Appeal: peritrope
From Debate! Pagan vs. Orthodox: Logos, Language & Metaphysics - Jay Dyer Vs CB Robertson.
- #89323:57upheld Jay Dyer against CB Robertson agonisma: peritrope (+3)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 3.6 points.
“If that's the case, then the very words words are arbitrary and don't have any inherent meaning, don't have any inherent meaning, are arbitrary, and are therefore self refuting.”
Diogenes: CB's thesis that words are arbitrary and cannot intrinsically convey objective truth is turned back on the sentence stating it: if true, the statement itself conveys no truth, so the claim destroys its own assertion.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay's declared method from the opening is presuppositionalist TAG, and a consistent tactic throughout (used again later against solipsism and against "it's all word games") is to expose self-refutation in the opponent's stated position; this line is a direct, unaltered application of that standing method, not a departure. CB's own claim on the floor ("words are arbitrary and don't have any inherent meaning") is quoted verbatim and turned back on itself: if true of all words, it is true of that sentence too, so the sentence destroys its own claim to convey meaning. This is a textbook peritrope, and the record shows it landed - CB immediately backpedaled at 28:21, reformulating his thesis under pressure rather than defending the original wording.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument", on the same ledger as the callout. Jay states a self-referential refutation with premise and conclusion: if words are arbitrary and carry no inherent meaning (CB's stated claim), then the very sentence stating that claim is itself composed of words with no inherent meaning, so the claim cannot successfully assert anything and refutes itself. Despite the clumsy repetition in delivery, the logical structure is plain and consistent with the same peritrope-style move Jay repeats later at 89:38 (also credited as explicit argument), and it responds directly to CB's own stated position rather than substituting for engagement with it.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S0 has held since the opening a presuppositionalist/TAG method that seeks to show opposing positions self-refuting when tested against their own terms; this line is exactly that method applied to CB's own stated language-argument premise. CB's opening thesis stated plainly that "words are arbitrary and don't have any inherent meaning"; Jay quotes that very sentence back and shows that, by its own content, the sentence asserting it must itself be arbitrary and meaningless, hence self-refuting. This is a textbook peritrope: the claim is turned back on its own utterance to destroy itself. CB's subsequent scramble to reformulate ("words cannot convey truth objectively" rather than "objective truth") without ever resolving the self-reference confirms the move landed and set the pattern for the self-refutation critique Jay repeats for the rest of the debate.
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.