Myron Gaines · Philosopher
24 callouts
- HEATED Debate w/ Feminists. Wage Gap, Pro Choice ft. @MikeRashidOfficial at 36:35tied, awaiting the moderator
The council is split: nothing counts until the moderator decides.
concession (+1)
“That's weird, bro. No. No. I wouldn't.”
Diogenes: Myron suspected women leave out context ("they don't tell you everything behind the scenes"), questioned Vanessa for the missing details, and when her answers did not support that suspicion he agreed the man's behaviour was weird.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Myron's declared stance in this sub-exchange was skeptical doubt of the woman's framing of the guy's behavior, pending discovery of unstated context; the quoted line is his concession, after that context failed to materialize, that the behavior was indeed weird — a real shift, not a restatement. Myron opened this exchange skeptical of Vanessa's account ("I always gotta peel back a layer, bro... girls can try to make dudes sound crazy... they don't tell you everything behind the scenes"), implying there was likely context that would make the guy's clinginess look reasonable. He then cross-examined her (did he take you somewhere nice? did he take you to a nice restaurant?) fishing for that mitigating context. When her answers gave him nothing to work with, he dropped the skeptical hypothesis and agreed with Fresh's assessment that the guy's behavior was weird. That is a real, if small, update in light of the facts elicited by his own questioning — a legitimate minor concession, not merely a restatement of a position he already held.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. This is a throwaway reaction in banter about Vanessa's dating story (the guy wanting to tag along to meet her mother) — Myron is simply agreeing that the behavior sounds weird and answering Fresh's rhetorical question ("could you do that?") honestly with "No, I wouldn't." It's not part of a contested argument, doesn't dodge anything, and isn't mockery substituting for a point; it's just an ordinary conversational beat with nothing on the rubric to flag.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Myron's running position was that women's stories about men leave out exculpatory context ("they don't tell you everything behind the scenes"); he pressed Vanessa with specific probing questions (times met, whether extravagant dates) meant to surface that missing context. When his own probing questions turned up no exculpatory detail (no nice date, no extravagance), Myron dropped his "peel back the layer" skepticism and agreed with Fresh's assessment that the guy's behavior was in fact weird — a real, if minor, concession that his suspicion of hidden context wasn't borne out in this instance.
- Thesmothetes leave: All three judges agree on the facts: Myron voiced skepticism ("gotta peel it back a layer... they don't tell you everything behind the scenes"), asked probing questions about the date, got nothing exculpatory, and then agreed the behavior was weird. The dispute is purely over whether that off-hand agreement with his co-host in casual banter rises to the level of a scoreable "concession," or is just conversational filler with no real dialectical stakes — a disagreement about fit to the label, not one any listed rule resolves. Left to the archon.
- HEATED Debate w/ Feminists. Wage Gap, Pro Choice ft. @MikeRashidOfficial at 45:51upheld
The council upheld the call: Myron Gaines earned 1 point.
clarification (+1)
“Can you define can you define like evolve traditional? Because that's a very ambiguous term.”
Diogenes: Rather than assume what Kimberly means by "evolved traditional", Myron asks her to define it before arguing about gender roles, and says why: the term is ambiguous.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Myron's consistent method across the debate is to demand concrete definitions/operationalizations from the women before arguing against their framing (e.g., "define dating," "define evolved traditional"), and this line is a straightforward continuation of that stance, not a departure. Myron's stance throughout has been to press interlocutors on vague self-descriptions and pin down concrete claims before arguing (e.g., his repeated "peel back a layer" method). Here, when Kimberly calls herself "evolved traditional," he explicitly flags the term as "very ambiguous" and asks her to define it rather than assuming a meaning, which she then does ("as far as a man is going to do certain things..."). This is a textbook clarification: asking for a definition instead of assuming, and the record shows it functioned as such since Kimberly proceeded to explain.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "clarification". Kimberly had just called herself "evolved traditional" without explaining what that meant; rather than assume, Myron asks her to define the ambiguous term before responding, and she then answers with a concrete example (give-and-take based on what the man provides). This is a straightforward request for definition before argument, which he then engages with in the following exchange.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Myron's running position throughout is that women give politically-correct or vague answers that don't match their actual behavior/preferences; here, rather than assuming Kimberly's meaning, he pauses to ask her to define her term, which is consistent with (and in service of) that broader probing style rather than a departure from it. Myron directly asks Kimberly to define an ambiguous term she introduced ("evolved traditional") before proceeding to argue about it, and states his reason for asking (ambiguity). This fits the clarification criterion cleanly: he does not assume her meaning but requests a definition first, and then builds his subsequent argument on her answer. This is a small, clean instance of the move.
