Appeal: direct answer
From Debate MELTDOWN: Worst Opponent Yet: Austin Peterson Libertarian Debate Vs Jay Dyer.
- #7641:04:06upheld Austin Peterson epainos: direct answer (+1)
The council upheld the call: Austin Peterson earned 1 point.
“… that's why the rights exist to an extent to protect the liberty of people who don't even necessarily have the capacity to acknowledge it, like children, for example, right, or the mentally deficient…”
Diogenes: He gives a substantive answer to the duty-to-acknowledge question by distinguishing possession of rights from the capacity to recognise them, and locates the duty in constitutional guardianship.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S1's opening framework explicitly includes "a constitutional bill of rights and elected representatives," and this answer is a direct, consistent application of that standing position to the duty question, not a new or contradictory claim. Pressed on where the duty to defend/acknowledge rights comes from, Austin gives a substantive, on-topic answer: rights are held even by those lacking capacity to acknowledge them (children, the mentally incapacitated, the unborn), and the duty to protect those rights is exercised on their behalf through constitutional government — this is responsive to the specific question asked at that point, even though the deeper foundational question is pressed further afterward.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "direct answer". Asked where the duty to acknowledge/defend rights comes from, Austin engages the actual question with a substantive account: rights extend even to those lacking capacity to assert them (children, the mentally deficient, the unborn), and society discharges the duty on their behalf through constitutional government — a real attempt at the question rather than a deflection.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S1 has held throughout that a constitutional framework with elected representatives fills exactly this kind of gap; this answer is consistent with and elaborates that standing position rather than departing from it. Jim Bob's specific question at that point was who bears the duty to acknowledge/protect rights when the rights-holder lacks the capacity to do so themselves; Austin directly answers by distinguishing possession of a right from capacity to acknowledge it and locating the duty in constitutional guardianship (citing children, the mentally deficient, the unborn) — a substantive answer to the question actually asked.
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.