Appeal: straw man
From Jay Dyer vs Ryan Dawson Debate: Theism vs Anti-Theism, Christianity vs Nihilism, Relativism, Atheism.
- #16461:08:45upheld Ryan Dawson psogos: straw man (+1)
The council upheld the call: Ryan Dawson gave away 1 point.
“It's a total troll, man, to say that people can't use reasoning and logic.”
Diogenes: Jay's claim throughout has been that Ryan lacks an account of logic's use, never that he cannot use it; Ryan attacks the stronger claim, and concedes the difference the moment Jay points it out.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Ryan has held throughout that logic is usable without theistic grounding, and Jay has held throughout (and just clarified again here) that his challenge is about explaining logic's use, not denying the ability to use it; the quoted line recasts Jay's actual, repeated point as the stronger and different claim that people "can't use" logic, which Jay immediately corrects and Ryan partially concedes. The quote attacks a claim ("people can't use reasoning and logic") that Jay never made and had in fact been careful throughout to distinguish from his actual, repeated challenge (lack of an explanatory account); Jay's immediate clarification and Ryan's own "I know those are two different points" confirm the mischaracterization occurred, fitting the minor severity already assigned.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "misrepresentation", on the same ledger as the callout. Ryan characterizes Jay's challenge as claiming "people can't use reasoning and logic," calling it "a total troll." But Jay's actual, consistent position throughout the debate has been that people can and do use logic, but cannot account for or justify that use on empiricist premises; Jay says so explicitly in the very next line ("It's not that you can't use it. It's that you don't have an explanation for its use. Do you see those two different points?"), confirming the transcript shows Ryan attributed to him a claim he did not make.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay's declared and consistently held method throughout the debate is the usage/justification distinction — that Ryan can use logic and reasoning but has no account of why they are justified — restated verbatim in this very exchange ("It's not that you can't use it. It's that you don't have an explanation for its use"); Ryan's line recasts that as a claim that people "can't use reasoning and logic," which is not what Jay has argued at any point. Jay's position of record, restated dozens of times across the debate, is narrowly about justification, not usage; Ryan's "total troll... to say that people can't use reasoning and logic" attacks a stronger claim Jay never made, and Ryan's own immediate follow-up ("I know those are two different points") shows he recognizes, once corrected, that his characterization missed Jay's actual point — the hallmark of a straw man rather than a fair paraphrase.
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.