- HEATED Debate w/ Feminists. Wage Gap, Pro Choice ft. @MikeRashidOfficial at 54:52upheld
The council upheld the call: Myron Gaines earned 1 point.
direct answer (+1)
“… there's a great deal of pressure on women to have a certain image and contrary to what society tells you about being sexually liberated, being open about your sexuality, whatever, you're always going to naturally repress it because women understand that their value comes from their chastity.”
Diogenes: Penelope asked why the women would lie to strangers. Myron answered with a mechanism, reputational pressure tied to how chastity is valued, instead of simply repeating that they lie. The claim can be disputed, but it answers the question put to him.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Myron's stated framework throughout the debate is that women's self-reports are shaped by social/biological pressure tied to chastity and value-signaling (a claim he reiterates from the "honeymoon stage" segment through the "wage gap" segment); the quoted line is a direct application of that standing thesis to the question just put, not a departure from it. Penelope's question was "why do we need to lie to these random people"; Myron answers with a causal mechanism (chastity-linked reputational pressure) rather than a bare repetition of the claim that women lie, so the question actually asked is directly addressed with a stated premise-conclusion structure.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found "hasty generalisation". Myron asserts as flat fact that "you're always going to naturally repress it because women understand that their value comes from their chastity" — a universal claim about all women's psychology, offered with no data, study, or even a specific case to generalize from, only right after the panel's answers to one super-chat question. It's the same pattern already noted at 48:50: a sweeping claim about "women" as a class stated as settled truth rather than argued or evidenced.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Myron's declared framework throughout is that he speaks in "facts" about how women's stated preferences diverge from their real behavior/incentives, particularly around sexuality and chastity signaling; this line is a continuation of that same framework, not a departure, and here it happens to land as a responsive answer to a live question. Penelope's question ("why do we need to lie to these random people... why can't we just keep this whole host?") directly challenged the premise that women were lying and asked for a reason. Myron's answer supplies a specific causal mechanism (social pressure tied to perceived value of chastity) rather than simply repeating "women lie" — that satisfies "direct answer" even though the underlying thesis (women misrepresent their sexuality) is one he has held all debate. Consistency with a standing position is not disqualifying for a direct-answer credit; what matters is whether the question put was actually addressed, and it was.
- Thesmothetes uphold: By the rule: the speaker is judged against his own declared framework. Myron's framework — that women's stated preferences diverge from an underlying reality shaped by chastity-linked social pressure — is declared as early as the "honeymoon stage" exchange and reasserted repeatedly (e.g., the white-dress remark) before this moment; judged against that standing framework, his reply to Penelope's "why do we need to lie" supplies the mechanism of that framework rather than a freshly invented, reasonless claim. Socrates' objection goes to whether the generalization is well-supported (a separate sophist-ledger question), not to whether the words engaged the question Penelope actually asked, so it does not defeat the direct-answer credit.
- HEATED Debate w/ Feminists. Wage Gap, Pro Choice ft. @MikeRashidOfficial at 1:02:27upheld
The council upheld the call: Myron Gaines earned 1 point.
concession (+1)
“We definitely do.”
Diogenes: When Penelope turned his charge of lying back on men ("Men lie to you"), Myron conceded it outright instead of deflecting, while keeping the distinction that men admit it.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Myron's declared framework throughout is not that men are honest, but that women specifically misrepresent their arousal/desires while men's dishonesty is at least undenied; "We definitely do" agrees with an uncontested claim, not one he had been arguing against, and he immediately folds it back into his standing asymmetry argument ("not denying it"). A concession requires a point on which the speaker had taken a contrary position being shown wrong; Myron never claimed men are truthful, so agreeing "we definitely do" lie costs him nothing and is immediately absorbed into his unchanged thesis rather than conceded under pressure.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "concession". When Penelope says "Men lie to you," Myron doesn't dodge or special-plead; he immediately grants it — "Yep... We definitely do" — an honest, unforced admission that men lie too, even though it complicates the credibility attack he was just making on the women's denials.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Myron's declared position since the opening is that he speaks in "facts" while women speak in feelings/deception; conceding "we definitely do" lie is a departure from the implicit self-flattering half of that framing, even though he pivots immediately to a distinction that keeps his broader thesis (women deny, men don't) intact. Myron's framework throughout casts men as the fact-based, blunt truth-tellers against women's dishonest, feelings-driven answers; when Penelope throws "Men lie to you" back at him, "We definitely do" is a genuine, unprompted admission that cuts against the cleaner version of that framing, rather than a denial or deflection. He immediately follows with a distinguishing qualifier ("not denying it") to preserve his larger thesis, but the initial admission itself is a real concession, not a restatement of a position he already held — this is the first point in the debate he concedes men lie at all.
