Appeal: begging the question
From @deanwithrs Gets DESTROYED In Heated Debate On God Then RUNS.
- #19204:59upheld Cooley psogos: begging the question (+2)
The council upheld the call: Cooley gave away 2 points.
“I don't need an argument for that. The question's posed to you.”
Diogenes: Asked to support his positive claim that deduction and every transcendental category has ontological status, he refuses and presses the demand on Dean anyway, taking the disputed premise as settled.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Cooley has held since the opening a presuppositionalist TAG line demanding Dean account for transcendental preconditions of knowledge, while himself repeatedly declining to argue for his own parallel claim (that these categories have ontological status grounded in a mind) when Dean turns the question back on him; this line is a continuation of that pattern, not a new departure. Dean's demand "what's the argument for that?" targets exactly the premise Cooley's whole TAG rests on (that logic and the other transcendental categories have ontological status requiring grounding). Cooley refuses to supply one ("I don't need an argument for that") and instead treats the claim as already settled, continuing to press Dean with leading questions built on that same unargued premise (immaterial? universal? invariant?) toward his conclusion that a mind must ground it. That is a fair instance of taking a disputed premise as given rather than defending it — begging the question is defensible here, though "dodge" (the same demand for an argument goes unmet after an earlier iteration at 02:46-04:05) fits at least as well since Dean's question is left without an argument on either occasion.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "dodge", on the same ledger as the callout. Dean asks essentially the same question twice — "What's the argument?" (04:02) and "And the argument is?" (04:55) — pressing Cooley to justify his own claim that logic has ontological status under his worldview; both times Cooley refuses ("I don't need an argument for that") and pivots the burden back onto Dean rather than answering. Unlike Dean's later deferral at 22:02, which named the disputed presupposition (that reality requires spatiotemporal location) and said what had to be settled first, Cooley here gives no such reason, so this is a bare refusal to answer a repeated direct question rather than a legitimate framework objection.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S0's declared method is TAG: that transcendental preconditions of knowledge (logic, deduction, etc.) have ontological status groundable only in a theistic worldview; here, when pressed for the argument behind that very premise, he refuses and simply reasserts it, which is a departure into unsupported assertion rather than the argued case he gives moments later. At this exact juncture Dean asks S0 to support his own positive claim ("the argument is?"), and S0 answers "I don't need an argument for that. The question's posed to you" — treating as already settled the very premise (that logic/deduction etc. have ontological status requiring grounding) that is the linchpin of the TAG he is in the middle of building, while continuing to demand Dean answer instead. That is a textbook burden-shift dressed as begging the question: the contested premise is asserted as given rather than argued. Dean himself immediately catches this asymmetry ("You just said that you don't need an argument for the positive claim. Really?" at 05:08), which is independently a fair "fallacy spotted" catch on the record; the callout under review targets the very statement that catch is about, so upholding it is consistent with that. It does not undercut the fact that S0 later (06:47-11:44) does supply the fuller argument for logic's ontological status — but at 04:59 itself, in isolation, he explicitly refuses to argue and assumes the disputed premise.
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.