Appeal: red herring
From Jay Dyer vs Ryan Dawson Debate: Theism vs Anti-Theism, Christianity vs Nihilism, Relativism, Atheism.
- #16421:03:51overturned Ryan Dawson psogos: red herring (+2)
The council overturned the call, so no points were given away.
“It says god was just sitting around for infinity and then decided to create stuff and make these laws so we can argue about them. Well, a divine a divine mind does have a way to justify these principles. And, yeah, and living inside of animals and monarchy and all the rest of it.”
Diogenes: Jay had just offered the divine mind as the account for the principles in question, and Ryan replies with ridicule of unrelated biblical material rather than with any reason the account fails — the second time in ten minutes he has answered a justification demand this way.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Ryan has held since the opening (11:17, already on record as explicit argument) that even granting a deistic first cause, there is no valid leap to the specific claims of Orthodox Christianity — the primary transcript shows the sentence "a divine mind does have a way to justify these principles" at 63:58 is actually Jay's own turn (S2), not Ryan's, so the callout's quote splices two speakers together; Ryan's actual continuous point, confirmed moments later ("like I said in the beginning, I'm not interested at all at arguing about deism"), is his standing framework objection, not a new diversion. The quote misattributes to Ryan a line the transcript assigns to Jay (S2 at 63:58), which corrupts the characterization that Ryan "replies with ridicule ... rather than any reason the account fails"; read correctly against the transcript, Ryan's actual words continue his long-declared objection that a deistic account (even if granted) does not license the specific claims of scripture, a point he immediately names as his opening position rather than a new tangent.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. The quoted line splices two speakers: "Well, a divine mind does have a way to justify these principles" is actually Jay's, not Ryan's. Ryan's own words here (the sarcastic gloss on creation, and "living inside of animals and monarchy") are rhetorical illustrations of the standing objection he raised as early as 11:17, that even granting a bare deist ground for universals, nothing licenses the leap to the specific doctrines of Christianity; he says so explicitly moments later ("I'm not interested at all at arguing about deism... I don't wanna dunk on the bible"). It is mockery attached to a previously argued position, not a substitute for one.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Ryan's standing position throughout is a pragmatic/empiricist dismissal of the need for a divine ground for laws, but here, right when Jay states his central positive account ("a divine mind does have a way to justify these principles"), Ryan does not engage that specific ontological claim and instead pivots to mocking unrelated scriptural content, and the exchange moves on to Ryan's closing remarks without ever returning to address the divine-mind account. Unlike the 47:45 exchange (where Ryan's comparison to Jay's other beliefs was raised directly against a charge of general "arbitrariness" and the exchange continued to engage the point), here Jay's claim is a narrow, specific one — that a divine mind grounds the ontological status of universals/laws — and Ryan's reply about "living inside of animals and monarchy" never engages that claim at all; the transcript shows the conversation then moves straight to Ryan's closing remarks, so the point on the table is left behind rather than answered, fitting red herring.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: framework objection is not a dodge. Ryan declared at the very opening (11:17-11:37) that his standing objection is the gap between any bare deistic/metaphysical ground for reason and the very specific, text-bound claims of Orthodox Christianity; the flagged line is that objection recurring, not a fresh diversion, and he says so in the same breath ("like I said in the beginning, I'm not interested at all at arguing about deism... I don't wanna dunk on the bible"). Plato's claim that "the conversation then moves straight to Ryan's closing remarks" is not borne out by the wider transcript: immediately after the flagged quote Ryan keeps pressing the identical justification question ("how do you know you have physical laws? ... our confidence in it is based on all of our experimentation") for several more exchanges, so the point was not led away from but continued. A restated, previously declared framework objection answered by continued engagement is not the substitution a red herring requires.
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.