Appeal: misrepresentation
From @deanwithrs Gets DESTROYED In Heated Debate On God Then RUNS.
- #193819:12upheld Cooley psogos: misrepresentation (+3)
The council upheld the call: Cooley gave away 3 points.
“That's a p and also not p. You just contradicted yourself. That's what I said. We just didn't understand what I No. I did understand what you just said. You you just said that the laws of logic is conceptual.”
Diogenes: This is the third time he has said Dean called the laws of logic conceptual. Dean said only that our representations of them are conceptual, and he denied it again on the spot ("Logic is not conceptual"), so the charged contradiction exists only in the host's restatement.Herodotus (no): No prior encounters between Cooley and Dean Withers were found — the site record shows only this single debate between them, and public web searches (YouTube reactions, Wikipedia, etc.) turn up no earlier Cooley-Withers exchange. The site's tally of Cooley's misrepresentation faults (x2) comes from this same debate, not a separate incident, so there is no independent pattern of Cooley misrepresenting Dean specifically to corroborate a repeated-offense framing beyond what's already flagged in this transcript. Sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMhmkdBK2Vo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Withers
- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Cooley has held since the opening a TAG strategy of extracting and then declaring victory on concessions from Dean; this line continues an established pattern within this same debate (already flagged at 10:51) of asserting an agreement Dean never gave and which he denies in the very same breath, so it is a repetition of a fault already on the record, not an isolated slip. Dean explicitly says "Logic is not conceptual" immediately before Cooley claims "you you just said that the laws of logic is conceptual" — the transcript shows the opposite of what is attributed to him, consistent with his standing distinction (from 16:07 onward) between "our understanding" (conceptual) and "the laws of logic themselves" (not conceptual, an object of thought). This is at least the second explicit instance in this transcript of Cooley manufacturing this same false concession (cf. 10:51), which supports the repeated/central-to-the-case reading needed for flagrant.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "misrepresentation". Dean's position, laid out explicitly at 16:23 and reapplied via the morality analogy at 18:17-18:33, is that our understanding/representation of the laws of logic is conceptual while the laws themselves (the object of thought) are not a concept — a stated distinction, not a contradiction. When Dean reasserts "logic is not conceptual" (19:09), Cooley collapses that distinction and calls it "p and also not p," but nothing in the transcript shows Dean ever asserting flatly that logic itself is a concept; the charge of self-contradiction is manufactured by ignoring the very distinction Dean had repeatedly defended.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S0's TAG framework requires logic to be conceptual/mind-dependent to run the argument to God's mind; rather than argue Dean out of his stated concept/object-of-thought distinction, Cooley repeatedly asserts an agreement Dean has explicitly and consistently denied, which is a departure into misrepresentation rather than engagement with the distinction on the record. Dean's stated position throughout this stretch (15:47-19:09) draws a clear, repeated distinction between "our understanding of the laws of logic" (which he grants is conceptual) and "the laws of logic" as a mind-independent object of thought (which he denies is conceptual), restating it explicitly moments before ("Logic is not conceptual") at 19:09. Cooley's "you just said that the laws of logic is conceptual" collapses that distinction into the opposite of what Dean said, and this is at least the third time in the transcript itself (10:12, 10:51, 19:12) that Cooley manufactures this same false concession to declare victory, which supports the flagrant severity for repetition and centrality to his "you contradicted yourself" 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.