Appeal: explicit argument
From Jay Dyer vs Yaron Brook Debate TAG, Science, and the Future of Civilization.
- #243653:29upheld Jay Dyer epainos: explicit argument (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1 point.
“… there's difference between giving an account for something and telling a story about the fact that we did it…”
Diogenes: Filed again from #1331, overturned as "clarification": Aristotle and Socrates named it "explicit argument". On the record: Jay Dyer has held throughout that reason/science require an ontological grounding and repeatedly pressed Yaron for "epistemic justification" rather than descriptive claims; this line restates that standing demand as an argumentative point, not a clarifying question. Jay's opening and running position was to demand "epistemic justification" for Yaron's universal/moral claims, treating "giving an account" as distinct from merely describing what people do; this quote is not a request for a definition or clarification but an assertion continuing that same argumentative line (indeed immediately following his charge that Yaron committed an "appeal to tradition fallacy"). Clarification requires the speaker to ask for a definition/clarification instead of assuming; here Jay makes a declarative distinction as part of his argument, not a question inviting the opponent to define a term.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay opened by declaring that science and reason alone cannot sustain civilization because their proponents cannot account for what logic, science and universals are, and he has pressed for epistemic justification and ontological grounding since; the called line applies that same demand and does not depart from it. At 53:19 Jay states a premise: Yaron's reply that children universalize is "appeal to tradition", because the fact that we do something does not show it can be justified. At 53:29 he states the distinction that links this to his conclusion. Giving an account of universals differs from telling a story about doing them, and epistemology asks for the account. Premise, conclusion and link are all stated, so explicit argument fits. The 53:29 label was clarification, and no question about meaning is asked. The distinction is also a restatement of his long-held demand, but here it is used as a reasoned step against Yaron's specific reply, not just repeated. Whether the "appeal to tradition" charge is exact is a separate matter. The distinction itself is sound.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". Jay answers Yaron's child-and-spoon point by separating the fact that we universalize from the ontological and epistemic justification of doing so. He then ties this to epistemology's concern with justification and to the charge that the self-evident axioms are dogma. Premises, conclusion and link are all stated. The "appeal to tradition" label is loose, but the distinction between describing and justifying is sound and answers the point.
- Plato overturn: On the record: Jay declared at the opening that reason and science cannot account for their own grounding, and he has pressed Yaron for epistemic justification throughout. This line restates that demand and does not depart from it. The line states a distinction between giving an account and narrating what people do. It is a restatement of Jay's standing objection. It is not a new argument with premises, a conclusion, and a stated link between them. The call needs all three of those elements, and this is a toss-up at best, so it is overturned. The quoted sentence is a conclusion from his appeal-to-tradition charge, but that charge is made in the preceding sentences and not in the line itself.
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.