Appeal: clarification
From Debate! Pagan vs. Orthodox: Logos, Language & Metaphysics - Jay Dyer Vs CB Robertson.
- #243949:45overturned CB Robertson epainos: clarification (+1)
The council overturned the call, so no points were earned.
“… there's the historical event of the fall. That's the the fall one. And there's the fall two, which is the fallen nature of the world which we observe.”
Diogenes: Filed again from #2434, overturned as "explicit argument": Socrates and Plato named it "clarification". On the record: CB opened with the disontological dilemma, which rests on moral intuitions about a fallen world, and has held it since; the fall one/fall two distinction extends that thesis and does not depart from it. The line defines two terms ("fall one" and "fall two"). It does not state premises and draw a conclusion with the link between them spelled out. The inference that we only have access to fall two comes in the next lines, and they are fumbled. Without the stated link, the elements of explicit argument are not all present, so I overturn at minor.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: CB opened with the disontological dilemma (Christianity rests on moral intuitions while declaring them fallen) and the language argument, and has held both since. The called line, which splits "the fall" into fall one and fall two, develops that thesis and does not depart from it. Clarification requires asking the opponent what an ambiguous term means. CB asks nothing here. He is defining his own two terms in answer to Jay's question, "how is that an argument?" That is an exposition of his own position, not a request for the opponent's meaning, so the elements are not met and the label is wrong.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "clarification". Asked how his argument works, CB splits the ambiguous term "fall" into the historical event and the observed fallen condition before pressing that only the second is accessible through intuition. The distinction bears on his disontological dilemma and he draws it rather than assuming one sense.
- Plato overturn: On the record: CB Robertson opened with the disontological dilemma, that Christianity rests on moral intuitions while declaring them fallen, and with a conventionalist language argument. He has held both since. The fall one/fall two line elaborates the first and does not depart from it. A clarification needs the speaker to ask what the opponent meant. Here CB defines his own two terms in answer to Jay's challenge at 49:29 to explain his argument. He asks Jay nothing and is not resolving an ambiguity in Jay's words. The elements are not met, so I overturn. The move is closer to an unscored self-supplied distinction.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: an element of the label is missing from the record. A clarification needs the speaker to ask the opponent what an ambiguous term of his means. At 49:45 CB asks Jay nothing. He defines his own two terms, "fall one" and "fall two", in answer to Jay's question at 49:29 about how his argument works. That is an exposition of his own position, so the form of a clarification is absent and an element is missing.
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.