Appeal: explicit argument
From Debate MELTDOWN: Worst Opponent Yet: Austin Peterson Libertarian Debate Vs Jay Dyer.
- #209150:32upheld Austin Peterson epainos: explicit argument (+1)
The council upheld the call: Austin Peterson earned 1 point.
“… just because the CIA says something doesn't mean it's wrong. You know? Adolf Hitler drank water. Right? So the truth can be the truth.”
Diogenes: Read blind, without being shown any call on this passage. Austin states a plain premise (the source of a claim does not determine its truth value), backs it with a concrete illustration (Hitler drinking water is still true despite the speaker), and draws the conclusion that Bezmenov's claims could be true even if they served CIA interests, resisting the genetic-style inference Jay was pressing toward.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Austin's declared epistemic method throughout ("extraordinary claims require evidence," distrust of both mainstream and anti-establishment sources alike) is exactly what this argument applies; it is consistent with, not a departure from, his standing position. Austin states a plain premise (a claim's truth is independent of its source), supports it with a concrete illustration (Hitler drinking water remains true regardless of speaker), and draws the conclusion that Bezmenov's claims could still be true even if they served CIA interests — premises and conclusion stated plainly, resisting the genetic-style inference Jay was pressing. The verifier confirms the transcript bears this out.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". Austin states a plain premise, that the source of a claim does not determine its truth value, and illustrates it with a concrete example (even Hitler's saying he drank water would still be true) to support the conclusion that something Bezmenov or the CIA said could still be true regardless of its origin. This is a stated premise-to-conclusion argument, not a bare assertion.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Austin's declared method throughout is fallibilist, source-neutral evidentiary skepticism ("extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," applied evenhandedly); this line is a direct, consistent application of that framework against Jay's implicit genetic inference. This is a clean explicit argument: premise (the source of a claim doesn't determine its truth), a concrete illustration (Hitler drinking water), and a conclusion resisting Jay's genetic-style inference from Bezmenov's CIA-serving content to its falsity — matching the transcript and fitting Austin's stated evenhanded evidentiary fallibilism.
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.