Appeal: framework objection
From Debate MELTDOWN: Worst Opponent Yet: Austin Peterson Libertarian Debate Vs Jay Dyer.
- #10551:08:36upheld Jim Bob epainos: framework objection (+2)
The council upheld the call: Jim Bob earned 2 points.
“… if rights are are just privileges absent duty, you still have to ground the duty part. And that's why Jay's asking about the ethics because the ought claim that we ought to acknowledge rights is separate from the rights itself.”
Diogenes: He names the presupposition he denies, that rights-talk can do normative work on its own, and says which question must be settled first, the grounding of duty, rather than merely refusing Austin's terms.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jim Bob has held since ~61:33 that libertarian rights-talk cannot ground the normative "ought" to acknowledge or defend rights, and here he names that presupposition explicitly (rights-talk presupposed to do normative work alone) and states what must be settled first (grounding the duty), consistent with his standing line rather than a new position. The quote does name the presupposition denied (that "ought to acknowledge rights" follows automatically from rights themselves) and states the prior question that must be settled (grounding the duty), satisfying the definition's elements, even though it overlaps with the explicit-argument credit already given for the surrounding passage.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument", on the same ledger as the callout. Jim Bob states the premise plainly (a right, defined as an entitlement absent a duty, still requires some separate ground for the duty to acknowledge it) and draws the conclusion that the "ought" is not contained in the right itself, correctly tying this back to Jay's earlier, distinct line about the basis of Austin's ethics rather than misattributing it. It is a continuation of the same premise-to-conclusion reasoning he has been building since defining "right" moments earlier, not a new fault or a repeated rhetorical jab.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jim Bob has held throughout this exchange that libertarian rights-talk presupposes an unsettled question, the ground of duty, and this line names that presupposition explicitly and states what must be settled first (the duty), consistent with his position rather than a new dodge dressed up as objection. The quote names the presupposition denied (that entitlement-talk alone carries normative force) and identifies what must be settled first (the ground of the duty/ought), matching the definition of a framework objection and continuing the same line Jim Bob opened with rather than shifting goalposts.
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.