Appeal: thrasymachus blush
From Debate MELTDOWN: Worst Opponent Yet: Austin Peterson Libertarian Debate Vs Jay Dyer.
- #75654:35tied, awaiting the moderator Jay Dyer against Austin Peterson agonisma: thrasymachus blush
The council is split: nothing counts until the moderator decides.
“Well, let's go back to the CIA and the Cold War. You said it was effective, and I didn't I didn't question whether it was effective or not. My my point was that they adopted and utilized the arts and the principles of degeneracy as a form of cultural warfare.”
Diogenes: Pinned down after his possibility-to-actuality slide was exposed and asked to address the actual thesis, Austin abandons argument entirely for "I don't give a shit... this is why I don't like you, dude" — withdrawal from the question rather than an answer.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Austin's standing position throughout is combative, argumentative engagement (epistemic openness paired with vigorous pushback); at 54:35 he dismisses Jay's specific cultural-warfare point ("I don't give a shit about your degeneracy") but does not stop arguing or leave — he immediately pivots into a sustained defense (Nicomachean ethics, Marcus Aurelius, the "line at children" standard) and keeps contesting both Jay and Jim Bob for another ten-plus minutes, which is the opposite of withdrawal. Thrasymachus blush requires the refuted man to stop arguing or leave; the transcript shows Austin doing neither — he evades this one sub-point but immediately continues arguing at length on adjacent and even harder questions. This is at most a dodge of a narrow point, not a decisive duel-ending withdrawal.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "clarification", on the same ledger as the callout. Jay restates precisely what his prior claim actually was (that the CIA/establishment weaponized the arts and "degeneracy" as cultural warfare, not merely that the propaganda was "effective"), correcting Austin's mischaracterization before continuing the exchange. This is a fair clarifying restatement, not a fallacy or dodge.
- Plato overturn: On the record: Austin's opening framework is fallibilist secular humanism engaged in evenhanded evidentiary skepticism; nothing here shows him leaving the floor or ceasing to argue — he continues contesting Jay and Jim Bob vigorously for many minutes afterward (the children/degeneracy line, the rights/duty exchange, the materialism exchange all follow). "Thrasymachus blush" requires the refuted man to stop arguing or leave; Austin's "I don't give a shit about your degeneracy" is a dismissive non-answer to one sub-point, not a withdrawal, since he immediately pivots into sustained, escalating argument on ethics, rights, and materialism for the next ten-plus minutes. No decisive move of any listed category occurred at this exact juncture; if anything the dismissiveness is better scored (if at all) as ad hominem/dodge on the ledger, not posted as a duel.
- Thesmothetes leave: Thrasymachus blush requires the refuted man to stop arguing, change the subject for good, or leave; the dispute here is whether Austin's "I don't give a shit about your degeneracy" meets that bar, not whether some named rule was broken. Aristotle and Plato read the surrounding record and find Austin immediately pivoting into sustained, escalating argument (Nicomachean ethics, Marcus Aurelius, the "line at children" standard, the rights/duty exchange) for many more minutes rather than withdrawing, while Socrates, reading blind, scores Jay's quoted line itself as a restated clarification rather than as landing a decisive blow. That is a genuine disagreement over whether the conduct fits the blush label, which none of the written rules settles.
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.