Appeal: argument from ignorance
From Debate MELTDOWN: Worst Opponent Yet: Austin Peterson Libertarian Debate Vs Jay Dyer.
- #73927:11overturned Austin Peterson psogos: argument from ignorance (+1)
The council overturned the call, so no points were given away.
“Yeah. Can you? I just I don't see something like that happening. I'm I'm I think most people don't wanna live in the pod or eat the bugs.”
Diogenes: Asked whether people can contractually forfeit their rights, he replies with personal incredulity about it happening rather than addressing whether such contracts are valid or enforceable.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Austin's consistent line since ~09:47-11:29 is that utopian/dystopian corporate-city scenarios are theoretically possible but practically unlikely to persist because people won't tolerate them (echoed later with Fordlandia, Jonestown); this remark restates that same standing prediction rather than departing into a fallacious "we don't know so..." move. Argument from ignorance requires reasoning that a claim is true because it hasn't been disproven (or false because unproven); nothing of that form appears here. Austin had already answered "Yeah" twice to whether rights can be forfeited by contract, and this line adds a separate, empirical prediction (most people won't choose that) which he immediately qualifies with a counter-example (cult members like Jonestown do). That is an evidential/sociological claim, not reasoning from a gap in knowledge, and it doesn't leave the contract-validity question unanswered since he'd already granted it.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. This is Austin questioning the premise of Jim Bob's hypothetical ("Can you? I just don't see that happening") before pivoting to the Jonestown/cult example, which is a genuine, if brief, attempt to engage the underlying scenario of people trading rights for comfort rather than a substitution for an answer. It is not a dodge since the specific question was not put twice and left unanswered, nor is the rhetorical "Can you?" doing the work of an argument on its own; it is followed by substantive discussion.
- Plato overturn: On the record: Austin's declared method is empiricist triangulation with a stated openness to being shown wrong; here he affirms the contract-forfeiture principle and then adds an empirical prediction about human behavior, which is a supplement to his prior "Yeah" answers, not an evasion dressed as evidence. Austin had already twice answered "Yeah" that people can willfully forfeit rights through contract; the following line is a shift to an empirical prediction about whether people would actually choose to live that way, not a claim that something is true because it hasn't been disproven (the actual shape of argument from ignorance). Nothing in the passage reasons from absence of evidence to a conclusion, so the named fallacy is not present in what was said.
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.