Appeal: self-contradiction
From Debate MELTDOWN: Worst Opponent Yet: Austin Peterson Libertarian Debate Vs Jay Dyer.
- #7831:31:33upheld Austin Peterson psogos: self-contradiction (+1)
The council upheld the call: Austin Peterson gave away 1 point.
“When you're challenged, you go to ad homonyms [ad hominems]. Why? ... I I don't roll around in the mud with pigs because you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it.”
Diogenes: He objects to being answered with ad hominem while calling his opponents pigs in the same breath, holding others to a standard he abandons.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Austin's position throughout is a "plague on both houses" willingness to trade insults when provoked rather than a stated principle against ad hominem; the transcript shows the accusatory framing "when you're challenged, you go to ad hominems, why?" is voiced by Jay (S2) against Austin, not by Austin himself, so the quote as constructed splices together lines from two different speakers into what reads as one self-condemning statement. A self-contradiction requires the same speaker's own earlier claim to be reversed, but the transcript shows the "you go to ad hominems" charge is Jay's accusation against Austin, not Austin's own objection to ad hominem; Austin's only contribution here ("pigs") is a dismissive jab, not a stated anti-ad-hominem principle he then violates in the same breath.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "ad hominem", on the same ledger as the callout. Rather than answering Jay's live challenges (on the postmodernism/humanism question and on what constitutes a fallacy), Austin dismisses Jay wholesale by comparing him to a pig one "rolls around in the mud with," a jab that substitutes for engagement, is backed by nothing specific, and functions to end the exchange rather than continue it, ironically doubling down on the very tactic Jay had just accused him of.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Austin's line here is "And you went to ad homonyms [hominems]... I don't roll around in the mud with pigs because you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it" — accusing Jay of ad hominem while, in the same breath, casting him as a "pig," which is itself a devaluing personal comparison rather than engagement with any argument on the table. The transcript bears out the reading: Austin objects to being met with ad hominem and immediately deploys a demeaning animal comparison against his opponent, holding Jay to a standard he violates in the same utterance; minor severity is appropriate as a single brief instance rather than a sustained tactic.
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.