Appeal: explicit argument
From Jay Dyer vs Styx Debate Abortion – Pro-Life vs Government Overreach.
- #142919:24upheld Jay Dyer epainos: explicit argument (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1 point.
“… there's all kinds of things that people are going to do outside the law. That in itself isn't really a justification for…”
Diogenes: He isolates the inference in S0's pragmatic case — that evasion of a law implies the law should not exist — and denies it as a general principle, forcing S0 to add the "generally unenforceable" qualifier.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay Dyer has held since early in the debate that abortion's legality is a moral question independent of consequentialist/pragmatic considerations like enforceability, and this line restates and applies that same standing position to Styx's specific unenforceability argument. Jay Dyer has consistently held that legality should track moral right/wrong rather than enforceability or pragmatic evasion (stated repeatedly: "there is such a thing as moral absolutes," "the fact that people get around things doesn't really have anything to do with whether it's right or wrong"). The quoted line is exactly this recurring premise-conclusion move stated plainly: premise (people evade laws generally), conclusion (that fact alone doesn't justify legalization). It is a genuine, if terse, explicit argument challenging Styx's unenforceability inference, consistent with his standing position throughout — not a new or isolated claim.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". Jay directly engages Styx's consequentialist premise ("if it's generally unenforceable... don't bother") by offering a counter-premise: mere unenforceability of a law against some act doesn't itself justify making that act legal. This sets up the reductio he develops moments later (comparing it to laws against child molestation being unenforceable in some cases), directly contesting Styx's stated framework rather than dodging or attacking him personally.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay Dyer has held throughout that consequentialist/pragmatic arguments (people will do it anyway, laws are unenforceable) don't settle the separate question of moral right/wrong; here he isolates and states that inference from Styx's case and denies it, which is consistent with and continues that position rather than departing from it. The quote does contain a clear premise (things happen outside the law regularly) and an implicit but plain conclusion (that fact alone doesn't justify legalizing them), directly rebutting Styx's unenforceability argument and provoking his qualification about "generally unenforceable" laws. This is a minor but genuine instance of stating premises toward a conclusion, not merely rhetoric.
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.