Appeal: clarification
From Debate MELTDOWN: Worst Opponent Yet: Austin Peterson Libertarian Debate Vs Jay Dyer.
- #74028:26overturned Jay Dyer epainos: clarification (+1)
The council overturned the call, so no points were earned.
“And this is something that the libertarians typically miss or not aware of. I'm not accusing you guys of that. Just saying that in my experience of a lot of debates…”
Diogenes: He explicitly declines to attribute the generic libertarian failing to the men actually on the call, avoiding a straw man before making his point.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: S2's position throughout is the genealogical/presuppositional critique that libertarianism shares materialist assumptions with Marxism; this aside is a rhetorical hedge within that critique, not a clarifying question to either opponent, so it does not meet the definition of the label called. "Clarification" requires asking for a definition or clarification instead of assuming; here Jay makes a disclaiming aside ("I'm not accusing you guys of that") rather than posing any question to Austin or Chad. It is a caveat avoiding overgeneralization, not a request for clarification, so the label's defining element (a question asked) is missing.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. Jay is making a generalization about libertarians as a movement, but he explicitly qualifies it — "I'm not accusing you guys of that" — declining to pin it on the interlocutors actually present. That is a hedge protecting against misrepresentation rather than a fallacy committed, and it feeds into his substantive (later-elaborated) critique of libertarianism's materialist presuppositions rather than substituting for one.
- Plato overturn: On the record: S2 has argued throughout that libertarianism shares materialist presuppositions and lacks an account of the good; this aside is a passing caveat within that ongoing critique, not a new move of any particular philosopher-point type. "Clarification" in the rubric is asking for a definition or clarification instead of assuming; this line is a disclaimer avoiding a straw man, not a question posed to an opponent, so it does not fit that category even if it is good practice.
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.