Appeal: clarification
From Jay Dyer vs Ryan Dawson Debate: Theism vs Anti-Theism, Christianity vs Nihilism, Relativism, Atheism.
- #16751:11overturned Ryan Dawson epainos: clarification (+1)
The council overturned the call, so no points were earned.
“I didn't like I don't like the framing of, theism versus anti theism. I'm not against theology at all.”
Diogenes: Before any exchange he states the scope of the position he will defend and refuses a label he does not hold, so the opponent is not left guessing what is in dispute.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Ryan opened by declaring his objection to the debate's framing is political/financial (Zionism), not epistemological, and has held that position throughout; the quoted line is where he first states this scope, not a question addressed to an opponent. Clarification requires asking for a definition or clarification instead of assuming; this line is a declarative statement setting his own scope and rejecting a label, not a question put to Jay, and it comes before Jay has even given his opening, so there is nothing yet to seek clarification about. It reads as an opening framework/scope statement, not the "asking" move the label names.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. This is Ryan clarifying his own position and objecting to the debate's title framing before Jay has given any opening argument for him to answer or dodge. It is commentary about the format/topic-framing, not a move against a live claim on the floor, so per the rubric it scores on neither ledger.
- Plato overturn: On the record: Ryan's opening qualifier — that his objection to religion is political/financial (Zionism), not the metaphysical/epistemological claims — is the position he holds throughout, but this particular line is a pre-debate framing statement to the moderator, not a clarification question to an absent opponent. Ryan's opening qualifier is a statement of his own position and scope, made before Jay has spoken a word — there is no opponent on the floor yet for this to answer or be answered by, and it is commentary about the debate's framing rather than a question put to anyone. "Clarification" requires asking the opponent for a definition or clarification instead of assuming one; here Ryan asks nothing, he simply declares what he will and won't defend. The call mislabels a scope-setting assertion as a clarification move.
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.