Appeal: ad hominem
From HEATED DEBATE! “jesusandwhatnot” Vs Jay Dyer! His ‘Gotcha’ Fails LOL.
- #100055:28upheld Jay Dyer psogos: ad hominem (+1) tempered from major to minor
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer gave away 1 point.
“He's in all those same circles, so why would I not think he's not involved in it? ... I'm saying he's in those same circles, so it's a circle of people that dox people.”
Diogenes: Asked for proof that the man doxxed anyone, Jay substitutes guilt by association — membership in a "circle" — for the evidence he was asked to produce.Herodotus (yes): The site's own ledger shows Jay Dyer with 24 prior debates and 15 already-upheld ad hominem findings — by far his most common fault — so the guilt-by-association move here ("he's in those same circles... so it's a circle of people that dox people") fits an established, recurring pattern rather than a one-off lapse. Public commentary corroborates this reputation: outside critics have separately noted that Dyer "relies heavily on ad hominem arguments" against interlocutors he disagrees with. By contrast, Base Catholic has no prior debates on this board (1 debate, 0 sophist marks) and I found no independent record of a doxxing dispute between Dyer and Ortlund's circle beyond Dyer's own unsubstantiated claim, so there is nothing in the wider record to back the "circle of doxxers" charge Dyer made against the caller's point. The history therefore does not counsel leniency for Dyer on this count — it corroborates the referee's finding as consistent with a well-documented habit, and there is no comparable history on Base Catholic's side to weigh against him. Sources: https://theoriatv.substack.com/p/jay-dyer-and-the-psy-op-to-subvert https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfJ5yMnkIng https://jaysanalysis.com/tag/gavin-ortlund/
- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay Dyer has consistently framed his critiques of rival apologists/converts on guilt-by-association and shared-circle reasoning throughout this stream; this line is not a departure but is nonetheless a fallacious substitute for the specific evidentiary proof the caller was pressing him for. The caller pressed Jay twice for concrete proof (what was the proof, and when did the post happen) that a specific person was involved in doxxing; rather than supplying evidence tying that person to the act, Jay substitutes mere circle-membership ("he's in those same circles... it's a circle of people that dox people") as if that settled the accusation. That is guilt by association standing in for the evidence actually demanded, which fails the relevance and truth tests for a fair jab and fits the ad hominem definition (or, at minimum, an unsupported hasty generalization); it is a clear instance, and this same "they're all in on it together" move recurs elsewhere in the stream (e.g. against Ananda, Sig, and the "subversives" cluster), so major severity is defensible.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "hasty generalization", on the same ledger as the callout. The caller is pressing a specific evidentiary question — when the doxxing happened and whether Ortlund was the victim rather than the perpetrator — and Dyer, rather than answering it, substitutes guilt by association: because Ortlund is "in those same circles," he must be "involved," and "it's a circle of people that dox people." Membership in a loosely-defined circle doesn't establish that this particular member did the particular act in question, and the move lets Dyer maintain the accusation without ever addressing the caller's point that the timeline may run the other way.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay Dyer's position through this exchange is that he has independent, cited proof for the underlying doxxing claim (he does answer "they posted DMs" when first pressed); the line under review, however, comes when the caller pivots to whether "Jesus and whatnot" specifically was "involved," and there Jay offers no evidence at all, only "he's in those same circles.". Pressed twice by the caller for proof/timeline, Jay's answer for the specific claim that "Jesus and whatnot" was involved is bare guilt-by-association ("he's in those same circles, so it's a circle of people that dox people"), backed by nothing specific about that individual and asserted to close rather than continue the inquiry — this substitutes association for the evidence actually being asked for.
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.