Appeal: fallacy spotted
From Jay Dyer vs Yaron Brook Debate TAG, Science, and the Future of Civilization.
- #131315:45upheld Jay Dyer epainos: fallacy spotted (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1 point.
“Those are states statements again of things that are. So they're not justifications for the ought.”
Diogenes: Read blind, without being shown any call on this passage. Yaron had just offered descriptive claims ("plants pursue life," "humans strive to live") as the ground for his ought-claims about morality; Jay correctly identifies that these remain bare is-statements and do not by themselves supply the bridging justification for an ought, pressing the is-ought gap (non sequitur) that Yaron never actually closes in this exchange or later. This is a legitimate philosophical objection tied to what Yaron literally said, not a substitution for engaging the point.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay declared in his opening that reason/science cannot bridge the is-ought gap (citing Hume) and has held this as his core objection to Yaron's ethics throughout; this line is a direct, consistent application of that standing critique to Yaron's specific answers, not a departure. Jay's opening explicitly raised Hume's is-ought gap as his central critique of Yaron's ethical foundationalism; this quote is that same standing objection applied directly to Yaron's actual words ("plants pursue life," humans face life-or-death, etc.), correctly noting these remain descriptive is-statements that do not supply the bridging justification to an ought. The fallacy (non sequitur / unclosed is-ought gap) is genuinely present in what Yaron said in that exchange, not manufactured or substituted for engagement — Jay is engaging directly and repeatedly asking for the missing justification.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument", on the same ledger as the callout. Jay correctly applies the is-ought distinction: he notes that Yaron's claims (plants pursue water, humans strive to live) are descriptive statements of what is the case, and states plainly that a descriptive claim cannot by itself constitute a normative justification. This is a clean, on-topic philosophical point pressing Yaron to show the derivation rather than merely restate it, and Yaron never actually supplies a non-circular bridge in the ensuing exchange, so the challenge stands as a substantive, correctly-reasoned move.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay declared at the opening that reason/science proponents cannot bridge the is-ought gap (citing Hume), and has held this line throughout; this call is a direct, on-topic application of that standing objection to Yaron's immediately preceding descriptive claims, not a departure from it. Jay's opening framework included Hume's is-ought critique as a specific, recurring objection to Yaron's grounding of ethics. Here he applies it directly to Yaron's just-spoken words ("plants pursue life," "humans strive to live") by correctly noting these are descriptive claims and do not themselves supply the ought. This is a legitimate, minor instance of naming a non sequitur in what the opponent actually said, not a restatement made in place of engaging Yaron's narrower point — it directly engages the very claim Yaron just offered.
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.