Appeal: aporia
From Debate! Pagan vs. Orthodox: Logos, Language & Metaphysics - Jay Dyer Vs CB Robertson.
- #9131:24:18overturned Jay Dyer against CB Robertson agonisma: aporia (+1)
The council overturned the call, so no points were earned.
“Well, then I I think I'm going to have to actually throw up my hands and plead guilty.”
Diogenes: After repeated demands for an account of how his worldview justifies the laws of logic and universal truth claims, CB concedes he cannot supply one and offers only that he manages to live and work without it — a dead end admitted in his own words.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: CB's position throughout was that formal philosophical justification is not the only or best mode of knowing (bottom-up, intuitive, practical); the quoted line is consistent with that stance — he's conceding he can't meet Jay's specific foundationalist demand while still defending the legitimacy of practical/pragmatic knowledge — not a full admission of defeat with nothing left to say. "Throw up my hands and plead guilty" is rhetorically strong, but CB does not actually stop there or admit he has no answer: in the very same breath he offers a substantive counter ("I've managed to be married and work and get around in the world without [it]"), and immediately pivots to a fresh line of argument (the courtroom/expert-testimony analogy) that he sustains for many more exchanges before the debate's real dead end at 118:45 ("I can't address that to your satisfaction... I want to apologize"). Aporia requires being brought to a stop with no answer offered, not a rhetorical flourish followed by continued resistance.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found "concession". The transcript shows this line belongs to S1 (CB Robertson), not S0. Pressed repeatedly by Jay for a justification of the laws of logic underlying his position, CB here explicitly concedes he cannot supply one ("I'm going to have to actually throw up my hands and plead guilty"), before pivoting to a pragmatic defense (getting by in life without such justification) that Jay immediately flags as a category error rather than an answer to the epistemic demand.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S1 never offered a systematic epistemology and had been dodging Jay's repeated demand for justification of logic/universals throughout this stretch; this line is the point at which he stops trying to supply one and explicitly concedes he cannot, which is a genuine (if not final) aporia rather than a mere restatement of an unclarified position. After sustained pressure to justify how his worldview grounds the laws of logic used in argument itself, CB's "throw up my hands and plead guilty" is an explicit, quotable admission that he has no such justification to offer, meeting only with a pragmatic "I get by" that Jay correctly flags as circular (assuming what's in question). That is a genuine dead-end admission on the specific epistemic-justification question Jay had pressed for many exchanges, distinct from (and a precursor to) his later broader capitulation at 118:45.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: the speaker is judged against his own declared framework. CB's declared framework from the opening treats demands for formal, systematic justification as themselves suspect ("word games," intuition as "all we have," philosophy's "limitations"); judged by that framework, failing to hand Jay a foundationalist account of logic is not an admission of total defeat but consistent with the position he has been defending all along. The transcript bears this out directly: in the same breath as "plead guilty" CB gives a substantive rejoinder ("I've managed to be married and work and get around in the world without [it]"), and rather than stopping there he sustains fresh resistance for many more exchanges (the courtroom/expert-testimony analogy, the "word game" retort) — the real dead end, where CB actually says he cannot answer to Jay's satisfaction, comes much later at 118:45. A rhetorical flourish followed by continued argument is not the "brought to a dead end, admitting he has no answer" that aporia requires.
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.