Appeal: steelman
From Jay Dyer vs Ryan Dawson Debate: Theism vs Anti-Theism, Christianity vs Nihilism, Relativism, Atheism.
- #16561:28:22upheld Fr. Ananias epainos: steelman (+1)
The council upheld the call: Fr. Ananias earned 1 point.
“So if you're saying there's subjects involved in that that will have their beliefs, it can either be true or false. I think that's not a contentious position that anybody would disagree with. But I think what Jay was trying to ask is we all come with different standards on how we judge exactly like you said. For example, what works.”
Diogenes: Father Deacon first grants the uncontroversial part of Ryan's answer, then restates Jay's question in sharper form — what is the criterion for judging what works — and checks the restatement with Jay before pressing it.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Fr. Ananias entered the debate as a caller siding with Jay's transcendental-argument line, pressing Ryan on the normative justification for his criteria of "what works," and this move is consistent with that stance from its first appearance, not a departure from anything declared earlier. Fr. Ananias's first substantive move in the debate (as a caller entering at 84:03) is exactly this: he grants Ryan's point as uncontentious before restating Jay's underlying question in sharper terms and checking the restatement with both parties, which is the textbook combination of charitable restatement plus verification that defines a steelman; the exchange is on the floor since Ryan responds to it directly.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "steelman". Fr. Ananias first restates Ryan's actual view charitably and accurately (subjects hold beliefs that can be true or false, which he grants is uncontroversial), then distinguishes it from the deeper normative question Jay had been pressing all debate (what criterion justifies calling something "what works"), and explicitly asks both men to confirm he has characterized their positions correctly rather than assuming.
- Plato uphold: On the record: As a caller supporting Jay's side, Fr. Ananias has consistently pressed the same normative/justification line Jay opened with (that pragmatic "what works" answers beg the question of criteria), and this restatement is a continuation of that stance rather than a departure from it. Fr. Ananias accurately grants the uncontroversial part of Ryan's just-given answer (that subjective interpretation of data is not itself contentious) before reformulating the sharper normative question Jay had been pressing, and he explicitly checks his restatement with Jay for accuracy — this is a textbook charitable-restatement-then-response move, not a strawman or mere repetition.
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.