Appeal: fallacy spotted
From @deanwithrs Gets DESTROYED In Heated Debate On God Then RUNS.
- #195847:09upheld Breej epainos: fallacy spotted (+1)
The council upheld the call: Breej earned 1 point.
“You're about assuming them. Now you're talking about their existence. That's two different things.”
Diogenes: Cooley slid from "are you assuming the laws of logic?" to "if the laws did not exist"; Breej names the shift between assuming and existing, which matters because the transcendental argument needs the second, not the first.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Breej's method of record is formal/analytic, insisting on precise terms before answering (as already seen at 45:13 with "possession"); this is a consistent application of that same demand for precision, not a new tactic. The transcript shows Cooley moving from "if somebody doesn't assume those three laws, they couldn't engage in justificatory practices?" to "if the laws did not exist" without marking the shift; Breej's line accurately names that equivocation between assuming/possessing the laws (an epistemic question) and the laws' existing at all (an ontological question), which is exactly what Cooley did in the quoted exchange.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "fallacy spotted". Cooley had been asking whether one must "assume" the laws of logic to engage in justificatory processes, but when Breej presses him to answer yes or no, Cooley shifts the question to whether the laws "did not exist." Breej correctly flags that these are two different questions - assuming a law in order to reason is not the same claim as the law's existing - catching Cooley trading on the ambiguity between an epistemic-presupposition claim and a metaphysical-existence claim mid-argument.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2's declared method is formal precision about what a claim actually asserts (satisfiability/model-theoretic rigor); this line holds that method by refusing to let two distinct questions — psychological assumption versus metaphysical existence — be treated as one, consistent with his approach elsewhere in the debate (e.g., 45:13). Cooley did in fact shift, within the same exchange, from asking whether Breej "assumes" the laws of logic (46:41: "Assuming them in order to do what?") to asking what would follow "if the laws did not exist" (46:56-47:07) — a metaphysical existence claim distinct from the epistemic/psychological question of assumption. Breej's line accurately names that exact shift as it occurred in Cooley's own words, which is what a transcendental argument (needing dependence on actual non-existence, not mere non-assumption) would require to be pressed correctly.
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.