Appeal: explicit argument
From HEATED DEBATE! “jesusandwhatnot” Vs Jay Dyer! His ‘Gotcha’ Fails LOL.
- #10051:08:56set aside: no opponent on the floor Jay Dyer epainos: explicit argument (+1)
Set aside, and nothing counts: no opponent was on the floor when it was said.
“Jesus says not to make unfair judgments that are hypocritical, but he also says in John seven that you must judge with righteous judgment. ... when you're an evangelical criticizing me and saying that, you're actually making a judgment call on me. So it's literally impossible to not make judgment calls.”
Diogenes: He distinguishes two senses of "judge" with a cited text and then shows the blanket no-judgment rule refutes itself when applied to the one stating it.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay Dyer has consistently used a mix of pastoral advice and pointed argument in caller exchanges, and this passage is a straightforward continuation of that mode rather than a departure. Jay lays out a plain premise-conclusion structure — citing John 7's command to "judge with righteous judgment" against a blanket anti-judgment rule, then showing the rule is self-undermining when the accuser applies it to accuse him — which is exactly what "explicit argument" requires, and it is made to a live interlocutor (the caller) on the floor.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". Jay Dyer lays out premises plainly — Jesus forbids hypocritical, unfair judgment but in John 7 commands "righteous judgment" — and draws the conclusion that judgment as such is not condemned, only its hypocritical misuse, so the demand never to judge is incoherent since even the objection itself is an act of judging. This resolves the caller's apparent tension with a stated textual distinction rather than a bare assertion.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay Dyer's consistent stance throughout is that "judgment" is a specific liturgical/moral category not reducible to a blanket "never judge" rule, and this line is a direct, on-topic elaboration of that view in response to the caller's live question about reconciling judgment with humility. Jay states a clear premise (Scripture distinguishes hypocritical judgment from righteous judgment, citing John 7), applies it to the caller's live question, and adds a self-refutation point (the "never judge" rule is itself a judgment) — premises and conclusion plainly stated in direct response to the question asked.
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.