Appeal: explicit argument
From @deanwithrs Gets DESTROYED In Heated Debate On God Then RUNS.
- #194018:29upheld Dean Withers epainos: explicit argument (+1)
The council upheld the call: Dean Withers earned 1 point.
“… you do think that morality is mine [mind] independent even though we can represent it through concepts. Right? Take that idea, apply it to logic, all of a sudden you have my view.”
Diogenes: An argument from parity built on the host's own likely moral realism: if moral facts can be mind-independent yet represented conceptually, so can the laws of logic.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Dean's position on record explicitly includes "moral realism offered as an analogy" for his Platonic-realist view of logic; this line is that very analogy stated for the first time in the debate, a direct application of his framework rather than any departure from it. The line states a plain analogical argument: moral facts (e.g., that murder is wrong) are mind-independent even though we access/represent them through concepts; therefore the same structure can hold for logic, meeting Cooley's demand that logic either be "a concept" or "real" by showing the two are not exclusive. Premises and conclusion are stated plainly enough to count as an explicit argument, not mere assertion.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". Dean draws an argument from parity: Cooley grants that "murder is wrong" is represented through a concept yet (as a moral realist, which a Christian theist is likely to hold) treats the wrongness itself as objective and not dependent on any human mind's say-so; Dean asks him to apply that same structure - representation via concept, fact independent of the representer - to the laws of logic, which is exactly his stated Platonist position. The premises and the parallel conclusion are stated plainly, making this a genuine analogical argument rather than a jab or an assumption smuggled in without basis.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S1's position of record explicitly lists moral realism as an analogy offered for his Platonic-realist account of logic; this line is exactly that declared analogy in action, not a new or inconsistent move. This is a clearly structured parity argument: premise (moral facts like "murder is wrong" are mind-independent yet representable through concepts, which Cooley concedes by calling it "conceptual"), and conclusion (the same structure — mind-independent object represented conceptually — resolves the concept/reality dichotomy Cooley has been pressing on logic). Premises and conclusion are stated plainly.
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.