Appeal: begging the question
From @deanwithrs Gets DESTROYED In Heated Debate On God Then RUNS.
- #196549:57upheld Cooley psogos: begging the question (+2)
The council upheld the call: Cooley gave away 2 points.
“It's a it's actual a contradiction. So they can reject it they can reject it out of their system, but they still would be in a contradiction.”
Diogenes: He dismisses dialetheism as incoherent because it contains a contradiction, assuming the law of non-contradiction that is the point in dispute, and at 50:08 he waves off why dialetheists reject it.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Cooley has held since the opening a TAG framework asserting the three classical laws of logic are inseparable and cannot coherently be rejected; this line continues that stance, but does so by assuming the truth of the very law under challenge rather than arguing for it against the dialetheist alternative Breej raised. Asked directly whether any position rejecting the law of non-contradiction is thereby "automatically... nonsense," Cooley answers that it results in "a contradiction" and is therefore incoherent — but dialetheism's entire substantive claim is that some contradictions are true, so calling it incoherent because it contains a contradiction assumes the very universality of the law of non-contradiction that is in dispute. He compounds this at 50:08 by declining to engage with why dialetheists actually reject the law ("It doesn't really matter"), treating the disputed premise as already settled rather than defending it.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "begging the question". Breej has just asked whether Cooley is claiming any position rejecting the law of non-contradiction is automatically "non substantive" and nonsensical; Cooley's answer is simply that dialetheists "would still be in a contradiction," treating that description as itself a refutation. But dialetheism's whole point is that some contradictions are true, so "it entails a contradiction" only counts against the position if one already assumes no contradiction can be true — exactly the premise in dispute. Breej immediately presses the gap ("You even know why they reject it?"), and Cooley never engages the reasons, only repeats that rejecting the laws is "nonsensical."
- Plato uphold: On the record: Cooley's TAG framework treats the three classical laws as jointly necessary and beyond rejection; here, rather than arguing for that necessity against a system built to deny it, he simply asserts the disputed law as already settled to dismiss the opposing view as incoherent. Asked directly by Breej whether rejecting the law of non-contradiction makes a position simply incoherent, Cooley answers that it "would be in a contradiction," using the very law under dispute (non-contradiction) as the standard for judging dialetheism defective, without ever engaging the substance of why paraconsistent/dialetheist logics hold that some contradictions can be tolerated without triviality. This assumes the classical law's authority to settle the coherence question that dialetheism exists precisely to contest, and moments later (50:08) Cooley waves off the question of why dialetheists reject it rather than engaging it.
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.