld the call: Mike Rashid gave away 1 point.
“No man waits thirteen years.”
Diogenes: Penelope gives a counterexample, a man who did wait, and Mike answers by denying he counts as a man ("No. Not.") instead of dealing with the case.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Mike Rashid entered as a guest offering his own dating experience and reactions rather than declaring any formal thesis; in this specific "thirteen years" exchange his running stance is mocking disbelief at the story, and the quoted line is a direct continuation of that stance rather than a departure from anything he'd set earlier. The exchange has the textbook shape: Mike asserts the universal "No man waits thirteen years," Penelope supplies the counterexample of a man who did, and when she insists "He's a man," Mike answers "No. Not." — denying the counterexample's membership in the category rather than engaging it, which is exactly the redefine-to-exclude move the fallacy names. It's plainly minor: a few lines of teasing banter, not load-bearing for any larger case Mike makes elsewhere (where, per the record, he is otherwise notably even-handed, e.g. "we don't know his side").
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "no true Scotsman". Mike asserts the universal "No man waits thirteen years." When Penelope offers the direct counterexample — a real man who did exactly that — Mike doesn't revise the claim but repeats it ("Like I said, no man...''), and when she insists "He's a man," he flatly denies it: "No. Not." Rather than treating the counterexample as evidence against his generalization, he redefines "man" to exclude it, the textbook move of excluding the counterexample by fiat instead of engaging it.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Mike Rashid has no fixed declared framework in this debate; he alternates between teasing incredulity (as here) and, later at 95:25 on this same anecdote, a more even-handed "we don't know his side" framing — this line is the earlier, less careful pass that the fallacy call correctly isolates. Mike Rashid asserts the universal "No man waits thirteen years"; when Penelope offers exactly the counterexample on the table ("He's a man"), Mike does not address why a thirteen-year wait undercuts the story, but instead denies the counterexample counts as a man ("No. Not."), preserving the universal by redefining the category rather than engaging the case. That is the textbook shape of no-true-Scotsman, and it is minor and in keeping with the show's bantering register rather than a load-bearing part of any larger thesis.
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.