Appeal: antistrephon
From Jay Dyer vs Yaron Brook Debate TAG, Science, and the Future of Civilization.
- #129829:13upheld Jay Dyer against Yaron Brook agonisma: antistrephon (+3)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 3.6 points.
“… if you bring if you bring self evidence to a debate, I can bring self evidence to debate and just say, god is the self evident axiom.”
Diogenes: Jay takes Yaron's own licence to assert unquestionable self-evident axioms and turns it to his own side; Yaron's reply, "that's silly", asserts an asymmetry he does not argue for.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Yaron has held since the opening that reason/observation grounds unquestionable self-evident axioms (existence, consciousness) while dismissing theistic grounding as emotionalism; here, when pressed on why his axioms are immune to challenge, he doubles down that they "cannot be questioned," and Jay explicitly takes that same self-evidence license and applies it to God, which Yaron answers only with "that's silly" rather than a principled asymmetry. Jay takes over Yaron's own justificatory method (bare assertion of self-evidence as beyond challenge) and turns it to serve his side by asserting God as an equally self-evident axiom; Yaron's only reply is a bare "that's silly" with no argued disanalogy, which is the retorsion the label names.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument", on the same ledger as the callout. Jay draws out a reductio: if bare assertion of self-evidence is itself sufficient warrant for an axiom, that same move is available to anyone for any claim, including "God is the self-evident axiom," which shows that self-evidence alone does not discriminate between competing starting points. This is consistent with the epistemic-justification challenge he has pressed throughout the debate, not a deflection from a charge against himself (which would make it tu quoque).
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay has held since the opening that any worldview's foundational commitments (including Yaron's "self-evident" axioms) require justification he says Yaron cannot supply while refusing the same courtesy to God; here he does not depart from that but sharpens it into a direct parity move against Yaron's own licensing rule. Jay explicitly takes Yaron's own licensing move — that an axiom is validated by being unquestionable/self-evident — and turns it on Yaron's own conclusion by positing God as an equally self-evident axiom; this is a clean antistrephon (the opponent's own method redeployed for the opposite conclusion). Yaron's only reply in the moment is the bare assertion "that's silly... a negation of all human experience and history," which offers no argued asymmetry, so the retorsion lands as delivered, even though Yaron later (54:57) attempts a more substantive distinction (that denying his axioms is self-refuting while denying God is not) — a separate, later exchange that doesn't erase this landed blow.
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.