Appeal: explicit argument
From Jay Dyer vs Styx Debate Abortion – Pro-Life vs Government Overreach.
- #154949:03upheld Styxhexenhammer666 epainos: explicit argument (+2)
The council upheld the call: Styxhexenhammer666 earned 2 points.
“You've just literally described the answer to your own dilemma, which is that several other people got together and killed the the dude with the big club.”
Diogenes: Styx takes the anarchist's own scenario and shows its conclusion — the men who kill the strong man have made themselves arbiters of life and death, which is a government — so the premises the caller supplied yield the opposite of his thesis.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S0 has held since his opening turn that some organizing state/power structure is necessary and that anarchism collapses in practice (he says so explicitly moments earlier: "They will, but... a lot of people... do need some sort of order"), so this argument against Stoner Logic's anarchism is a continuation, not a departure, of his declared monarchist-over-anarchist position. Styx lays out a plain premise-conclusion structure: the anarchist's own scenario (several people banding together to kill the ruler) is, by that very act of collectively imposing a life-and-death decision, the formation of a governing power — so the premises the caller supplied yield "you no longer have anarchy at all." That is a stated argument with clear premises and conclusion, meeting the bar for "explicit argument" regardless of whether one finds it ultimately persuasive.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". S3 offers a hypothetical (a group kills the strongman and then "rules themselves") meant to show anarchism can avoid government; S0 directly answers by pointing out that the very act described — several people jointly deciding another's fate — already constitutes the formation of a governing power, which is exactly the point he has argued throughout (that some power structure is inevitable, so pure anarchism collapses into mob rule). The premises and conclusion are stated plainly and the move engages S3's own scenario rather than evading it.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S0 declared himself a monarchist, not an anarcho-capitalist, holding that some power structure is inevitable and necessary though it must be constrained; this line is a direct application of that standing position against Stoner Logic's anarchist scenario, not a new or inconsistent claim. The quote is part of a genuine premises-to-conclusion argument: power structures are inevitable, the men who killed the strong man thereby made themselves arbiters of life and death over him, therefore that act itself constitutes forming a government rather than achieving anarchy — a plainly stated explicit argument answering Stoner Logic's proposed scenario on the floor.
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.