Appeal: red herring
From Debate MELTDOWN: Worst Opponent Yet: Austin Peterson Libertarian Debate Vs Jay Dyer.
- #7681:06:54tied, awaiting the moderator Jim Bob psogos: red herring (+1)
The council is split: nothing counts until the moderator decides.
“Does San Francisco look beautiful? Is it Does San Francisco look beautiful?”
Diogenes: The claim on the table was that liberty describes a condition and cannot by itself tell you what you ought to do with it; he answers by pointing at a city he dislikes, which does not touch the point.The archon moved this call from Austin Peterson to Jim Bob, who said the line. The referee's reason above was written when it was on Austin Peterson.
- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Jim Bob's standing argument since ~61:33 is that liberty is merely descriptive and, absent grounded duty, does not entail good outcomes; this jab at "beauty" (picking up Austin's own word "the beauty of it") uses San Francisco as a concrete instance testing whether unconditioned liberty produces the good Austin implies, which is the very point under dispute, not a diversion from it. A red herring requires leading the argument away from the point on the table, but this line is a rhetorical continuation of Jim Bob's own standing thesis that liberty-as-end-goal doesn't guarantee good results, directly engaging Austin's own claim of "beauty"; Austin himself treats it as on-topic by answering with a different example (Burning Man) rather than objecting to irrelevance.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "loaded question", on the same ledger as the callout. "Does San Francisco look beautiful?" bundles two disputed claims into one rhetorical question, that San Francisco is ugly and that this is attributable to liberty, without establishing either; Austin's immediate pushback ("you're not using San Francisco as an example of libertarianism, right?... that's the worst example you might have") shows the loaded framing, and Jim Bob then retreats to the vaguer "No. No. Liberty. Just liberty," confirming the original question presupposed what was in dispute.
- Plato overturn: On the record: Jim Bob's running argument in this stretch is that liberty is merely descriptive and cannot itself supply "the good"; this line picks up Austin's own word "beauty" ("that's the beauty of it") and turns it into a live test of whether unconstrained liberty produces something anyone would call good — Austin himself treats it as on-topic, immediately contesting whether San Francisco is a fair example of libertarian/liberty-driven outcomes rather than objecting that the subject had changed. This is not a diversion from the point on the table but a direct continuation of it, testing the liberty-without-duty thesis against a concrete case, and the ensuing exchange (both sides debating whether San Francisco is a fit example) shows it functioned as engagement, not derailment.
- Thesmothetes leave: The judges disagree only about whether "Does San Francisco look beautiful?" fits the label red herring: two read it as a direct continuation of Jim Bob's standing thesis (liberty-as-mere-description cannot ground an "ought," tested against Austin's own word "beauty"), while the third reads the same line as fitting a different fault entirely (loaded question) rather than defending the red herring charge itself. No listed rule adjudicates whether a rhetorical challenge that picks up the opponent's own word and is met by continued on-topic engagement (Austin disputing the example, not objecting to relevance) counts as leading the argument away from the point versus testing it; this is a judgment call on fit, not one a rule decides.
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.