Appeal: antistrephon
From HEATED DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Jake Muslim Metaphysician | Trinity Vs Tawhid -Modern Day Debate.
- #7011:37:29upheld Jay Dyer against Jake the Muslim Metaphysician agonisma: antistrephon (+3)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 3.6 points.
“I said, what is the justification? What is the justification for the for the belief that you know the difference between the self evident ones and the non self evident ones? So the criteria problem is saying that you have a more fundamental criteria by which you cash out these two different things and put them into different classes. How do you know that more fundamental chisholm issue is what I'm asking?”
Diogenes: Jake's opening argued that a precondition claim offered without justification is no better than saying a banana is the precondition of knowledge; pressed for the justification of his own division between self-evident and inferred truths, he can only answer that God created us with the fitra, which is a precondition claim held beyond justification — his own standard turned back on his foundation.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jake's opening declared that an unjustified precondition claim is illegitimate and mocked such claims as "beyond justification" (the banana jab); Dyer here presses Jake's own self-evident/non-self-evident distinction for its criterion and gets only a bare "we know it because we're created that way" — the identical move Jake himself had ridiculed as illegitimate, redeployed against Jake by Dyer rather than Jake's claim undoing itself in isolation. The exchange is real and lands: pressed on the criterion problem, Jake can only answer that the fitra gives direct, non-inferential knowledge "because we are created by god" — an assertion of bedrock status beyond further justification, which is exactly the move Jake's own opening banana-precondition argument (12:57-13:04) had mocked as illegitimate. That is the opponent's own argument-standard taken over and turned to serve the other side, which is antistrephon rather than peritrope (no single claim is shown to refute itself purely by reflexive self-application; instead a standard from one part of Jake's case is used against another part).
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument", on the same ledger as the callout. Jay restates and sharpens the regress problem he first raised at 30:24: to sort truths into "self-evident" and "non-self-evident" classes requires some more fundamental criterion, and that further criterion itself stands in need of justification, on pain of circularity or infinite regress. He names the problem (the criterion problem, associated with Chisholm) and explains it plainly rather than leaving it as jargon, and it bears directly on whether Jake's fitra-based appeal to self-evidence in fact answers the epistemological challenge or merely asserts it.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2 declared and held since his opening a strategy of pressing Jake's foundationalism on the criterion problem and self-evident truths; here he explicitly redeploys Jake's own opening-stated "banana" standard (an unjustified precondition claim is worthless, beyond-justification hand-waving) against Jake's fitra-based claim to self-evidence, and Jake never escapes the circularity charge before time runs out on the segment. The exchange is real and extended, and Jake's own opening "banana" argument-standard (12:57-13:04) is the very tool Jay takes over and turns against Jake's fitra epistemology, repeatedly showing Jake's answer is circular by Jake's own criterion; this is the opponent's own argument-form appropriated and made to serve the other side, which is antistrephon rather than a single self-refuting claim (peritrope).
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.