Appeal: peritrope
From Debate! Pagan vs. Orthodox: Logos, Language & Metaphysics - Jay Dyer Vs CB Robertson.
- #9081:08:56upheld Jay Dyer against CB Robertson agonisma: peritrope (+3)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 3.6 points.
“Do you think that's universally true?”
Diogenes: CB had just said that claiming anything is objectively against the laws of the universe is "universally self delusion"; Jay's one-line question turns that universal claim on itself, and CB is left answering "No" and then conceding "I get the paradox."- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S0 has held since the opening a presuppositionalist method of exposing self-refutation in an opponent's claims by testing them against their own terms; this question is a clean, decisive instance of that method turned specifically on CB's "universally self delusion" line, distinct from the adjacent antistrephon move on epistemic-principle-for-the-good. CB had just characterized any claim that something is "objectively against the laws of the universe" as "universally self delusion" — itself a universal claim. Jay's one-line question ("Do you think that's universally true?") applies CB's own universalizing claim reflexively to itself, the classic peritrope structure (cf. the Protagoras example), and it lands: CB answers "No," immediately destabilizing his own statement, and the confusion that follows (flipping between "there is universal evil," "no objective truths," "objective perceptions," etc.) traces directly back to this turn.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "clarification", on the same ledger as the callout. CB had just called the appeal to moral laws "universally self-delusion" while otherwise defending a fallible, intuition-based, relativistic account of morality. Rather than assuming CB means this loosely, Jay asks him to specify whether "universally" is meant as a genuine universal-scope claim, which is exactly the ambiguity CB goes on to waffle over for the next several exchanges (denying, then reasserting, universal truth claims). This is a legitimate request for clarification that correctly targets the live equivocation, not an assumption or a jab.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S0 has held since the opening a presuppositionalist/TAG method of testing an opponent's claims against their own terms to expose self-refutation, and this line is a clean, central instance of that standing method, not a departure from it. CB's claim that treating something as "objective... against the laws of the universe" is "universally self delusion" is itself a universal/objective claim; Jay's immediate question "Do you think that's universally true?" turns that claim back on itself in the classic peritrope pattern (cf. Protagoras: if all belief is true, so is the belief that you are wrong). The move visibly lands — CB retreats ("No"), shifts ground to a new universal claim about "universal evil," is pressed again, and finally concedes "I get the paradox," showing real dialectical force rather than a passing line.
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.