Appeal: clarification
From Debate MELTDOWN: Worst Opponent Yet: Austin Peterson Libertarian Debate Vs Jay Dyer.
- #7861:06:54overturned by the moderator Austin Peterson epainos: clarification (+1)
The moderator overturned the call, so no points were earned.
“Does San Francisco look beautiful? Is it Does San Francisco look beautiful?”
Diogenes: Read blind, without being shown any call on this passage. Rather than accepting the embedded premise that San Francisco exemplifies liberty or libertarian governance, Austin echoes the question back to force the presupposition into the open, which leads directly into his follow-up point that San Francisco is a poor/heavily-regulated example to hang the critique on.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: This call credits Austin with posing a clarifying question, but the record shows Jim Bob posed it and Austin instead supplied the direct answer (rejecting San Francisco as his example); there is no clarification move by Austin to find here. The transcript's speaker tag places this entire question — "isn't that sort of the beauty of Does San Francisco look beautiful? Is it Does San Francisco look beautiful? Well, are you tell are you're not using San Francisco as an example of libertarianism" — within the S0 (Jim Bob) block that begins at [66:39] and runs uninterrupted until the next tag, "[67:02] S1: Right? No. No. Liberty..." Austin's actual first words in this exchange are his answer beginning "No. No. Liberty. Just liberty... San Francisco is the worst example you might have," which is the substantive response to Jim Bob's rhetorical question, not the question itself.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. Taken alone this is a rhetorical question, not itself an argument; it sets up Austin's substantive follow-up (that San Francisco is a poor example of libertarianism, and Burning Man a better one), but the quoted fragment by itself is stage-setting rhetoric rather than a fallacy or a scoreable merit.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Austin's position of record throughout is that liberty is a baseline concept distinct from any particular city's outcome, and that examples like San Francisco should not be conflated with libertarian principle — the echoed question here is consistent with, and sets up, that distinction rather than departing from it. Rather than accepting the implicit equation of "liberty" with San Francisco's outcomes, Austin pushes the question back into the open, and immediately follows with "No, no — liberty, just liberty... San Francisco is the worst example you might have," which is a substantive clarification of the term in dispute rather than an assumption; this is a small but genuine instance of the clarification move.
- Thesmothetes leave: The transcript's own speaker tags settle this as a matter of fact, not judgment: the block containing "isn't that sort of the beauty of Does San Francisco look beautiful? Is it Does San Francisco look beautiful? Well, are you tell are you're not using San Francisco as an example of libertarianism" is entirely inside the S0 (Jim Bob) turn running from [66:35], and Austin's (S1) first words do not appear until [67:02], "Right? No. No. Liberty. Just liberty... San Francisco is, like, the worst example you might have." The quoted line was spoken by Jim Bob, not Austin Peterson, so there is no clarification move by Austin to credit here; Plato's uphold rests on attributing to Austin words the record shows the host spoke.
- Moderator overturn: ruled by the archon
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.