Appeal: explicit argument
From Jay Dyer vs Ryan Dawson Debate: Theism vs Anti-Theism, Christianity vs Nihilism, Relativism, Atheism.
- #16571:32:21upheld Jay Dyer epainos: explicit argument (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1 point.
“… nuclear bombs work. Right? They achieve their goal. They're they're pragmatic. They work. It was at [wasn't] a justification for their use because they work.” quote corrected
Diogenes: Jay produces a clean counterexample separating efficacy from justification — a thing can achieve its end perfectly and still be unjustified — which is the precise defect he has been alleging in Ryan's criterion.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay has held since early in the debate ("pragmatism doesn't grant justification... to say that they just work doesn't answer the question that's being asked") that efficacy and justification are distinct, and this line is a restatement/illustration of that same standing claim, not a departure. Throughout the debate Jay's standing thesis has been that pragmatic efficacy ("it works") does not amount to epistemic or moral justification; the nuclear-bomb line states this as a concrete counterexample with a plain premise (bombs achieve their goal, i.e. work) and conclusion (working is not justification for use), which is a legitimate instance of an explicit argument in service of his consistent position.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". Jay gives a clean reductio with stated premises and conclusion: nuclear bombs achieve their goal and are thus "pragmatic" by Ryan's own "it works" standard, yet that success plainly does not justify their use; therefore "it works" cannot be what grants justification, which is exactly the gap Jay has been pressing against Ryan's pragmatism throughout the debate. The emotionally loaded example serves the logical point rather than replacing it.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay's declared and consistently held thesis throughout is that "it works" (pragmatism) does not amount to epistemic/ethical justification; this counterexample is a direct instantiation of that standing position, not a departure from it. This is a clean, self-contained example-based argument (efficacy does not entail justification) that Jay repeats consistently through the debate as his core objection to Ryan's pragmatist criterion; it is stated with premise and conclusion plainly, fitting "explicit argument."
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.