Appeal: explicit argument
From Jay Dyer vs Ryan Dawson Debate: Theism vs Anti-Theism, Christianity vs Nihilism, Relativism, Atheism.
- #16741:55:23upheld Chase epainos: explicit argument (+1)
The council upheld the call: Chase earned 1 point.
“And if I say we've done experimentation and testing and, therefore, we believe Orthodox Christianity is true, if you're gonna be consistent, don't you just have to accept that it's true for us?”
Diogenes: Read blind, without being shown any call on this passage. Chase lays out a plain conditional: given Ryan's own repeated criterion that testing/experimentation and what "works" grounds confidence, then by that same standard a group's claim to have "tested" their way to Orthodox Christianity would have to be granted the same status. This holds Ryan to his own stated principle rather than merely asserting disagreement, and it drew a direct, substantive answer from Ryan rather than a dodge.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Chase is a caller who has not staked out a debate position of record; here he poses a single consistency-test argument to Ryan drawn directly from Ryan's own stated pragmatist criterion, which is consistent with (not a departure from) the brief role he plays in the transcript. Chase's line is a compressed but genuine conditional argument: it takes Ryan's own repeatedly stated criterion (confidence/truth tracks what has been "tested" and "works") and applies it symmetrically to a hypothetical group claiming the same standard for Orthodox Christianity, concluding that consistency requires granting parity of status. The premises and conclusion are discernible from the plain text, and it drew a real substantive reply from Ryan rather than being ignored, satisfying the spirit of the philosopher-point tests even though delivered as a rhetorical question.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". Chase lays out a clean conditional: Ryan's stated criterion is that testing/experimentation against reality grounds justified belief; if Christians likewise claim to have "tested" and concluded their faith true, then by Ryan's own stated consistency he would have to grant it "true for them" too. This mirrors Jay's earlier value-set pressuring and is a fair, plainly-stated parity argument rather than an assertion of what Ryan actually said about religion, which Ryan then answers directly by distinguishing empirically falsifiable claims (miracles he judges impossible) from mere assertion.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Ryan's position of record, since the opening, is fallibilist pragmatism: beliefs are justified by testing/experimentation and by what "works," with confidence scaling to accumulated data; Chase's line holds Ryan to exactly that stated criterion rather than departing from anything on record. Chase states a clear premise (Ryan's own repeated criterion that testing/experimentation grounds belief) and draws a conclusion (consistency requires granting the same status to a group claiming to have tested its way to Orthodoxy) — that is a plain explicit argument, and it drew a direct answer from Ryan rather than being ignored.
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.