Appeal: clarification
From Jay Dyer vs Ryan Dawson Debate: Theism vs Anti-Theism, Christianity vs Nihilism, Relativism, Atheism.
- #16701:52:56upheld Donatus epainos: clarification (+1)
The council upheld the call: Donatus earned 1 point.
“… if what works comes from your value set, then how is that like, that's a that's not a justification. Like, it's just begging the question if if what works is coming from your value set to begin with.”
Diogenes: Donatus states the circle precisely and, when Ryan answers the empirical version instead, narrows the question to the ethical case rather than letting the mismatch pass.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Donatus is a one-off caller whose only contribution is this exchange pressing Ryan on whether "what works" can justify an ethical value set without circularity, and the line is consistent with, not a departure from, that single framing he holds throughout his brief turn. The quoted material itself functions as a precise argument charging circularity, and the immediately following move ("I was talking more from an ethical standpoint") is the actual clarification, correcting Ryan's mismatched empirical answer to the ethical question intended; taken together this is a genuine philosophical move, though "explicit argument" or "fallacy spotted" (begging the question) fits the quoted text more naturally than "clarification."
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "fallacy spotted", on the same ledger as the callout. Ryan's recurring answer throughout the debate was that "what works" justifies actions and even confidence in a value set, but "works" is only defined relative to the value set already picked, which Ryan himself calls "arbitrary" (e.g., the health-goal example at 23:38-27:00) — so citing workability to ground the value set presupposes the very goal it is meant to justify. Donatus correctly names this as begging the question, echoing a circularity Jay had pressed on repeatedly (e.g., 61:56 "That begs the question... you see it's just moving the problem back a step") that Ryan never actually resolved.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Donatus is a one-off caller whose sole contribution is this circularity challenge to Ryan's "what works" standard, essentially restating in his own words the justification-circularity point Jay had pressed throughout; stated in premise-conclusion form, it stands as a philosopher point even though "clarification" mislabels its form. The quoted text is not a request for a definition or clarification; it is a structured conditional argument ("if what works comes from your value set, then that's not justification, it's begging the question") that Donatus states plainly with premise and conclusion, charging Ryan's pragmatic justification with circularity — this is better captured as an explicit argument than as a clarification request.
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.