Appeal: fallacy spotted
From Debate MELTDOWN: Worst Opponent Yet: Austin Peterson Libertarian Debate Vs Jay Dyer.
- #75353:26upheld Jay Dyer epainos: fallacy spotted (+2)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 2 points.
“How does that prove I've actually done that by saying that it's possible for someone to spread misinformation? You that's not an argument.”
Diogenes: He correctly identifies that Austin has moved from the bare possibility that anti-establishment figures can spread falsehood to the charge that he has done so, which is no argument at all.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S2 has held throughout a genealogical/evidentiary method (citing specific documented sources), so pressing Austin to substantiate rather than merely insinuate is consistent with that standing method, not a new tactic. Austin's preceding remark ("you can still spread the same horseshit... just because you say you're against the establishment") asserted mere possibility of Jay spreading misinformation as if it proved Jay actually had; Jay's reply accurately identifies that gap between a general possibility and a specific unproven accusation, correctly flagging the fallacious leap in what Austin actually said.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "fallacy spotted". Austin had argued "you can still spread the same horseshit" as if that possibility alone implicated Jay in actually doing so; Jay correctly points out that showing something is merely possible doesn't establish that he in fact did it — the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise offered, i.e., a non sequitur, and Jay names the gap plainly: "that's not an argument."
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2 has held since his opening that libertarian/anti-establishment argument often proceeds without rigorous grounding; this line is consistent with his ongoing insistence on logical rigor in the exchange, not a new or inconsistent move. Austin's line implied that because it's possible for anti-establishment voices to spread falsehoods, Jay in particular has done so with Bezmenov; Jay accurately identifies that a general possibility does not establish a specific instance, which is a real logical gap (a non sequitur) in what Austin actually said, correctly spotted even without the formal name being spoken.
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.