Appeal: peritrope
From Jay Dyer vs Ryan Dawson Debate: Theism vs Anti-Theism, Christianity vs Nihilism, Relativism, Atheism.
- #163656:39overturned Jay Dyer against Ryan Dawson agonisma: peritrope (+3)
The council overturned the call, so no points were earned.
“You have a degree of confidence in something that's not justified, which by your own definition is superstitious religious dogmatism.”
Diogenes: Ryan had just made "dogmatism" the charge against religion — holding a position with no room to be wrong; Jay turns Ryan's own criterion back on him, since Ryan conceded minutes earlier that his belief in uniformity is unjustified.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Ryan declared and held throughout a fallibilist epistemology distinguishing revisable, evidence-based confidence from rigid, unfalsifiable dogma; this exchange is a restatement and defense of that same distinction, not a moment where his own criterion is shown to condemn his own position. Jay's line only works as a turnabout if Ryan's own definition of "dogmatism" is "holding an unjustified degree of confidence," but Ryan's actual stated definition, given moments earlier (~55:38-55:41), is different: dogmatism is holding a fixed answer with "no room to change" ("this is the right answer... there's no room to change that"), which he explicitly contrasts with his own empiricism, which he insists stays "open to admitting could be wrong" and revisable with new data. Since Ryan's belief in uniformity is, by his own repeated account, revisable rather than fixed, it does not satisfy his own stated criterion for dogmatism even if Jay separately presses that it lacks strict philosophical justification; Jay is conflating two different criteria rather than genuinely turning Ryan's own definition back on him. Ryan does not accept the charge — he answers "It's justified" and keeps arguing his fallibilist position unchanged for many more exchanges, so no dead end, concession, or self-refutation actually lands.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found "equivocation". Ryan's own stated definition of "dogmatism," given moments earlier, was behavioral: treating a claim as unrevisable ("no room to change that... God said so"), which he explicitly contrasted with his own stance of holding confident-but-revisable beliefs. Jay's line trades on a different sense of the word, unjustified in the strict epistemic sense, to claim Ryan's position meets "his own definition" of dogmatism, but revisability, the actual criterion Ryan gave, is exactly what Ryan's stance retains and what Jay's line quietly drops.
- Plato overturn: On the record: Ryan has held throughout that his empirically-grounded confidence, unlike religious dogma, remains revisable in light of new data; this line does not depart from or collapse that standing distinction, and no decisive concession or self-refutation occurs here. Ryan's own stated definition of dogmatism, given moments earlier, was specifically about closed-mindedness — "there's no room to change that" (~55:41) — and he explicitly distinguished his own confidence as open to revision ("we're perfectly open to that answer changing as we get more information," ~55:37-43). Jay's line asserts that Ryan's unjustified confidence meets "his own definition" of dogmatism, but that definition required irrevisability, which Ryan's stance does not have; the turnabout misapplies Ryan's own criterion rather than genuinely catching him in self-refutation. Ryan's immediate reply, "No. It's justified," directly disputes the charge and restates his standing distinction rather than conceding or reaching a dead end, and the same "justified/not justified" exchange continues unresolved for many more turns.
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.