Appeal: clarification
From Debate! Pagan vs. Orthodox: Logos, Language & Metaphysics - Jay Dyer Vs CB Robertson.
- #89628:21overturned CB Robertson epainos: clarification (+2)
The council overturned the call, so no points were earned.
“What I meant to say was not that words cannot convey objective truth. What I meant to say, and I think I said, but I I might have misspoke, was that words cannot convey truth objectively.”
Diogenes: Faced with a self-refutation charge, CB owns the ambiguity in his own phrasing and draws the distinction that his thesis actually needs, rather than denying he said it.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: S1's framework from the opening is that words are conventional tools that cannot intrinsically carry objective truth; this line is S1 adjusting his own phrasing of that thesis under pressure, not S1 posing a clarifying question to S0. "Clarification" as defined is asking the opponent for a definition or clarification instead of assuming; here CB is not asking Jay anything, he is walking back and re-wording his own prior claim after being charged with self-refutation. That is a self-correction/restatement, not the philosopher move named, so the label as defined is not met by this quote.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "clarification". After Jay charged that "words are arbitrary and carry no inherent meaning" is self-refuting, CB flags his own earlier phrasing as imprecise and restates the claim more carefully (words can't convey truth "objectively," i.e. the medium is conventional, rather than claiming they can never convey objective content at all), which he then goes on to unpack with the pen example. This is a good-faith attempt to sharpen an ambiguous formulation under challenge rather than a bare repetition or an evasion.
- Plato overturn: On the record: CB opened holding that words are arbitrary and cannot carry objective truth intrinsically; here, facing Jay's self-refutation charge, he attempts to rephrase his own claim rather than ask Jay anything, and the rephrasing itself did not yet clarify — Jay immediately says "I don't understand how you're flipping the words around.". "Clarification" as defined is asking the opponent for a definition or clarification instead of assuming one; this is CB restating his own prior claim, not a question put to Jay, and by his own admission and Jay's reaction it did not succeed in clarifying anything at this point — the actual clarifying distinction (symbol vs. referent) only lands three exchanges later at 31:05, where it has already been credited as a distinguo. This earlier line is at best an unsuccessful attempt, not the philosopher move named.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: do not complete the argument for the speaker. "Clarification" is defined as asking the opponent for a definition or clarification instead of assuming one; the quoted line contains no question to Jay at all, only CB's own restatement of his prior claim ("What I meant to say... I might have misspoke"). Crediting this as the philosopher move named requires supplying the missing element -- that CB was seeking clarification -- which his words do not themselves establish, so it scores nothing under that label. Aristotle and Plato correctly note the textual mismatch; Socrates's vote can only reach "clarification" by reading in an intent the record does not show.
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.