Appeal: explicit argument
From Jay Dyer vs Yaron Brook Debate TAG, Science, and the Future of Civilization.
- #139554:57upheld Yaron Brook epainos: explicit argument (+1)
The council upheld the call: Yaron Brook earned 1 point.
“… you're refuting them by trying to deny them. With god, that doesn't work that way. I can easily deny god.”
Diogenes: Read blind, without being shown any call on this passage. Yaron here gives an actual criterion (the Objectivist retortion test) rather than a bare assertion: existence and consciousness qualify as axioms because any attempt to deny them must presuppose and use them, which is not true of denying God, since one can assert "God does not exist" without any such performative self-refutation. This directly engages Jay's challenge that positing God as self-evident is symmetrical to positing existence/consciousness as self-evident, by offering a distinguishing test rather than simply repeating the assertion.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Yaron opened by declaring existence and consciousness as axiomatic and reason as the sole faculty of knowledge; throughout the cross-examination he was pressed to justify this axiomatic status against the symmetrical claim that God could equally be asserted as self-evident, and here he gives a distinguishing test rather than simply repeating the assertion. The quoted line, read in context, supplies a genuine retortion-style argument: denying existence/consciousness is self-refuting because the denial itself presupposes them, whereas denying God's existence involves no such performative contradiction. This is a real premises-to-conclusion structure addressing Jay's specific challenge that the two axioms are symmetric, not a bare repetition of self-evidence as occurred elsewhere in the debate.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". Brook gives a reasoned criterion for why his axioms differ from Dyer's parallel claim that 'God' could likewise be posited as self-evident: existence/consciousness cannot be denied without performatively using them (you must be conscious to deny consciousness), whereas one can deny God's existence without any such self-refuting act. This directly answers Dyer's earlier symmetry challenge ('I can bring self-evidence to a debate and just say God is self-evident') with a stated premise-conclusion distinction rather than a bare reassertion.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S0 declared at the opening that existence and consciousness are axiomatic and self-evident, and has held this position throughout against Jay's repeated charge of symmetry with theistic axioms; this line is a direct argumentative elaboration of that standing position, not a departure from it. Yaron's opening and throughout held that existence and consciousness are self-evident axioms because they are presupposed in any act of cognition, including their own denial (the classic Objectivist retortion move); Jay's persistent challenge was that this is symmetrical to positing God as a self-evident axiom. This line directly answers that challenge with a distinguishing criterion: denying existence/consciousness is self-refuting (you must exist and be conscious to deny it) whereas denying God is not self-refuting in the same performative way. That is a premise-conclusion move addressing the point on the table, not a bare repetition of "it's self-evident."
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.