Appeal: red herring
From @deanwithrs Gets DESTROYED In Heated Debate On God Then RUNS.
- #196447:32upheld Cooley psogos: red herring (+1)
The council upheld the call: Cooley gave away 1 point.
“You didn't know the third one, but I told you it.”
Diogenes: Instead of answering the assuming/existence distinction, he turns to whether Breej can recite the laws, on the strength of an answer that was cut off.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Cooley has held throughout a TAG framework requiring opponents to "assume" the laws of logic to reason at all; when Breej draws the distinction that assuming a law and the law's existing are two different questions (47:10), Cooley's reply pivots away to a claim about people (including, by implication, Breej) not knowing the three classical laws by name, never returning to address the assuming/existence distinction directly. The transcript shows Cooley's response and the exchanges that follow (the third-law "gotcha," the dialetheism pop quiz, the David/Breej identity demonstration) all pursue different threads without ever circling back to the assuming-versus-existence distinction Breej raised, so the argument is genuinely led away from the point on the table; minor severity fits as a contained instance rather than a central or repeated derailment.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "misrepresentation", on the same ledger as the callout. At 44:18-22 Breej was mid-list — "Law of identity, excluded middle, and" — when Cooley cut him off and supplied "the law of non contradiction" himself; the transcript never shows Breej failing to know it, only being interrupted before he could finish. Cooley later recasts this as "You didn't know the third one, but I told you it," and when Breej pushes back that he did know it (47:44, "I happen to learn too, but not the third one"), Cooley's own follow-up concedes the inference was just a guess from silence ("I thought you didn't know it because you didn't say it") — confirming the original claim was not supported by what actually happened.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S0 (Cooley) has been pressing that assuming/possessing the laws of logic is a precondition for justificatory practices; when Breej draws a distinction between "assuming" the laws and their "existing" (pointing out Cooley conflates the two), Cooley's response pivots to whether Breej could recite the third law by name, rather than resolving the assuming/existence ambiguity Breej raised. The response addresses at most the "assuming" half of Breej's distinction (implicit use without naming) but ignores the "existence" half entirely, replacing it with a tangential jab about Breej's not naming the third law — a genuine, if partial, deflection from the specific point on the table, fitting minor severity.
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.