- HEATED Debate w/ Feminists. Wage Gap, Pro Choice ft. @MikeRashidOfficial at 1:25:13upheld
The council upheld the call: Myron Gaines earned 1 point.
fallacy spotted (+1)
“At the top of the show, you did say he waited thirteen years for you.”
Diogenes: Myron correctly points out Penelope's unacknowledged reversal; the transcript at 10:48 does say "I've made a guy wait thirteen years", and she concedes it ("Okay. I guess.").- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Myron's declared method throughout is to press for exact accountability against what a speaker literally said, testing self-reports against the record; here he holds Penelope to her own words rather than departing from that pattern. The quote is accurate: at 10:48 Penelope said "I've made a guy wait thirteen years and he waited," and by 82:15 she was denying "I didn't make him wait." Myron's line at 85:13 correctly holds her to her own earlier words, and she concedes it ("Okay. I guess."). This is a well-founded catch grounded in the transcript, not a misrepresentation.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "evidence", on the same ledger as the callout. Myron's claim checks out against the transcript: earlier Penelope did say "I've made a guy wait thirteen years and he waited" and "he waited and then he wanted to marry me" (10:48-11:01), and here she is retreating to "I didn't make him wait, he just chose to continue to be my friend." Myron accurately quotes her own earlier words back at her to substantiate the charge that she is walking back her claim — this is a checkable citation used to pin down a real inconsistency, not a misrepresentation.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Myron's declared framework throughout is that he argues from the transcript's own record against women's shifting or "politically correct" self-presentation, and this line — checking Penelope's current claim against her own opening statement — is squarely inside that consistent line of attack, not a departure from it. The quote is accurate: at 10:48 Penelope said "I made him wait thirteen years" and repeated the framing several times (17:20, 17:25), then at 82:15 she reversed to "Didn't make him wait." Myron's line at 85:13 correctly cites the earlier record against her present claim, and she concedes ("Okay. I guess."). This is a legitimate, checkable catch of an unacknowledged reversal. The only quibble is the label: "self-contradiction" is its own listed category and not part of the enumerated "named fallacy" list that "fallacy spotted" is built around, so "explicit argument" (or simply crediting the self-contradiction catch) fits more precisely than "fallacy spotted" — but the substance is sound and philosopher-worthy either way.
- HEATED Debate w/ Feminists. Wage Gap, Pro Choice ft. @MikeRashidOfficial at 1:33:20overturned
The council overturned the call, so no points were earned.
antistrephon (+3.6)
“Because the whole purpose of platonic friends means you're not sexual so your whole argument is defeated.”
