Appeal: fallacy spotted
From Debate MELTDOWN: Worst Opponent Yet: Austin Peterson Libertarian Debate Vs Jay Dyer.
- #7631:00:20upheld Jay Dyer epainos: fallacy spotted (+2)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 2 points.
“You're being arbitrary. You understand? In philosophy, you can't be arbitrary.”
Diogenes: He identifies the actual defect in "I draw the line at children" as an answer to a request for a standard: a stipulated line with no principle behind it settles nothing.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S2 has held throughout that libertarianism lacks a grounded account of the good, and this is a direct, accurate application of that standing critique to Austin's specific stipulated line, not a new or unsupported claim. Austin's actual move was to answer "what is the standard" with a bare stipulation ("I draw the line at children") without any principle explaining why that line and not another; Jay's "you're being arbitrary" accurately names this defect — an unprincipled, ad hoc stopping point — in what Austin actually said, not a mischaracterization of it.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument", on the same ledger as the callout. The point is compressed but clear: philosophical standards require justification; Austin has offered none for his "line at children" beyond restating it; therefore his standard is arbitrary. This directly sets up (and is validated by) Austin's own subsequent admission that he "can be arbitrary" when he wants.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2 has held since the opening that libertarian/secular ethical claims lack a grounded account of the good; this line is a direct, consistent application of that standing objection rather than a departure or a distinctly new fallacy-naming move. Calling an answer "arbitrary" is a real philosophical criticism (a stipulated line with no principle behind it fails to answer a demand for a standard), but it does not match any of the specifically named fallacies in the catalogue (it isn't begging the question, hasty generalization, no true Scotsman, etc.), so "fallacy spotted" is not quite the right label; it is better understood as a continuation of Jay's standing demand that Austin ground his moral claims in a justified principle, which is his framework objection.
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.