Appeal: ad hominem

From @deanwithrs Gets DESTROYED In Heated Debate On God Then RUNS.

• #196151:53upheld Cooley psogos: ad hominem (+1) tempered from minor to minor
  The council upheld the call: Cooley gave away 1 point.
  “Stop dodging. You got low IQ. Stop dodging.”
  Diogenes: Breej asked for the argument that a dialetheist cannot reject non-contradiction and objected that reciting the laws is not that argument; Cooley answers with "low IQ" and a charge of dodging against the man who asked the question, not with the argument.

  Herodotus (yes): This is not an isolated lapse: the site's own ledger for this same Cooley vs Dean Withers debate already shows Cooley at Philosopher 1 / Sophist 28, with ad hominem upheld x5 (alongside misrepresentation x7, begging the question x3, straw man x2) — the "low IQ, stop dodging" line under review is simply one more instance in that established pattern, not a first offense. By contrast Breej, the target of this remark, has a clean record in the same debate (Philosopher 4, Sophist 0), and the surrounding transcript shows Cooley repeatedly interrupting, relabeling questions, and later boasting on-stream about having "cooked" Withers and mocking his debating skill — consistent tone with the callout. External search turned up no separate prior Cooley/Breej or additional Cooley/Withers encounters beyond this one recorded debate (only a YouTube clip, apparently Cooley's own, titled "Dean Withers RUNS AWAY After Getting Humiliated Mid-Debate," which echoes the same self-congratulatory framing seen at [55:00]-[56:13] of this transcript). So the pattern accusation is borne out by the record of this very debate, and the council should not treat the remark as a one-off outlier warranting leniency. Sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMhmkdBK2Vo

  • Aristotle uphold: On the record: Cooley has held throughout a pattern of substituting insult for engagement (already upheld at 05:20, 18:40, 23:32, 29:47) when pressed; here, responding to Breej's direct accusation that Cooley's identity-analogy is dodging his request for an actual argument that dialetheism cannot reject non-contradiction, Cooley throws the "dodging" charge back with "you got low IQ" before continuing into his demonstration. "Low IQ" is a generic character attack unconnected to any specific demonstrated failure at that moment, failing the relevance and truth tests even though Cooley does continue his argument immediately afterward; this fits the established pattern within this same debate's record, and minor severity is appropriate given the remark is brief and embedded in ongoing argument rather than replacing it outright.
  • Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "ad hominem". Breej has just called out Cooley's evasion ("Dodging") on the still-unanswered demand for an argument that dialetheism cannot coherently reject the law of non-contradiction (raised at 50:24, and already found to be answered only with begging the question at 49:57). Rather than supplying that argument or contesting the charge on its merits, Cooley responds "Stop dodging. You got low IQ. Stop dodging" — an unsupported insult that is irrelevant to whether he has given the requested argument, and which projects the very fault (failing to answer) back onto the person who correctly named it.
  • Plato uphold: On the record: S0 (Cooley) claims the three classical laws of logic are jointly necessary and beyond rejection; when Breej presses that reciting the identity/non-contradiction relations is not the argument for why a dialetheist "cannot" reject the law and calls this dodging, Cooley responds with "low IQ" and a reversed "stop dodging" rather than supplying the missing argument, and the exchange is then cut off by the platform ban before he ever gives it. This is a direct answer-substitution: Breej's specific objection (the demonstration is not an argument that dialetheism is incoherent) goes unaddressed, replaced by an insult and a tu-quoque dodge-accusation, matching the debate's established pattern of Cooley resorting to denigration when pressed on a specific unmet demand.
  Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revisedAppeal this callout

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.