Appeal: explicit argument
From Debate! Pagan vs. Orthodox: Logos, Language & Metaphysics - Jay Dyer Vs CB Robertson.
- #10681:56:52upheld Jay Dyer epainos: explicit argument (+2)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 2 points.
“Nor can you in a debate just do whatever you want. Therefore, debate assumes objective and their hands [inherent] immaterial logical laws, principles, concepts, etcetera.”
Diogenes: Premises (the chess analogy, that a debate won by insults alone would not be a debate) and the conclusion drawn from them are stated in order and flagged as such with "therefore."- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S0's declared method from the opening was presuppositionalism/TAG, arguing that intelligibility (including debate itself) presupposes objective, immaterial principles; this line is the direct, explicit statement of that transcendental argument via analogy (chess, the ad hominem example) to conclusion. The passage lays out premises (debate/chess have rules that cannot be arbitrarily violated) and draws an explicit "therefore" conclusion (objective immaterial logical laws are presupposed), which is precisely the transcendental argument central to S0's case throughout the debate.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". S0 lays out a plain premise-conclusion argument: just as chess is governed by fixed rules that forbid arbitrary moves, debate likewise cannot proceed by arbitrary moves, therefore debate presupposes objective, immaterial logical laws — this is the compact statement of the transcendental argument he has been running throughout the exchange, not a bare assertion.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S0 has held since the opening that Orthodox metaphysics is the precondition of intelligibility via a transcendental argument; this passage is the culminating explicit statement of that very argument, not a departure from it. Jay built this passage with explicit premises (a debate cannot be won by insults alone; chess cannot be played by moving pieces arbitrarily) and drew an explicit "therefore" conclusion (debate presupposes objective immaterial logical laws) — a plainly structured premise-conclusion argument central to his transcendental case.
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.