Appeal: explicit argument
From Debate! Pagan vs. Orthodox: Logos, Language & Metaphysics - Jay Dyer Vs CB Robertson.
- #90252:07upheld Jay Dyer epainos: explicit argument (+2)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 2 points.
“… nobody can be perfectly neutral. So I think you're requiring something that is impossible. If you're if you're expecting that pure neutrality is what's needed to discover the truth, that's that's not even possible.”
Diogenes: Jay names the hidden premise in CB's demand — that inquiry must begin from no presuppositions — and argues it is unsatisfiable, which is exactly the move his recorded presuppositionalist framework licenses; CB answers "fair fair enough, I suppose."- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay's declared method from the opening is presuppositionalism (no worldview escapes unproven starting assumptions); this line is a direct, consistent application of that framework, not a departure. Jay states a premise (perfect neutrality is impossible) and a conclusion (therefore CB's implicit demand for neutral inquiry is an impossible standard), which is a plainly stated argument, and it is answered by CB's "fair fair enough, I suppose" — a genuine exchange, not mere assertion.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". Jay states a plain premise-conclusion move: since no inquirer can approach a question with zero presuppositions, CB's demand that Jay investigate Christianity's truth without presuming it true is an impossible standard. This is consistent with his stated presuppositionalist framework and is answered directly by CB's own concession moments later ("fair enough... we all come in different degrees"), so it functions as a real argument rather than rhetoric.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay has held since the opening that Orthodoxy is the precondition of intelligibility and that all worldviews rest on unprovable presuppositions; this line restates and applies that very framework rather than departing from it. Jay's opening framework is presuppositionalism (no worldview is neutral; all reasoning proceeds from unproven governing assumptions), and this line states that premise plainly and draws the conclusion that CB's implicit demand for neutral inquiry is impossible — a clean premise-to-conclusion move consistent with his recorded method, and CB concedes the point ("fair fair enough").
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.