Appeal: moving the goalposts
From HEATED DEBATE! “jesusandwhatnot” Vs Jay Dyer! His ‘Gotcha’ Fails LOL.
- #10151:51:56overturned Jay Dyer psogos: moving the goalposts (+2)
The council overturned the call, so no points were given away.
“Then why would I argue with somebody who you just admitted your paradigm is a lot [already] wrong. Why would I argue with you if your paradigm is wrong?” quote corrected
Diogenes: Jay set the condition that the Thomist paradigm be justified before the Filioque could be discussed; the caller dropped the paradigm and offered to argue on Jay's own terms, whereupon Jay replaced the condition with a new reason to refuse.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Jay Dyer's declared and repeatedly-invoked method in this exchange is paradigm-level "kill shot" critique — collapse the opponent's foundational epistemology and treat all further object-level argument as moot; the called line applies that same standing method rather than replacing a met condition with a new one. Jay's original condition was that S2 justify his Thomistic epistemological starting point before patristic quotation could settle the Filioque question. S2 never met that condition — he conceded it could not be proven ("I don't think I could give you a specific... I'm willing to admit that" at 101:23, then "Yeah. Sure. It's self-refuting. Thomism is wrong" here) — so there is no met goalpost to replace. Jay's refusal to proceed once the paradigm collapsed is the "kill shot" method he explicitly named and defended throughout this same exchange ("if I have one contradiction, that negates all of your paper quote-minds... that's the strength of a kill-shot paradigm level argument, that's what I do," ~113:22): once the foundation is conceded false, there is nothing left to argue from, paradigm-swapping included, since a nominal "I'll adopt your paradigm" is not a real epistemic commitment either. This is a continuation of a standing, stated method rather than a substitution of a new condition for a met one.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "red herring", on the same ledger as the callout. S2's "sure, it's self-refuting, Thomism is wrong" is plainly an exasperated arguendo concession made to get back to the topic he keeps naming — "can we talk about the filioque" — not a sincere philosophical admission; S2 says as much moments later ("I've adopted the Jay Dyer paradigm... I just wanna have a conversation about the filioque"). Dyer treats the throwaway "sure" as a literal, sincere concession and uses it to declare there is nothing left to argue, which diverts yet again from the filioque question actually on the table onto a meta-point about the pointlessness of arguing with someone whose paradigm is "wrong" — the same avoidance pattern he repeats moments later by asking why S2 isn't debating Beau Branson instead.
- Plato overturn: On the record: Jay's declared and already-credited framework objection is that the Thomist paradigm underlying S2's Filioque argument must be justified before that argument can be assessed; when S2 flippantly says "sure, Thomism is wrong" merely to redirect back to the Filioque (the same tactical, non-sincere maneuver already found in the very next line at 112:03), Jay's reply draws out the logical consequence rather than substituting a new condition. Consistent with the adjacent ruling at 112:03 (S2's "I've adopted the Jay Dyer paradigm" was not a genuine concession but a bid to return to the object-level Filioque question), S2's "sure, it's self-refuting" here is the same nominal, insincere abandonment rather than a good-faith satisfaction of Jay's stated condition; Jay's follow-up is the same standing objection applied to that inconsistency, not a freshly substituted goalpost.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: a restated objection is not a moved goalpost: the condition must be found in the record, set, met, then replaced. Jay's condition was that the Thomist first principle (the peripatetic axiom) be justified before patristic quotation on the Filioque could settle anything; that condition was never met — at 111:41 S2 conceded "it's self-refuting, Thomism is wrong," which is an admission the axiom cannot be defended, not a satisfaction of it. Since no met condition existed, the quoted line ("why would I argue with you if your paradigm's wrong") is simply the standing paradigm-level objection applied to that concession, not a fresh condition substituted for one already cleared — and Jay says as much elsewhere in this very exchange ("if I have one contradiction, that negates all of your paper quote-minds... that's what I do"), showing this is his declared method, not an ad hoc dodge. When S2 next offers to argue by internal critique alone, Jay's refusal rests on the same original point (there is no theory-neutral reading of the fathers), so nothing was replaced.
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.