Diogenes: Penelope offered her thirteen-year friend as proof that men and women can be platonic friends. Myron turns the example against her: the relationship ended in sex. Fresh follows up with "What did he want all along?", and she concedes "Initially, when we met, he hit on me. Then I friend zoned him." Her own case now serves the hosts' thesis that a man in the friend zone wants sex.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Penelope's declared and consistently held thesis since her first extended turn is that genuine, non-sexual, value-based friendships between men and women exist (the thirteen-year story, then the later "I do have platonic male friends... they never would actually [smash me]" exchange with Zendaya/Kimberly); at 93:20 she disputes the "defeated" characterization immediately ("No. But we platonic") and goes on defending the friendship's genuineness for several more exchanges. A decisive antistrephon requires the opponent's own case to end up serving the other side going forward, but Penelope never concedes the point — she contests it on the spot and, well after this exchange, reasserts the identical thesis (genuine platonic male friendships) without treating it as refuted. A momentary reframing that the opponent disputes and the record shows her later un-retracted restating is a contested exchange, not a landed blow.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found "non sequitur". Myron's premises are fine as far as they go (platonic means non-sexual; Penelope's own account has this friend eventually become sexual once he asked for "a serious chance"), but the conclusion he draws — "your whole argument is defeated" — doesn't follow from them. Penelope's claim was that men and women can maintain genuine platonic friendship, evidenced by roughly thirteen years of non-sexual friendship before the one attempt at romance; one late instance of sex within that history, even granting it fully, would at most complicate this single example, not defeat her broader thesis that she has "real male friends," plural, which Myron never addresses.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Myron's running framework is to argue from the transcript's own record — catching shifts, omissions, and contradictions in what the women say rather than asserting mere opinion — and this line continues that pattern directly against Penelope's own supporting example (the thirteen-year "platonic" friend) rather than a new or off-topic claim. Penelope offered the thirteen-year friendship as her proof-case that men and women can be platonic; Myron's line seizes on the fact that sex eventually occurred to declare her own supporting example self-defeating, and Fresh's immediate follow-up extracts her admission that the man "hit on me" from the start and was only afterward "friend zoned" — turning her chosen evidence into confirmation of the hosts' thesis, the mark of antistrephon.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: straw man by example or weakest form. Penelope's standing thesis, restated across the debate, is the general claim that genuine non-sexual friendships between men and women exist ("I have platonic male friends," "they're still not trying to smash me, they are not"); the thirteen-year story was one illustrative example of it. Myron's line answers only that example — noting sex eventually occurred — and declares "your whole argument is defeated," which is answering the weakest instance while the general point goes untouched: Penelope disputes it immediately ("No. But we platonic") and, crucially, later reasserts the identical general thesis unretracted in the Zendaya/Kimberly exchange, showing the broader claim was never conceded or brought to a dead end. That is the straw-man-by-example fault, not a landed antistrephon, since no concession, aporia, or withdrawal ever occurs on the record.
- HEATED Debate w/ Feminists. Wage Gap, Pro Choice ft. @MikeRashidOfficial at 1:42:22tied, awaiting the moderator
The council is split: nothing counts until the moderator decides.
antistrephon (+3.6)
“Your statement literally proves what we're saying.”
Diogenes: Kimberly objected to Myron's "average men are invisible / women want preselected men" thesis. In doing so she said "Somebody was never paying no attention to that dude until he comes with a certain female in his arm", which describes the very preselection effect the hosts had asserted. Myron takes her own example and turns it to his side.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Myron's declared thesis since 87:02 has been that women exhibit mate-choice "preselection" behavior (attraction driven by seeing a man already with women); Kimberly's own illustration here (an unattractive man suddenly drawing attention once seen with a woman on social media) independently describes that same mechanism, and Myron seizes on it to serve his side. Kimberly's complaint was meant to illustrate a grievance, but the content of her own example ("nobody could look at this dude for a whole month... then he'll pop up... with somebody and then all women are attracted to him") is itself a concrete instance of the preselection dynamic Myron had argued for earlier in the debate; he explicitly redeploys her own testimony to support his thesis, which is the retorsion antistrephon names.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found "hasty generalisation". Myron treats a single personal anecdote from Kimberly — her own feeling of being slighted when a guy she gave a chance to talked to other women — as though it "literally proves" his general thesis about how women view average men and mate value across the board; one data point is elevated to decisive proof of a sweeping claim, the same move seen repeatedly elsewhere in the debate.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Myron's declared framework throughout has been to catch the women's own words/examples confirming his thesis rather than merely asserting opinion, and this move is squarely within that established pattern, consistent with the similarly-labeled antistrephon already upheld at 93:20. Kimberly's own example — "nobody could look at this dude for a whole month, and then he'll pop up on social media with somebody and then... all women are attracted to him" — describes exactly the preselection mechanism the hosts had been asserting all debate; Myron's "your statement literally proves what we're saying" takes her own illustration and turns it to serve his thesis, and she does not rebut the point directly but pivots to a different grievance ("but then you disrespect me"), confirming the move landed as a genuine retorsion.
