Appeal: straw man
From Debate MELTDOWN: Worst Opponent Yet: Austin Peterson Libertarian Debate Vs Jay Dyer.
- #74850:31overturned Austin Peterson psogos: straw man (+1)
The council overturned the call, so no points were given away.
“… just because the CIA says something doesn't mean it's wrong. You know? Adolf Hitler drank water. Right? So the truth can be the truth.”
Diogenes: Jay's objection to Bezmenov was based on the content of his lectures, not on the rule that anything the CIA approves is false, so this answers a genetic fallacy Jay did not commit.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Austin's standing position in this stretch is epistemic skepticism toward both mainstream and anti-establishment sources alike ("just because the CIA says something doesn't mean it's wrong... the truth can be the truth"); this line is a direct continuation of that stance, not a departure into misrepresenting Jay. The verifier's check is correct: Jay's own words at 46:38 ("everything that he says when he defected is what the CIA wanted him to say... he's just another kind of tool") and 50:11 ("You don't think that they're gonna say what their new masters want?") are exactly the genetic-style argument Austin answers. Austin's line directly rebuts that argument (a claim's origin with the CIA doesn't make it false); this is a direct answer to what Jay actually said, not a straw man.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found "explicit argument". Austin states a plain premise (the source of a claim does not determine its truth value), backs it with a concrete illustration (Hitler drinking water is still true despite the speaker), and draws the conclusion that Bezmenov's claims could be true even if they served CIA interests, resisting the genetic-style inference Jay was pressing toward.
- Plato overturn: On the record: Austin's position throughout has been evenhanded evidentiary skepticism across sources rather than treating any single narrative (pro- or anti-establishment) as automatically true or false; this line applies that stated principle directly to the genetic argument Jay had just made about CIA-favored testimony, so it is a direct answer, not a departure into misrepresentation of Jay's point. The verifier's check confirms Jay's own words at 46:32 and 50:11 explicitly framed Bezmenov's testimony as suspect because it was what "the CIA wanted him to say" / what "their new masters want" — a genetic-style argument. Austin's line ("just because the CIA says something doesn't mean it's wrong") is therefore a direct answer to the argument Jay actually made, not a straw man of an argument he didn't make; Austin's own protest at 50:39 that he was accused of a fallacy he didn't commit further confirms this was a live, correctly-targeted exchange.
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.