Appeal: direct answer
From @deanwithrs Gets DESTROYED In Heated Debate On God Then RUNS.
- #195745:49upheld Cooley epainos: direct answer (+1)
The council upheld the call: Cooley earned 1 point.
“… the relevancy is that you wouldn't be able to identify any particular in the external world if you didn't assume the laws of logic.”
Diogenes: He answers the clarifying question by specifying the sense he means: "having" logic means presupposing it in order to pick out any particular at all.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Cooley has held since the opening that logic is a precondition presupposed by all reasoning (justification, deduction, induction, predication); asked by Breej to clarify what "possessing" or "having" the laws of logic means for justificatory practices, this line gives that clarification directly, consistent with the position he has run throughout. Breej's clarifying question asked specifically what sense of "possession" of the laws of logic was meant; Cooley answers it directly by specifying that sense (you must assume the laws of logic to identify any particular in the external world), which is responsive to the clarification requested rather than a deflection.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "direct answer". Breej had pressed twice for the relevant sense of "possessing" the laws of logic before Cooley's demand made sense to him; here Cooley answers the question actually asked, explaining that what he means by possession is that one could not identify any particular in the external world without assuming the laws of logic — giving content to the term rather than repeating the unclarified demand.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Cooley's TAG framework holds that logic is a precondition for identifying particulars and thus for justification generally; this line states that connection plainly in direct response to Breej's clarification request, consistent with rather than departing from his declared method. Breej explicitly asks a clarifying question — what is the relevant sense of "possessing" the laws of logic such that lacking it would preclude justificatory processes — and Cooley directly answers by specifying that sense: assuming the laws of logic is necessary to identify any particular in the external world at all. This is a direct, on-point answer to the question actually asked.
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.