Appeal: explicit argument
From HEATED DEBATE! “jesusandwhatnot” Vs Jay Dyer! His ‘Gotcha’ Fails LOL.
- #10101:41:35upheld Jay Dyer epainos: explicit argument (+2)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 2 points.
“… you're coming up with a distinction to where it gives the impression that for the son to have full divinity, requires that he has the ability to spirate. And now when I say, okay, well then does the Holy Spirit also generate and spirate? Your answer is, oh, well, you see there's this distinction.”
Diogenes: Jay restates the caller's own premise, applies it symmetrically to the Spirit, and shows the rescue is a distinction introduced only to block the parallel — a clean charge of ad hoc reasoning.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay's declared method is paradigm-level, internal critique of an opponent's system rather than proof-texting; this move is a straightforward continuation of that stated approach, not a departure. Jay has held a consistent method throughout of attacking opponents' positions via internal paradigm-level critique rather than trading proof-texts; this passage fits that pattern precisely, laying out the caller's implicit premise (full divinity requires ability to spirate), testing it symmetrically against the Holy Spirit, and showing the caller's escape distinction was invoked only to block the parallel. Premises and conclusion are stated plainly enough to count as an explicit argument, though it could equally be labeled a fallacy-spotted (ad hoc/special pleading) charge.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". Jay Dyer draws out the implication of Base Catholic's premise (that the Son needs the ability to spirate to have full divinity) and presses for parity: if that premise holds, the Spirit should equally need to generate/spirate for full divinity, and shows that the only reply available is an unjustified further distinction. This states a premise and forces out its consequence, a legitimate dialectical move rather than mere rhetoric.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S3 has held throughout the debate that Thomistic Filioque distinctions are ad hoc scholastic constructs not found in the Cappadocians, and this line is consistent with that stance, applying S2's own stated premise (spiration follows from full divinity) symmetrically to the Spirit to expose the rescue-distinction as special pleading. The quote lays out a clear premise-and-test structure (if full divinity entails ability to spirate, the Spirit too should spirate; the reply invokes a new distinction only to block this), which is a legitimate explicit argument, though it could equally be scored as a fallacy-spotted (ad hoc/special-pleading) callout.
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.