Appeal: peritrope
From HEATED DEBATE! “jesusandwhatnot” Vs Jay Dyer! His ‘Gotcha’ Fails LOL.
- #10141:49:08upheld Jay Dyer against Base Catholic agonisma: peritrope (+3)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 3.6 points.
“… you believe that there's nothing in the intellect that's not first in the senses because that's the peripatetic axiom. And I'm gonna just ask you to explain to me why I'm supposed to accept that when the peripatetic axiom itself is not in the sense data because that's the beginning point of your whole system.”
Diogenes: Jay turns the foundational axiom of the caller's Aristotelian-Thomist system back on itself — the axiom is not itself given in sense data — so on its own terms it cannot be known; the caller never answers it.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay Dyer's declared and repeatedly-invoked method throughout this segment is paradigm-level epistemic critique rather than proof-texting, and this move is the culminating instance of that standing approach, squarely fitting peritrope as the referee names it. Jay applies S2's own foundational axiom (nothing in the intellect not first in the senses) to itself: the axiom is not itself given in sense data, so by its own criterion it cannot be known, which is the classic self-referential turnabout. The blow lands: at 116:51 S2 explicitly concedes "Yeah, sure. It's self refuting. Thomism is wrong," confirming this was a real decisive exchange rather than a rhetorical flourish.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument", on the same ledger as the callout. Dyer states the premise plainly (Thomism's peripatetic axiom holds nothing is in the intellect that is not first in the senses), adds the second premise that the axiom itself is not given in sense data, and draws the conclusion that S2 must justify a foundational claim which fails by its own criterion — a self-referential critique laid out with premises and conclusion, not mere assertion.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2 declared at the opening that he was defending the Filioque as a Thomist via the principium quo/principium quod framework resting on classical Thomist epistemology; Jay's peritrope strikes at the foundational axiom underlying that whole system, and S2 never rehabilitates it, only eventually conceding it outright, so this is a real hit against his declared framework rather than an answer to some other question. This is a textbook peritrope: the peripatetic/empiricist axiom S2 affirmed ("nothing in the intellect not first in the senses") is turned back on itself, since the axiom is not itself given in sense data and so fails its own criterion for knowability. S2 does not answer this specific challenge in the moment (he goes off on the "you said my name" tangent instead), and the same unanswered challenge recurs until S2 eventually concedes outright at 121:39 ("it's self-refuting, Thomism is wrong"), confirming this was a genuine dead-end for his stated first principle rather than mere restated rhetoric.
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.