Appeal: begging the question
From Jay Dyer vs Ryan Dawson Debate: Theism vs Anti-Theism, Christianity vs Nihilism, Relativism, Atheism.
- #16401:02:43upheld Ryan Dawson psogos: begging the question (+2)
The council upheld the call: Ryan Dawson gave away 2 points.
“Because all the empirical evidence shows the future isn't random and that there is physical laws.”
Diogenes: Asked what justifies the inference from past observation to future regularity, Ryan appeals to past observation — using the principle in dispute as its own support, after Jay had already flagged the circle twice.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Ryan has held throughout that confidence in physical regularity is justified by accumulated experience/testing; this specific answer to a normative "why ought" question repeats that same experience-based justification for the very principle (uniformity of nature) that licenses treating experience as predictive, which is the circle Jay had already named moments earlier ("That begs the question"). Jay's question at this exact point was normative — "why ought we not" treat the future as random — probing the justification for trusting inductive uniformity per Hume's classic problem. Ryan's answer, "because all the empirical evidence shows the future isn't random," uses past empirical observation (which itself only has evidential force if the uniformity-of-nature principle already holds) to justify belief in that very principle; this is a textbook instance of assuming what is in dispute rather than a restatement of his separately-defensible fallibilist stance. This is a different kind of defect than the self-contradiction/dodge/duel calls in this same stretch that I have overturned as consistent restatements of Ryan's declared framework — the circularity here is a structural feature of the specific inferential move offered, independent of whether Ryan's overall position is held consistently.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "begging the question". Asked why we ought to believe the future will be non-random rather than random, Ryan answers that "all the empirical evidence shows the future isn't random," but all empirical evidence by definition comes from the past; treating it as proof about the future assumes the very principle of uniformity between past and future that is the point in dispute. This is the same circular move Jay had already been pressing throughout (and which Ryan repeats again shortly after at 87:06), and Jay immediately and correctly names it circular in the very next lines.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Ryan has held throughout that confidence in physical uniformity is grounded in "all the data," but this specific instance answers Jay's "why ought we" question by re-invoking that very data as its own justification, which is the circularity Jay had already flagged rather than a fresh independent ground. Jay's question ("why ought we not [treat the future as random]?") asks for the normative justification for uniformity/induction; Ryan's answer appeals to the accumulated empirical record of past regularity as proof the future won't be random, which is precisely the classical Humean circle — using past uniformity to justify the principle that the future will resemble the past. This is not merely fallibilism restated; it is the specific move of citing the conclusion's own evidentiary pattern as its justification, and it comes after Jay had already named the circle twice moments earlier in the same exchange (61:37, 62:02), which Ryan does not escape here but repeats.
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.