Appeal: ad hominem
From Ryad TRIGGERS Miami Girls After Saying THIS... 2026-10-19 22:20.
- #26221:42upheld a speaker not yet confirmed psogos: ad hominem (+1) tempered from major to minor
The council upheld the call: a speaker not yet confirmed gave away 1 point.
“Okay. Well, that's why we don't ask women what they think because…”
Diogenes: She said she disagrees with polygyny, and he dismisses her view because she is a woman instead of answering why four wives is good.minor: The disagreement is shut down on the speaker's sex alone, and he never gives an answer to the point, which is clear and affects the exchange.
Herodotus (unknown): The site has no earlier records of S1, and the transcript doesn't name him or the woman (S0), so I had nothing to search on. This looks like a one-off group conversation, with no sign of a prior exchange between the two. Within the transcript itself, the callout holds up. S0 said she disagrees with polygyny. S1 answered "that's why we don't ask women what they think" and then said "that's why they're the second..." That dismisses her view because of her sex and doesn't answer why four wives is good. He repeats the move later: "I'm the man and you guys are the girls." Two things might temper the severity. He had earlier invited her to say what she thought. He also works from a stated framework of divine command, and he is being heckled by the group. Neither of these answers her disagreement. The bench graded it minor (Aristotle, Plato); the referee had major.
- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S1 opened by defending Islamic practice as obedience to God's command (fasting, up to four wives, male headship) and has held that men lead and women are subordinate; the called line applies that headship view to dismiss her disagreement, which fits his position but gives no answer on polygyny. She said she disagrees with polygyny. He replied that "that's why we don't ask women what they think", which turns to her sex in place of any reason why four wives is good. The goodness of polygyny does not rest on the sex of the person judging it, and the remark ends the exchange on the point. His divine-command framework would have let him answer, as he did on fasting, but here he did not. He had also just invited her to speak, and the line is brief and half-finished, so the severity should be lower.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "non sequitur", on the same ledger as the callout. S0 says only that she disagrees with polygyny ("what I don't agree about your culture"). S1 takes this disagreement as the reason women should not be asked their opinion. He gives no premise linking disagreement to that conclusion, and the sentence breaks off before any reason appears. A dissent is not shown to be a fault, so the conclusion does not follow. He had asked her to "say what you think" a moment earlier, so this is a jab and not an argument.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S1 opened by saying he fasts because God prescribed it, and has held since that men lead and women are subordinate; the called line, "that's why we don't ask women what they think", departs from no part of that, and it dismisses her disagreement because she is a woman. S0 said she disagrees with polygyny. S1 had not yet given any reason for it beyond divine command, and his reply makes her sex the reason to disregard her view. Her sex is irrelevant to whether polygyny is good, and the remark ends the exchange on the point. All the elements are present. His earlier invitation ("say what you think") does not answer her. The 'major' severity is a stretch, since the remark is brief and he is being heckled, so I suggest 'minor'.
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.