Appeal: clarification
From Religion Debate: Islam vs Christianity.
- #11351:58:26overturned Daniel Haqiqatjou epainos: clarification (+1)
The council overturned the call, so no points were earned.
“Note that I'm not condemning the bible or the church for this reason. So this is not a two qua qua [tu quoque] fallacy as Jay is sure to say, but I'm just pointing out the lack of consistency…”
Diogenes: He states the logical form of his own argument — a consistency charge against the critic, not a defence by counter-accusation — which is exactly the distinction that separates a fair parity argument from tu quoque.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: This is consistent with S2's standing comparative method throughout the debate (citing Old Testament/Church parallels not to condemn but to challenge consistency), a technique he explicitly named here rather than departed from. This is not a question seeking a definition from the opponent (which "clarification" requires), but rather Daniel stating the logical form of his own argument to preempt a fallacy charge — an act of explicit argument (self-identifying the reasoning as an internal consistency critique rather than tu quoque), which fits better under that label.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. Daniel is naming and describing the tu quoque fallacy to clarify that his own move is a consistency critique rather than that fallacy — this is mention, not use, and per the rubric naming a fallacy to disclaim it scores nothing on either ledger. His underlying comparative argument was already credited elsewhere as an explicit concession-based point, so this meta-remark adds nothing further to score.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2's morality-round method has been a sustained "parity" argument (Islam vs. Bible/church on the same issues); here he states plainly the logical structure of that method—distinguishing a consistency/parity charge from tu quoque—which is a substantive point about his own reasoning rather than a request for the opponent's definition. This states a premise (he is not condemning the compared practice) and a conclusion (therefore this is a consistency argument, not tu quoque), which is better captured as an explicit argument about the structure of his own reasoning than as a request for clarification.
- Thesmothetes leave: All three judges agree the line is not a "clarification" (no definition or clarification was sought from an opponent), but they split on what it actually is: Aristotle and Plato read it as Daniel stating the premises of his own parity argument (explicit argument), while Socrates reads it as bare mention of the tu quoque label to disclaim it, scoring nothing. The commentary rubric says naming a fallacy scores on neither ledger "unless the speaker turns it into a move against the live question" — whether "I'm just pointing out the lack of consistency" clears that bar is exactly the judgment call on which the three disagree, and no single rule resolves it either way, 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.