Appeal: appeal to popularity
From HEATED DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Jake Muslim Metaphysician | Trinity Vs Tawhid -Modern Day Debate.
- #66538:53overturned Jake the Muslim Metaphysician psogos: appeal to popularity (+1)
The council overturned the call, so no points were given away.
“Now does the public and the people watching think that that's a convincing argument? No.”
Diogenes: He settles the question by polling the audience on his own behalf rather than by giving a reason why the realist premise fails.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: S1 has held since his opening that the burden of proof rests on Jay to justify realist universals (citing Occam's razor moments before this line, and restating "Jay needs to give an argument... he has not given any argument... until he can give an argument... we can simply dismiss it" immediately after); this line is rhetorical framing wrapped around that standing burden-of-proof argument, not a substitute for it. The quoted rhetorical question does not stand in place of a reason; in the same breath Jake gives the actual argument (no argument has been offered for universals, so by Occam's razor/burden of proof the claim is dismissed until one is). Rhetoric addressed to the audience alongside a completed argument is rhetoric, not the fallacy of appeal to popularity, per the rule that only rhetoric substituting for argument counts.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. This rhetorical appeal to the audience's reaction is immediately followed by the actual substance of Jake's point — that Jay has given no argument for realist universals and so the claim can be dismissed absent one — so the crowd-appeal is color alongside a standing argument, not a substitute for it.
- Plato overturn: On the record: S1's opening declared and consistently held that Jay bears the burden of proof for positing "Aristotelian immanent universals" (via Occam's razor, "no argument for the existence of these so-called... universals"); this rhetorical aside to the audience is framing around that argument, not a replacement for it. The quoted line sits between two statements of a real argument — Occam's razor plus the claim that Jay has given no argument for universals, "until he can give an argument... we can simply dismiss it" — so the rhetorical poll of the audience is not doing the work of settling the point; it is color around an argument that is stated immediately before and after it. It also fails the "aim" test for a fault of this kind: rather than closing the question, S1 explicitly invites Jay to answer ("Jay needs to give an argument for his position"), which is inviting continued examination, not appealing to popularity to end 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.