Appeal: dodge
From HEATED DEBATE! “jesusandwhatnot” Vs Jay Dyer! His ‘Gotcha’ Fails LOL.
- #10171:55:29overturned Jay Dyer psogos: dodge (+2)
The council overturned the call, so no points were given away.
“Well, then you well, then why are you debating doctor Bo [Beau] Branson who has an entire, dissertation on this? Why don't you go debate him?” quote corrected
Diogenes: Offered an internal critique from Jay's own premises — which needs no shared paradigm and so answers his standing objection — Jay redirects the caller to a third party instead of engaging it.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Jay Dyer's opening and standing method here is paradigm-level epistemic critique that refuses object-level quote exchange until first principles are settled, a position he names and defends extensively throughout this whole segment (upheld earlier at 104:01 and 121:39); the Branson redirect is a continuation of that named and defended framework objection, not a bare refusal to engage that would make it a dodge. S2's line is an offer of future action ("I'm willing to take on your worldview to show you through internal critique...") rather than a direct question with content already put to Jay demanding an answer; there is nothing yet for Jay to dodge, only a proposal he redirects. More importantly, Jay's redirect sits inside his consistently-held and repeatedly defended framework objection—that paradigm-level agreement must precede quote-matching—which he explains at length both immediately before (the atheist-facts-interpretation analogy) and immediately after (the peripatetic-axiom peritrope, the Balthasar/Palamas example) this very line, satisfying the requirement that a framework objection be defended and not merely asserted.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "red herring", on the same ledger as the callout. S2 has just offered to argue from internal critique of the fathers on the Filioque; instead of engaging that offer, Dyer diverts for several exchanges to whether Bo Branson has an "open debate call," which S2 himself flags as evasive ("so your answer is just go debate someone else because I don't wanna talk about the fathers?"). Dyer does return to his real framework objection right after, so the derailment is brief and minor.
- Plato overturn: On the record: Jay's consistent, already-credited framework objection is that quote-battles over the fathers presuppose a shared, theory-neutral paradigm that does not exist; the Branson aside is a jab within an exchange where he continues, in the same breath, to press that very objection against S2's offer, so this is restatement of a held position rather than a dodge of a live, twice-repeated question. S2's "internal critique" line was an offer/proposal, not a direct question asked and left unanswered twice; and rather than evading it, Jay immediately continues pressing his standing paradigm objection in the very next lines ("you don't want to address the fundamental conflict between our system and Thomism... why should I accept your Thomist interpretation if you can't address your first principles?"), which is a restatement of the framework objection already on the record, not a substitution of a redirect for engagement.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: framework objection is not a dodge. Jay Dyer's standing, named position throughout this whole segment is that quote-matching over the Cappadocians presupposes a shared, theory-neutral paradigm he denies, and he states what must be settled first (the peripatetic axiom, "paradigm apologetics") both immediately before and immediately after the Branson line — at 113:33 pressing the atheist-facts analogy, and at 115:49-117:42 returning directly to "you don't want to address the fundamental conflict between our system and Thomism... why should I accept your Thomist interpretation if you can't address your first principles." The Branson aside sits inside that continuous, defended objection rather than replacing it, and S2's "I'm willing to take on your worldview" was an offer, not a direct question already asked twice, so no dodge condition is even made out.
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.