Appeal: unsupported slippery slope
From Jay Dyer vs Yaron Brook Debate TAG, Science, and the Future of Civilization.
- #196958:39upheld Jay Dyer psogos: unsupported slippery slope (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer gave away 1 point.
“… and, ultimately, we end up in some form of nihilism because all there is is really my own, raging against the dying of the light…”
Diogenes: Jay moves from "no God-grounding" to relativism and on to nihilism with no argument for each step, even though Brook has explicitly claimed an objective ethics.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay has held since the opening that reason/science alone cannot ground objective values and therefore devolves into subjectivism/relativism (as stated at 06:19); here in closing he extends that same thesis through several further unargued intensifying steps — relativism to "a sea of infinitude and nothingness" to full nihilism — without engaging Yaron's repeated, explicit claim that his ethic is objective (grounded in facts about human survival), not subjective. Each additional stage of the chain (subjectivity → meaninglessness → nihilism) is asserted rather than argued, and the move bypasses rather than answers Yaron's standing claim to have grounded an objective (non-subjective) ethic, which is the shape of an unsupported slippery slope rather than a fresh argument for the final, stronger claim.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "unsupported slippery slope". Jay slides from "no universal justification for concepts" to "relativized" beliefs and desires to full "nihilism" without establishing that relativism collapses into nihilism, and without engaging Yaron's already-stated alternative (an objective, life-based standard of value) that was offered across the debate precisely to avoid that collapse.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay has held since the opening that a purely reason/science-based worldview cannot ground objective values and collapses into subjectivism/relativism; this line extends that standing thesis one further unargued step to nihilism, which is the fault called out rather than a new position. Jay strings together, without argued linkage at each step, "no universal justification" → beliefs are "relativized" → "we end up in some form of nihilism," treating the final leap to nihilism as following automatically from a lack of transcendent grounding, even though Yaron has repeatedly and explicitly claimed an objective (life-based) ethics rather than conceding relativism. The earlier steps in the chain (that empiricism cannot secure universals) were argued at length elsewhere in the debate, but the added leap to nihilism here is simply asserted, which is a defensible instance of unsupported slippery slope.
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.