Appeal: explicit argument
From HEATED DEBATE! “jesusandwhatnot” Vs Jay Dyer! His ‘Gotcha’ Fails LOL.
- #10212:01:39upheld Jay Dyer epainos: explicit argument (+2)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 2 points.
“The problem is that the parapathetic [peripatetic] axiom itself is not in sense data. So this is an arbitrary starting point ... I don't believe there are any theory neutral brute facts. So I'm not going to grant you that you can just go and read the Cappadocians, and that's how we solve it.” quote corrected
Diogenes: Laid out plainly at last: premise (Thomism rests on the peripatetic axiom), objection (the axiom fails its own test), and the consequence he draws (no theory-neutral appeal to patristic texts can settle the dispute).- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay Dyer declared and held throughout this segment (and referenced back to earlier debates, e.g. with Eric Ybarra) that paradigm-level disputes require examining foundational epistemic commitments rather than trading patristic quotations, and this quote is the clearest, most explicit statement of that very argument, not a departure from it. This is a clean instance of premises stated plainly leading to a conclusion: Thomism's epistemology rests on the peripatetic axiom; that axiom is not itself derived from sense data; therefore the starting point is arbitrary and self-undermining, and therefore no "theory-neutral" reading of the Cappadocians can settle a paradigm-level dispute. It meets the definition of explicit argument.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "framework objection", on the same ledger as the callout. Jay names the presupposition he denies in S2's demand to "just read the Cappadocians" — that patristic texts can be read as theory-neutral brute data — and gives a reason for denying it (the peripatetic axiom underlying that reading is itself not derived from sense data, so it is an unargued starting point), concluding that the paradigm-level question must be settled before citation of Fathers can decide the Filioque. This is stated as premises leading to a conclusion, and matches the pattern he used throughout the exchange with S2, so it is a genuine framework objection rather than a bare refusal to engage.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Throughout this segment Jay Dyer's recorded position was that patristic/textual citation cannot settle the Filioque dispute because interpretation is paradigm-conditioned, and specifically that Thomism's foundational peripatetic axiom is unjustified; this line does not depart from that position but is its clearest statement. The quote plainly states a premise (Thomism's epistemology rests on the peripatetic axiom), a supporting claim (the axiom is not itself derived from sense data, making it an arbitrary/self-undermining starting point), and a conclusion (therefore no theory-neutral appeal to patristic texts, e.g. the Cappadocians, can resolve the dispute) — satisfying the definition of an explicit argument regardless of whether one finds the argument ultimately persuasive.
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.