Appeal: self-contradiction
From HEATED DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Jake Muslim Metaphysician | Trinity Vs Tawhid -Modern Day Debate.
- #10482:42:46upheld Jake the Muslim Metaphysician psogos: self-contradiction (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jake the Muslim Metaphysician gave away 1 point.
“… you can answer according to that and you can say, oh, but I don't use the word that way and and give another answer. So there's no problem with that whatsoever.”
Diogenes: In cross-examination he had refused exactly this — "I just gave you the definition of power… So according to my definition" — and pressed for a yes or no under his own sense until the moderator had to broker the two definitions, and Jay catches the reversal on the spot: "except that you tried to say that I have to accept that meaning."- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jake's opening declared a nominalist, intention-based theory of meaning, but in the power cross-examination he in practice policed a single definition of "power" on Jay and branded Jay's offer of a different sense as "equivocating" until the moderator had to broker letting each side use its own definition, which is the opposite of the "no problem whatsoever" rule he states here without acknowledging the earlier departure. The transcript at 87:50-88:30 shows Jake insisting Jay answer strictly to Jake's stipulated definition of "power" and treating Jay's alternative-sense answer as an evasive equivocation requiring moderator intervention, which directly contradicts the general principle he states unprompted at 162:xx that an interlocutor may simply say "I don't use the word that way" and answer differently with "no problem whatsoever"; he never flags or reconciles the earlier hard line with this later stated rule.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "self-contradiction". Answering an audience charge that he improperly forces his own definitions on Jay, Jake now says the opponent is free to reject his stipulated meaning and "give another answer... no problem whatsoever." But in the actual cross-examination on "power" (87:47-88:24), when Jay said "that's your definition, I don't care about your definition of power" and offered his own senses (potentiality, second actuality, hypostatic property), Jake did not treat that as a legitimate alternative answer: he repeated "I just gave you the definition of power," pressed "yes or no" within his own framing, and had Jay's differing account dismissed as illegitimate word-games rather than accepted as "another answer." The permissive method Jake describes here is not the one he practiced when it mattered.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jake has held since his opening a nominalist theory of predication that meaning is fixed by speaker intention; here he generalizes that principle to say an opponent may freely substitute his own definition with "no problem," which directly contradicts his own conduct at 87:50-88:04 where he refused Jay's attempt to answer under Jay's own senses of "power," calling it equivocation and demanding a yes/no under Jake's single stipulated definition. The verifier confirms both quotes verbatim, and the substance is a real reversal: Jake rejected exactly the move (opponent answering under his own definition) that he later declares unproblematic, and Jay caught it live ("you tried to say that I have to accept that meaning"), so this is an unacknowledged contradiction of an earlier stance rather than a restatement of 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.