Appeal: clarification
From Debate MELTDOWN: Worst Opponent Yet: Austin Peterson Libertarian Debate Vs Jay Dyer.
- #10531:01:52upheld Jim Bob epainos: clarification (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jim Bob earned 1 point.
“… would you agree with the definition that a right is an entitlement absent a duty?”
Diogenes: Before pressing his objection Jim Bob fixes the definition of the key term and secures Austin's agreement to it rather than assuming it.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jim Bob has since the opening pressed a metaphysical/foundational objection to libertarianism (rights need grounding in duty, and duty needs a transcendent source); here he pauses to fix the definition of "right" and gets Austin's explicit agreement before building his argument on it, which is consistent with, not a departure from, his standing line of inquiry. This is a textbook clarification: instead of assuming what "right" means, Jim Bob proposes a definition and secures Austin's agreement ("Yes, that's pretty close to the technical definition") before proceeding to press his duty-based objection, which is fair dialectical practice.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "clarification". Before building his argument that libertarian "rights" lack any grounded duty, Jim Bob first pins down a shared definition ("an entitlement absent a duty") and gets Austin's explicit assent ("Yes, that's pretty close to the technical definition") rather than assuming what Austin means by "rights." This is the sound move of fixing terms before running the syllogism that follows (rights need a duty; libertarianism can't ground the duty), and Austin's agreement shows it wasn't a loaded or question-begging stipulation but one the interlocutor accepted as fair.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jim Bob has consistently pressed Austin on the grounding of rights and duties throughout the exchange; here he explicitly proposes and secures agreement on a definition ("entitlement absent a duty") before building his argument on it, which is squarely a clarification move rather than an assumed premise. This is a textbook clarification: Jim Bob offers a specific definition of the contested term "right" and gets Austin's explicit agreement ("Yes. That's that's a pretty close to the technical definition...") before proceeding to press his duty-grounding argument on that agreed basis.
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.