- Thesmothetes leave: Kimberly's own illustration (a man ignored for a month who suddenly draws attention once paired with a woman) does independently describe the preselection mechanism Myron had argued for earlier at ~87:33, and Myron does supply his own (if thin) link between her words and his thesis rather than having it supplied for him — so "do not complete the argument for a speaker" does not void the move. But whether that link is a genuine antistrephon or, as the dissent holds, an overreach that elevates one anecdote (and a partly mismatched gloss on it) into proof of a sweeping claim is a judgment call about the strength and fit of the move, not a question any listed rule resolves. This is a real disagreement of judgment that no rule settles, so it is left to the archon.
- HEATED Debate w/ Feminists. Wage Gap, Pro Choice ft. @MikeRashidOfficial at 1:47:02upheld
The council upheld the call: Myron Gaines earned 1 point.
evidence (+1)
“I'll tell you the couple studies. So this what they've done. They looked at Tinder studies. The women find 88% plus of the men is unattractive,…”
Diogenes: After being pressed twice, Myron finally points to a type of source that can be checked (Tinder attractiveness-rating data) and says what it measured. He does not give a specific citation, and the data is about dating-app ratings rather than who is sleeping with whom.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Myron's declared method throughout is to present claims as "fact-based" studies-backed rather than opinion; when pressed twice by Isla for his sources (105:33, 106:36), this line marks a real (if imperfect) departure from his usual bare assertion toward naming an actual checkable category of data. Unlike his bare "biologically proven" assertions elsewhere, here Myron names an actual checkable genre of research (Tinder attractiveness-rating data) in direct response to being pressed for sources, which distinguishes claim from evidence even though the citation is unspecific and the data measures attractiveness ratings rather than sexual-partner counts — a real but limited step toward evidence, fitting the minor severity given.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "evidence". Pressed directly by Isla's "where are these studies coming from?", Myron for once goes beyond a bare gesture at "studies" or "biology" and names an actual source type (Tinder attractiveness-rating data) with a specific checkable figure (88%+ of men rated below-average), distinguishing this from his earlier unsourced "studies show" assertions.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Myron's declared framework throughout is to claim he argues from checkable facts rather than feelings; this moment, coming only after repeated pressing for sourcing, is a genuine (if imperfect) instance of him actually naming something checkable rather than a mere restatement of his usual vague appeals, so it is not a departure but an improved application of his own stated framework. Pressed twice by Isla for a source, Myron here names a specific source-type (Tinder attractiveness-rating data) and a specific figure (88%), which is a meaningfully more concrete and checkable claim than his earlier bare "there are studies" invocations that were scored as appeal to authority — the Tinder/OkCupid finding that a large majority of men are rated below-average by women on dating apps is in fact a real, documented phenomenon, distinguishable from his unsupported sex-partner-distribution claim at 87:46.
- HEATED Debate w/ Feminists. Wage Gap, Pro Choice ft. @MikeRashidOfficial at 1:47:40upheld
The council upheld the call: Myron Gaines earned 1 point.
explicit argument (+1)
“A girl that lived in the middle of nowhere in Iowa, right, that was attractive was used... She used to only be limited to her own geographic area for partners. But now, with Instagram…”
Diogenes: Penelope asked why fewer young men report having sex ("Why do you think that is?"). Myron gives a causal mechanism: social media has removed geographic limits on who women can date, so their attention concentrates on high-status men. He then connects this to Kimberly's own Instagram example. The premises and conclusion are laid out and can be tested, whatever one thinks of them.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Myron's declared method throughout is to present his claims as fact-based; here that method is realized properly, with an actual causal argument rather than a bare assertion, so the line is consistent with (and a genuine instance of) his stated approach rather than a departure from it. In direct response to Penelope's question "why do you think that is," Myron lays out a mechanism with clear premises (social media, especially Instagram, removes the geographic limits that once confined a woman's dating pool to her local area) leading to a conclusion (women now redirect toward the highest-status men available anywhere, concentrating female sexual/dating attention on fewer men and explaining declining rates for average men) — and he ties it concretely to Kimberly's own Instagram/entourage story as a supporting instance. This is premises and a conclusion stated plainly and testably, which is what the label requires, independent of whether the underlying claim is correct.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". Myron lays out a premise-to-conclusion mechanism rather than a bare assertion: previously a woman's dating pool was geographically limited (premise), social media (Instagram) now lets her be reached by higher-status men from anywhere (premise), so she will choose the outside multi-millionaire over the local average guy, concentrating sexual access among fewer men (conclusion). It is an illustrative hypothetical used to explain a proposed causal mechanism, not a claim that this one example proves a universal fact by itself.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Myron's declared framework throughout is to argue from stated facts/mechanisms rather than mere assertion; this line is a genuine instance of that framework done well — a direct answer to a direct question with a stated mechanism — consistent with, not a departure from, his running style. In direct response to Penelope's question "why do you think that is," Myron lays out a plain causal chain — social media removed the geographic limits that once bounded women's dating pool, concentrating attention on a smaller pool of high-status men — and ties it to Kimberly's own earlier Instagram anecdote. Premises and conclusion are stated plainly and the mechanism is checkable in principle, which is what the label requires regardless of whether one credits the theory.
