Appeal: dodge
From Debate MELTDOWN: Worst Opponent Yet: Austin Peterson Libertarian Debate Vs Jay Dyer.
- #75757:36upheld Austin Peterson psogos: dodge (+3)
The council upheld the call: Austin Peterson gave away 3 points.
“No. I don't. Because I think that shit's boring, bro.”
Diogenes: Asked repeatedly for the basis of the ethics he invoked, he names Nicomachean ethics and then refuses to defend or explain it, which is refusal without any framework objection.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Austin's opening and consistent position is that objective moral standards exist though his access to them is fallible ("triangulation," secular humanism); here, having offered a specific classical grounding (stoic/Nicomachean ethics) for his moral claims, he abandons defending that very grounding when pressed, which departs from his professed openness to justify and revise his beliefs rather than dismiss the demand as boring. Austin invoked Marcus Aurelius/Nicomachean ethics as "the basis of my ethics," was then asked twice — first generally ("Why should we accept stoic ethics?") and pressed again after quoting Marcus Aurelius — to justify that basis, and explicitly refused each time ("I don't... because I think it's boring," "I think it's a pointless discussion"). This is not a framework objection: he never names a disputed presupposition in the demand itself, he simply declares the topic uninteresting and pivots to "what people give a shit about." That is a genuine dodge of a question he himself invited by offering stoicism as his ground.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "dodge". Jay has just pressed Austin, who cited Nicomachean/stoic ethics as his standard, to actually justify accepting that standard ("can you answer this or not?"); Austin's reply here is a bare refusal on grounds of boredom rather than an answer. He is asked the same thing again moments later ("Why should we accept stoic ethics?") and again declines ("I think it's a pointless discussion") without ever naming what presupposition he disputes or what must be settled first, so this is a direct question put twice and never answered, not a framework objection.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Austin's position of record is that he holds objective-but-fallibly-known moral standards derived from natural-law/classical literature; here, when actually asked to defend the specific standard he invoked (stoic/Nicomachean ethics), he breaks from that stance by refusing to engage at all rather than offering even a fallibilist defense. Jay's question ("why should we accept stoic ethics?" / what's the basis) was put after Austin himself invoked Nicomachean/stoic ethics as his standard; Austin does not name any presupposition in the question he disputes, he simply says twice that defending it is "boring"/"pointless" and declines. That is a refusal without a framework objection, which is exactly what distinguishes a dodge from a legitimate framework objection per the rubric. This sits at the center of the debate's live clash (Jay's standing "no account of the good" objection vs. Austin's claim to have objective moral standards), so flagrant is defensible.
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.