Appeal: clarification
From @deanwithrs Gets DESTROYED In Heated Debate On God Then RUNS.
- #196320:10upheld Dean Withers epainos: clarification (+1)
The council upheld the call: Dean Withers earned 1 point.
“Define the word concept.”
Diogenes: The dispute turns on the word 'concept', and he asks for it to be defined instead of assuming a meaning.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Dean Withers has held since the opening that knowledge's preconditions can be met without God and that logic is a Platonic object of thought distinct from a mere mental "concept," repeatedly demanding precise definitions from Cooley before conceding predicates; this line continues that same practice rather than departing from it. Dean has, throughout this stretch of the debate, repeatedly pressed Cooley to define his terms rather than accept loose characterizations ("What do you mean by universal?" at 06:23, upheld earlier; his concept/object-of-thought distinction at 16:23 turns entirely on precise terminology). Here Cooley has just been using "concept" indiscriminately ("everything is conceptual to some degree") while trying to force Dean to concede logic is a "concept" in Cooley's sense; asking Cooley to define the very term the whole exchange turns on is a genuine request for a definition rather than an assumption, consistent with Dean's established practice, not a restatement of a position he already holds.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "clarification". By this point in the exchange Cooley has used "concept" in at least two different senses — sometimes for any mental representation, sometimes loosely for "anything conceptual to some degree" — the very equivocation Dean has already been pressing (and which I found against Cooley at 09:57 and 19:12). Rather than assume which sense Cooley means, Dean asks him to define the term before continuing, which is the reasonable move given that the whole dispute over whether "an irreducible property outside the causal chain" counts as "a concept" turns exactly on that definition.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Dean's position of record is that a concept (mental representation) is distinct from an object of thought, and his consistent practice since early in the exchange is to press for definitions of exactly the term under dispute before conceding or denying a claim; this line holds that practice rather than departing from it. The dispute at this point turns entirely on what "concept" means: Cooley has just said "everything is conceptual to some degree" after already equivocating between "concept" as a mental representation and as any real property. Dean's recurring, declared practice throughout the debate is to demand precise definitions of exactly the terms in dispute before answering yes/no (e.g., "What do you mean by universal?" at 06:23, the "possession" clarification at 45:13, all previously upheld as clarification). Asking Cooley to define "concept" here, right after Cooley has smeared the term across "everything," is the same move and is well-targeted rather than evasive.
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.