Appeal: clarification
From Jay Dyer vs Ryan Dawson Debate: Theism vs Anti-Theism, Christianity vs Nihilism, Relativism, Atheism.
- #16471:08:50upheld Jay Dyer epainos: clarification (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1 point.
“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?”
Diogenes: Jay separates the charge he is actually making from the one Ryan attributed to him, and checks that the distinction has landed before proceeding.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay's stated method since the opening rests on distinguishing the mere use of a concept (logic, reasoning, universals) from the justification/explanation for that use, a distinction he has invoked repeatedly (e.g., "questions of justification are separate from the benefits... that they offer" at the very start); the called line applies that same, consistently-held distinction to correct Ryan's mischaracterization ("people can't use reasoning and logic") and checks it has landed. Ryan had just attributed to Jay the claim that people "can't use" logic, which Jay never said; the quoted line draws the precise distinction Jay actually intends (use vs. explanation of use) and confirms mutual understanding rather than letting the misreading stand, which serves the same clarifying function the label describes even though phrased as a correction rather than a question.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument", on the same ledger as the callout. Dawson had just accused Jay of "trolling" by supposedly claiming people can't use logic. Jay corrects this by drawing the precise distinction his whole transcendental argument rests on: the ability to use a principle (logic, induction) is not the same as having a justification or explanation for why it holds, and the debate has been about the latter, not the former. Stated plainly, this heads off a mischaracterization and keeps the actual question — justification, not mere usability — on the table.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay's declared method throughout has been to separate the descriptive fact that people use reasoning/ethics from the normative question of whether that use is justified; this line restates and confirms that standing distinction rather than departing from it. Jay is drawing the same use/justification distinction he set out from his very first rebuttal ("people doing logic and ethics prior to the emergence of Christianity really doesn't have anything to do with whether the doing... can be justified... questions of justification are separate"), here correcting Ryan's characterization of the point as "you can't use logic" and confirming the distinction is understood before continuing — a legitimate clarifying move, not an assumption glossed over.
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.