Appeal: fallacy spotted
From HEATED DEBATE! “jesusandwhatnot” Vs Jay Dyer! His ‘Gotcha’ Fails LOL.
- #10121:45:24overturned Base Catholic epainos: fallacy spotted (+2)
The council overturned the call, so no points were earned.
“So then why are you saying I don't interpret them correctly if I haven't given you an interpretation? ... I haven't given you an interpretation yet. How do you know you disagree with…”
Diogenes: He correctly identifies that Jay is rejecting a reading of the Cappadocians that has not yet been stated, which is prejudgment rather than refutation.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: S2 has held the Thomist framework throughout and here is simply pressing Jay to justify a premature rejection; it is a fair rebuttal but not framed as identifying any named fallacy, so it does not meet what 'fallacy spotted' requires. "Fallacy spotted" requires the speaker to correctly name a specific fallacy the opponent committed; here S2 merely points out that Jay rejected an interpretation before it was given, without naming any fallacy (straw man, begging the question, etc.). The logical point is real but the element the label needs — a named fallacy — is missing from the quoted exchange and the surrounding context.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "clarification", on the same ledger as the callout. Base Catholic catches that Jay Dyer declared disagreement with his interpretation of the Cappadocians before any interpretation had actually been offered, and presses him on what basis he could know that; this is pushing back against an unwarranted assumption rather than simply accepting the dismissal.
- Plato overturn: On the record: S3's record method throughout this exchange (upheld already as a genuine framework objection) is to reject reading any patristic text as theory-neutral until the underlying paradigm dispute is settled; his line here is a direct application of that already-stated position to the anticipated Cappadocian citation, not an unfounded prejudgment invented on the spot. Jay had already explained, just before this exchange, why he rejects any Thomist-lens reading of the fathers regardless of which quote is produced; S2's "you haven't even given an interpretation yet" ignores that stated reason rather than catching a genuine fallacy, so this is S2 re-demanding the original terms against an unanswered framework objection, not spotting one.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: do not complete the argument for the speaker. The quote itself only has Base Catholic asking how Jay can know a reading is wrong before it has even been offered — nowhere does Base Catholic name a fallacy (begging the question, straw man, prejudgment, etc.); the "fallacy spotted" label was supplied by the referee, not stated by the speaker, which is exactly what the rule against completing an argument for a speaker forbids scoring. Socrates' own vote implicitly concedes this by re-tagging the same words as "clarification" rather than a fallacy caught, and Aristotle's reading that no named fallacy appears in the exchange is borne out by the transcript.
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.