Appeal: explicit argument
From Debate! Pagan vs. Orthodox: Logos, Language & Metaphysics - Jay Dyer Vs CB Robertson.
- #10712:11:09tied, awaiting the moderator Jay Dyer epainos: explicit argument (+1)
The council is split: nothing counts until the moderator decides.
“… we just we see formal reasoning, formal debate logic as that that's not the same thing as being adversary. It's it's just the laws and rules of that domain.”
Diogenes: CB's parting characterisation runs together adversarial posture and formal logic; Jay splits the two terms and answers that only the second was ever in play, which dissolves the complaint rather than trading on it.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S0 has framed his approach throughout as rigorous formal debate distinguishing valid/sound argument from rhetoric; here he directly distinguishes "formal reasoning/logic" from "being adversarial," giving a reason (it's just the domain's rules) for that distinction. The line states a claim (formal debate logic is not adversarial posture) with a supporting reason (it is merely the rules of the domain), meeting the minimal bar for an explicit argument, even though it could equally be read as a distinguo splitting CB's equivocal use of "adversarial."
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. This is meta-commentary about the nature and rules of formal debate itself, distinguishing rule-governed argumentation from personal adversariality, not a move on the live philosophical questions of the debate, so it does not belong on either ledger.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S0 declared at the opening that his approach is rigorous, rule-governed debate and has maintained throughout that formal logical rules, not personal animus, govern his critique; this line is consistent with and restates that standing self-characterization in response to CB's closing remark. CB's parting remark equated the "adversarial method" with formal debate logic; Jay's response separates the two, asserting that only the formal rules — not a personal adversarial posture — were ever in play. This is a brief but genuine distinction offered as a rebuttal to the specific characterization CB just made, consistent with Jay's repeated practice throughout of drawing distinctions (e.g., the word-concept fallacy) to answer equivocations.
- Thesmothetes leave: The three judges disagree not about what was said but about how to characterize it: whether Jay's one-line distinction between "formal reasoning" and "being adversarial" rises to a genuine explicit argument worth crediting, or is mere throwaway meta-commentary on the debate's method that settles nothing about the live questions (moral intuitions, logos, language). No listed rule cleanly resolves that judgment call — it is not a named fallacy, not a bare assertion in the technical sense (a thin reason is given), and not decided by "do not complete the argument for the speaker" since no missing premise is being supplied for him. This is a real disagreement of degree that the rules do not settle, so it is left to the archon.
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.