Appeal: clarification
From @deanwithrs Gets DESTROYED In Heated Debate On God Then RUNS.
- #195537:54upheld by the moderator Cooley epainos: clarification (+1)
The moderator upheld the call: Cooley earned 1 point.
“So it wouldn't be true, but it will be justified because it's defeasible?”
Diogenes: He asks whether justification and truth come apart in Breej's dream example instead of assuming an answer, and he takes the answer on board ("So you can have something justified and also it not be true").- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Cooley has run a repeated pattern of demanding precise definitions/relations from opponents throughout (on "ontological status," "invariant," "defeasibility" itself); this is consistent with that questioning method, not a departure into assertion. Phrased as a question rather than an assertion, this pins down whether justification and truth come apart in Breej's own example rather than assuming it; Breej treats it as an open question and corrects the "because it's defeasible" part specifically, and Cooley takes the correction on board in his next line ("what makes something justified that would be distinct from what is true"), showing genuine clarification-seeking rather than an assumed or foisted claim.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found "misrepresentation". Breej had just said the fever-dream belief "would still be justified" and that this concerned justification specifically, not that defeasibility was what made it justified. Cooley's restatement, "it will be justified because it's defeasible," attributes to Breej a causal claim he never made and that Breej immediately rejects ("it's not because it's defeasible... the reason it's justified is because it seemed to be the case"), repeating the same conflation between the ground of justification and the separate defeasibility condition already corrected once before at 35:32.
- Plato uphold: On the record: This is consistent with Cooley's recurring practice throughout the debate of probing definitions before proceeding (e.g., "What do you mean by universal?" at 06:23), not a new or inconsistent move. Rather than asserting his own reading of Breej's dream example, Cooley poses it as a question ("So it wouldn't be true, but it will be justified because it's defeasible?"), which invites and receives a correction from Breej (justification isn't caused by defeasibility per se, but by how things seemed absent defeaters), and Cooley then folds that correction into his next question ("So what makes something justified that would be distinct from what is true"). This is genuine clarification-seeking rather than an assumed or loaded characterization.
- Thesmothetes leave: The dispute turns entirely on how to characterize the quoted line itself: Aristotle and Plato read "...will be justified because it's defeasible?" as a genuine question that Breej corrects and Cooley then incorporates ("what makes something justified that would be distinct from what is true"), while Socrates reads the same words as asserting a causal claim Breej never made. No listed rule adjudicates whether a question-form restatement that gets corrected counts as clarification or misrepresentation; this is a judgment call about tone and intent in the transcript, not one a written rule settles.
- Moderator uphold: Ruled by the archon, 10 October 2026: Cooley asks it as a question, takes Breej's correction and uses it; that is asking what was meant.
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.