Appeal: misrepresentation
From @deanwithrs Gets DESTROYED In Heated Debate On God Then RUNS.
- #196252:30upheld Cooley psogos: misrepresentation (+1)
The council upheld the call: Cooley gave away 1 point.
“His best debater thought that the three classical laws of logic don't infer one another.”
Diogenes: Breej never asserted that the laws are independent; he asked Cooley for the argument that a dialetheist cannot reject non-contradiction, and said that reciting the laws was not that argument.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Cooley has held throughout this debate a pattern (already upheld at 05:29, 10:51, 19:12, 24:10) of asserting in his recaps to chat that an opponent conceded or held a position the transcript shows they explicitly denied; this line continues that same established pattern rather than departing from it. In the live exchange, Cooley put exactly this claim to Breej ("Said that you don't believe that they all work together"/"You said that they all don't work together") and Breej explicitly rejected it on the spot ("No. No. No."), clarifying that his actual point was that merely reciting the laws is not an argument for why dialetheism cannot reject one of them ("You telling me what they are doesn't have any relevance"). Cooley's closing recap repeats the very characterization Breej denied moments earlier, which is misrepresentation on the record.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "misrepresentation". In the exchange itself, Breej never said the three laws "don't infer one another"; he called dialetheism "a substantive position," demanded an argument for Cooley's bare assertion that rejecting the law of non-contradiction is "not coherent" ("What's the argument for the fact that Dioletheus cannot reject..."), and pointed out Cooley hadn't engaged with why dialetheists reject it. That is a demand for justification, not the denial Cooley attributes to him in this recap immediately after the TikTok ban cut the live exchange short.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Cooley's TAG-adjacent claim that the three classical laws "infer one another" is central to his closing argument; rather than accurately recap Breej's actual challenge (demanding the argument for interdependence), he misstates Breej's position as its opposite to declare an easier victory. In the actual exchange, Breej never claimed the three laws are independent of one another; he specifically pressed Cooley for the argument that a dialetheist cannot reject non-contradiction and objected that merely reciting the laws ("You telling me what they are doesn't have any relevance") was not that argument — a demand for an argument, not an assertion of independence. Cooley's post-debate recap recasts this demand as Breej positively believing the laws "don't infer one another," which the transcript does not support; this is the same kind of post-exchange mischaracterization already found (and upheld) with Dean earlier in this debate.
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.