Appeal: evidence
From Debate MELTDOWN: Worst Opponent Yet: Austin Peterson Libertarian Debate Vs Jay Dyer.
- #7801:27:24upheld Jay Dyer epainos: evidence (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1 point.
“Name one thing that I teach that's false or one thing I've said false about Yuri Bezman.”
Diogenes: He puts the burden where it belongs, asking for a single specific instance to back the charge that he spreads falsehoods.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay has consistently framed his claims with citable references throughout (Brzezinski, Congress for Cultural Freedom, specific Cold War CIA arts programs) and here holds Austin to the same standard rather than departing from it by simply asserting his own reliability. Jay's line does not itself cite a checkable fact or piece of evidence — it demands that Austin supply one, which is a legitimate placement of the burden of proof but doesn't meet "evidence"'s requirement of citing something checkable. It does fit "clarification": rather than accepting Austin's blanket charge that Jay spreads falsehoods, Jay asks him to specify exactly what claim is false instead of assuming the accusation is warranted.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "fallacy spotted", on the same ledger as the callout. Earlier Austin told Jay "you've been drinking a lot of Kool Aid" and "just because you say you're against the establishment, you can still spread the same horseshit," insinuating Jay peddles misinformation via Infowars without ever citing anything specific Jay actually said that was false. Jay's demand here correctly exposes that unbacked characterization, holding Austin to the burden of proof for the credibility attack he made.
- Plato overturn: On the record: Jay's position on record since the smart-cities segment is a critique of Austin's frameworks and, in this stretch, a defense against Austin's charge that he "drinks Kool-Aid" and spreads InfoWars misinformation; this line is part of that defense, not a new evidentiary claim. The "evidence" category requires distinguishing claim from evidence and citing something checkable; here Jay cites nothing checkable himself, he only demands that Austin do so. That is a reasonable burden-of-proof move against an unsupported charge, but it does not fit the specific "evidence" label as defined, since no checkable claim is put on the table by Jay.
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.