Appeal: red herring
From Debate! Pagan vs. Orthodox: Logos, Language & Metaphysics - Jay Dyer Vs CB Robertson.
- #9211:37:55upheld CB Robertson psogos: red herring (+1)
The council upheld the call: CB Robertson gave away 1 point.
“As a side note, and I think there's a side note here that maybe is relevant to this debate, which is I I've become very skeptical of science recently.”
Diogenes: Jay had just argued that logic is an invariant principle presupposed by debate, science and communication alike; instead of answering that, CB turns to his personal scepticism about the spirit of science and then to the political leanings of the audience.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: CB's declared method was to press two arguments against Christianity and, when pressed for epistemic grounding, to fall back on intuition or broader cultural observations; this passage continues that drift away from Jay's precise logical challenge into unrelated commentary rather than engaging it, a genuine diversion rather than a direct answer running alongside one. Jay had just made a specific claim (logic as an invariant, abstract principle presupposed by debate, science, and communication alike) and CB, rather than engaging that claim, explicitly flags a tangent ("as a side note... I've become very skeptical of science recently") and pivots into commentary on the "spirit" of science, Nietzsche, transhumanism, and then a question about the audience's politics — none of which addresses whether logic is invariant, and Jay has to redirect back to the actual epistemological point afterward.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "red herring". Jay was mid-argument establishing that logic and epistemic principles are objectively invariant and presupposed by debate itself, building toward pressing CB for an account of them. CB interrupts with an unrelated detour into skepticism of science, engineers versus scientists, and Nietzsche's fears of transhumanism, explicitly courting the audience ("I'm assuming we have a predominantly right of center crowd here... can I assume that?") rather than engaging the epistemic point on the table; Jay has to steer the conversation back at 99:49 ("there's a specific domain of philosophy... I wanna know what the claim is") to resume the actual demand.
- Plato uphold: On the record: CB's declared method was to press Jay's presuppositional demands with his own critiques (logos, intuition-based epistemology); here, instead of meeting Jay's direct point on logic's invariance, he substitutes an unrelated digression flagged even by himself as a "side note," which is a genuine diversion rather than a restatement of any position CB had been defending. Jay had just made a specific, substantive claim — that logic is an invariant abstract principle presupposed by debate, science, and communication alike — as the culmination of his transcendental argument. Rather than engaging that claim, CB immediately pivots ("As a side note...") to his personal skepticism about the "spirit" of science, an appeal to the audience's presumed politics, and a Nietzsche tangent about transhumanism, none of which addresses whether logic is invariant; the conversation moves on without that specific point ever being answered.
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.