Appeal: fallacy spotted
From @deanwithrs Gets DESTROYED In Heated Debate On God Then RUNS.
- #19215:08upheld Dean Withers epainos: fallacy spotted (+1)
The council upheld the call: Dean Withers earned 1 point.
“You just said that you don't need an argument for the positive claim. Really?”
Diogenes: He correctly points out that the host has just exempted his own positive claim from the burden of proof.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S1 opened holding that knowledge's preconditions (justification, logic) can be met without positing God, and has consistently demanded arguments/definitions from S0 rather than accepting bare assertions; this line is consistent with that stance, not a departure. The transcript confirms S0 said "My worldview, they all have ontological status," was asked "What's the argument for that?", and replied "I don't need an argument for that" — immediately after himself repeatedly demanding "What's the argument?" from Dean. Dean's line accurately flags this self-exempting double standard on burden of proof, which is a genuine informal fault in what S0 actually said, not a mischaracterization.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. Dean here notes that S0, having just demanded an argument for Dean's ontological claim about logic, waved off the need for an argument for his own positive claim ("I don't need an argument for that"). That is a fair, relevant observation about a double standard rather than an insult, but it is a bare one-line jab that isn't developed into an argument, a named fallacy, or any other scored move — it neither dodges nor advances the exchange in a way the rubric credits.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Dean's position of record is that knowledge requires justification (JTB+defeasibility) and any positive ontological claim needs support; here he holds that line by catching S0 exempting his own asserted claim (that the transcendental categories "all have ontological status") from the very burden-of-proof standard S0 had just demanded of Dean. The transcript confirms S0 says "I don't need an argument for that" immediately after asserting the positive claim he had been pressing Dean to justify, and Dean's line accurately flags this double standard on burden of proof rather than substituting for an answer to any live question. It is not a perfect fit to a single catalogue name (closer to special pleading/inconsistent burden-of-proof than a classic fallacy), but it correctly identifies a real inconsistency in what S0 actually said, so it is defensible as a minor philosopher point.
- Thesmothetes uphold: By the rule: burden sits with the claimant, and is not created by demanding one. At [04:48]-[05:08] S0 asserts his own positive claim ("they all have ontological status"), is asked "What's the argument for that?", and answers "I don't need an argument for that. The question's posed to you" — trying to discharge his own burden by pointing back at Dean's. Dean's line directly names this evasion, and the rule that a claimant's demand for proof from an opponent does not relieve him of his own burden confirms this is a substantive, correctly-targeted point rather than the hollow jab Socrates took it for.
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.