Appeal: direct answer
From Debate MELTDOWN: Worst Opponent Yet: Austin Peterson Libertarian Debate Vs Jay Dyer.
- #73521:45upheld Austin Peterson epainos: direct answer (+1)
The council upheld the call: Austin Peterson earned 1 point.
“… if I want to create a contract with someone and say, I wanna create a coffee machine that if one day I wanna shut it off, then I should be able to have the right to create something like that. Who are you to tell me that I shouldn't be allowed to create that kind of a private contract?”
Diogenes: He meets the shut-off-your-coffee hypothetical head-on from his own first principles rather than evading it, biting the bullet that such contracts are permissible.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Austin's opening and consistent first principle is freedom of contract and property rights; this answer applies that principle directly to the question posed, without evasion. Jim Bob asked directly whether Austin would concede the woke-TOS-coffee-shutoff scenario is a real problem; Austin answers plainly from his stated first principle of freedom of contract, accepting the scenario as a legitimate exercise of contractual right rather than dodging or deflecting it — a direct answer on his own terms.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "direct answer". Jim Bob asked whether Peterson must concede that corporate TOS-style control over daily life is a real danger of private cities; Peterson answers directly by grounding his position in freedom of contract, his stated first principle, arguing that a business owner has the right to structure such agreements. The rhetorical "who are you to tell me" is not an attack on Jim Bob's character but a restatement of the contract-rights premise, so it functions as argument rather than mere jab.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Austin's opening first principle is freedom of contract and property rights; answering the coffee-shutoff hypothetical by invoking exactly that principle is a direct answer consistent with, not a departure from, his declared framework. Jim Bob's coffee-shutoff hypothetical asked Austin to admit this is a real red flag, and Austin meets it head-on by explaining, from his own stated first principle of freedom of contract, why such an arrangement would be permissible rather than deflecting the hypothetical.
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.