Appeal: internal critique
From Ryad TRIGGERS Miami Girls After Saying THIS... 2026-10-19 22:20.
- #26181:19:46overturned a speaker not yet confirmed epainos: internal critique (+2)
The council overturned the call, so no points were earned.
“I think it's a red flag because it displays a girl has no discernment as to what actually constitutes a good guy or a bad guy…”
Diogenes: He builds on S23's own account that her mother "chose wrong" ("hasn't had the best pick in men, clearly"), and draws that a woman single because of bad choices lacks the discernment a partner needs, which is the red flag she had said it was not, spelling out the step with "if a girl can't choose correctly, then... she won't have good discernment in our relationship."major: It takes premises S23 stated herself and derives the conclusion she resisted, and it is the central argument on the poll question, though it covers only women single through bad choices.
- Aristotle overturn: On the record: S22 (the record's S1) opened by defending Islamic practice as obedience to God's command and has held since that men lead and women are subordinate and should listen; the called line applies that same view to the red-flag question and does not depart from it. Internal critique needs a premise the opponent holds and a conclusion derived from it that she rejects. S23 said her mother "hasn't had the best pick in men, clearly," but never that bad choice shows a lack of discernment. The step to "no discernment" is S22's own addition, so the link would have to be supplied for him. That is a toss-up at best, and a toss-up is overturned.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found "non sequitur". S22 has a stated premise (single over 30 means she chose badly) and draws a conclusion (no discernment, can't mate select). It does not follow, and S23 and others had just given counter-reasons (widowhood, abuse, a long relationship ending, being unready) which he sets aside as "just her side of the story". He supplies no missing premise. The link is stated, but it fails even if the premises are granted.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S22 (the voice of S1) opened by saying he fasts because God prescribed it, and has held that men lead and women submit; the called line extends that stance to why a single woman over 30 is a red flag, and does not depart from it. S23 said her mom was single after abuse and "hasn't had the best pick in men, clearly," and that trauma could be a red flag. S22 takes her premise that the mother chose wrong and derives that such a woman lacks discernment, which is a red flag. The derivation is stated, and S23 had said it was not a red flag, so the elements of internal critique are present. It is a bit uncharitable, but it is built from her own words.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: an element of the label is missing from the record. S23 said her mother "hasn't had the best pick in men, clearly" and that trauma could be a red flag. She never said that bad choice shows a lack of discernment. S22 added that step himself ("she can't mate select"), so the premise is his, not one S23 holds. Internal critique needs a premise the opponent holds, and that element is missing.
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.