- HEATED Debate w/ Feminists. Wage Gap, Pro Choice ft. @MikeRashidOfficial at 1:59:44upheld
The council upheld the call: Myron Gaines earned 1 point.
evidence (+1)
“Who is the victim of most violent crime in The United States? Men. Men, overwhelmingly.”
Diogenes: Isla offered feeling unsafe in public as a privilege men have and women lack. Myron answers with a specific claim that can be checked against crime-victimisation statistics, and he separates perceived risk from measured risk. His "every single time" overstates it, but the core claim is evidence rather than bare assertion.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Myron has held since the opening that his claims about sex/gender dynamics are fact- and study-backed rather than opinion, but has repeatedly asserted unsourced or overstated statistics throughout (parallel instances already ruled "false claim"); this line follows that same pattern rather than departing from it. Myron's opening and consistently held method is to present sweeping generalizations as "fact-based," "balance of probability" claims, frequently unsourced or oversold when checked (already correctly labeled "false claim" for parallel unsourced stats at 55:36, 87:46, 107:05, 107:17). Here he offers a bare, uncited assertion ("Men, overwhelmingly") without naming any study, and the verifier finds that broad violent-crime victimization data does not bear out the "most violent crime... overwhelmingly" framing (rates are now near-parity, and women dominate the rape/sexual-assault category); only homicide specifically supports a male majority, which is a narrower claim than the one made. Since the claim as stated is not borne out by the record, this is not "evidence" (no checkable source was even cited) but a continuation of his pattern of overstated, unsupported generalization — "false claim" fits better than "evidence," and "appeal to authority" does not fit since no authority or study is named in this specific line.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "direct answer", on the same ledger as the callout. Isla had just claimed a male privilege of physical safety ("I walk down the street, I feel like I'm gonna get killed," unlike men in a gym). Rather than dismissing or deflecting, Myron meets that specific point head-on with a concrete, checkable counter-statistic — that men are in fact the more frequent victims of violent crime — which, unlike his earlier bare gestures at "studies show" or "biologically proven," names a well-known, verifiable category of public data (BJS/NCVS victimization statistics) directly on point to the claim being contested.
- Plato overturn: On the record: Myron's framework since the opening is that he argues from "facts" and "studies" rather than feelings, but the record shows this cashes out two different ways: sometimes he actually names a source (Tinder studies, at 107:02, upheld as evidence), and far more often he simply asserts a sweeping claim as settled fact with no citation at all (32:29, 35:17, 55:36, 87:46, 107:05, 107:17, all upheld as false claim/hasty generalisation on this bench). The line at 119:44 falls in the second category. "Evidence" requires citing something checkable, not merely making a claim that a third party could later check. Here Myron names no study, survey, or source in the line itself — he just asserts "Men. Men, overwhelmingly," exactly the bare-assertion pattern this bench has repeatedly labeled false claim/hasty generalisation elsewhere in this debate. The verifier's check confirms the substance is unsupported as stated (true only for homicide, not "most violent crime" broadly), which under the rubric's own instruction ("unsupported... the evidence call is overturned") forecloses crediting it as evidence.
- Thesmothetes uphold: By the rule: bare assertion: nothing offered for the claim. Isla claimed a male privilege of physical safety; Myron met it with a specific, checkable category — "victim of violent crime" — which is more than the vague "studies show" gestures elsewhere in this debate. The dissenting judges overturn by running their own outside check on current victimisation-by-crime-type statistics and finding the claim overstated or wrong as stated, but the bare-assertion rule is explicit that "the test is not whether the claim is false but whether anything was offered for it"; something checkable was offered here, on point to the claim being contested, so it is not a bare assertion regardless of whether an outside verifier judges it accurate.