Appeal: self-contradiction
From HEATED DEBATE! “jesusandwhatnot” Vs Jay Dyer! His ‘Gotcha’ Fails LOL.
- #10202:00:44overturned Jay Dyer psogos: self-contradiction (+2)
The council overturned the call, so no points were given away.
“So, basically, he's saying, grant me my position, or I'll grant you position, and now just go back to reading the church fathers as if you didn't make your argument at a about paradigms.”
Diogenes: Jay's own signature move minutes earlier was an internal critique of Thomism from premises he does not hold; denying the caller the identical move, and recasting it as abandoning the paradigm question, contradicts the method he had just used.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Jay has held since 104:01 that paradigm-level agreement must precede any exchange of quotes because textual interpretation is theory-laden, while treating formal self-referential incoherence (as in the peripatetic-axiom peritrope) as a distinct, paradigm-independent kind of argument; this line continues that same standing distinction rather than reversing an earlier commitment. Jay's earlier "internal critique" at 109:08 was a formal, self-referential peritrope on Thomism's own axiom (it fails by its own criterion, a purely logical point requiring no shared hermeneutic), which is different in kind from what S2 proposes here — quoting and interpreting patristic texts to show they "actually disagree" with Jay, which is precisely the textual/interpretive terrain Jay has argued throughout is paradigm-laden (the Balthasar-reads-Maximus-through-a-Thomist-lens point made just after this line). No explicit earlier claim commits Jay to treating quotation-based internal critique as symmetric to formal logical critique, so the necessary element of self-contradiction — an articulated earlier position this line reverses — is missing from the record.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found "fallacy spotted". Dyer accurately paraphrases what S2 had just done — concede the paradigm dispute for argument's sake ("we can throw Thomism out the window... I just wanna talk about the fathers") while still wanting to resolve the Filioque by citing the fathers directly, the very theory-neutral reading Dyer's paradigm objection denies is available. This correctly names S2's move as begging the question against the framework S2 just granted, not a misrepresentation, since the transcript shows S2 making exactly that request moments earlier.
- Plato overturn: On the record: Jay's declared and consistently held framework objection throughout this exchange is that patristic-quote citation cannot settle the dispute absent agreement on interpretive paradigm; this line restates that same objection against S2's offer to "internally critique" via quotes, and is not inconsistent with his separate, purely logical peritrope against the peripatetic axiom minutes earlier. Jay's own critique of the peripatetic axiom was a purely logical, self-referential argument requiring no textual interpretation at all, whereas S2's proposed "internal critique" was to go back to citing and interpreting patristic quotations even while nominally granting Jay's paradigm; Jay explicitly distinguishes these ("to go down that line of argumentation would assume... you just read the church fathers... just like a Protestant... clear text of scripture"), holding that quote-based methods still presuppose the theory-neutral textual reading he denies is possible, which is a principled distinction, not a contradiction of his own prior move.
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.